Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 214 posts

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#151

Post by School-Cotton »

mullingitover wrote: post #32
ummonk wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory it could unfairly handicap American companies relative to foreign companies. This doesn’t seem to have happened much in practice though so I support the FCPA. Corruption is a big scourge in many countries and it is a really good thing American money is prohibited from exacerbating the issue.

> In theory it could unfairly handicap American companies relative to foreign companies. Seems like it would be sensible for the US to push the rest of the world to adopt the same law. We're able to push other countries to adopt our war on drugs laws, why not war on corruption?

In many (most?) countries in the world, the rule of law is not strong enough that you could expect these laws to be meaningfully enforced.

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#152

Post by harryh »

School-Cotton wrote: post #145
harryh wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No company bigger than 100 people is capable of such a thing. Do you seriously think that companies larger than 100 people should not exist?

I’d argue that no company bigger than 1 person is capable of such a thing.

I kind of agree, but I was being generous with 100.

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#153

Post by DontGiveTwoFlux »

salmo wrote: post #131

I'm sorry, It's an unpopular opinion to hold, but the overseas bribery thing is a ridiculous standard to hold. [These opinions are just mine, and while I have them as opinions I would never act on them as a representative of my company, not that I would ever have the chance, and I don't work for Walmart] Over the course of human history, bribery has been the norm. I would dare to say that today, by population, it is…

I disagree. US companies can have such an outsized impact by the volume of money they bring, that it can create a moral vacuum that sucks up all the air in a place. Everyone has a price, and when the price is in dollars it may be surprisingly low for the less well off. Someone ought to police it.

Furthermore, bribery abroad may undermine US interests and policies. It’s easy to see why companies would want to pay a bribe to build a store in Brazil (mentioned in the article). Compared to the other costs involved it’s probably pretty cheap and can really speed things up. But that million dollars (or whatever) feeds a system that seeks its own remuneration over serving it’s constituents. It’s not just someone else’s problem. It helps to paper over the enormous drag this rent seeking behavior has on everyone.

Furthermore, the law gives employees a basis to stand on to say no. Now I don’t know if there’s really much to that- I’ve never been propositioned for a bribe, but I imagine that being able to say I can’t, it’s illegal, would help me to say no.

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#154

Post by js2 »

rayiner wrote: post #61

I suspect people cynically demanding that CEOs be put in jail haven’t really dug into the facts of this or other FCPA cases. Holding the CEO liable for employee misdeeds is like holding teachers responsible for teenagers getting into fights or having sex. It’s a strong moral position to take (holding teachers accountable), but it’s wholly impractical and unfair. In a company with a million employees, it’s guaranteed…

> In a company with a million employees, it’s guaranteed

So then the CEO had to know this behavior was occurring. Did the CEO and management attempt to do anything about it or did they just maintain plausible deniability, knowing that not having a guilty mind was sufficient to prevent management from being liable?

If the NYT, an external organization, was able to uncover this behavior, why couldn't Walmart have had its own internal investigators tasked with maintaining ethical behavior?

We're not asking for the CEO's heads because they broke the strict letter of the law. We're saying that not breaking he law is the bare minimum the CEO should be responsible for.

Your defense of Walmart's CEO rings hollow for me because it's exactly the argument I'd expect from a lawyer.

Not every company behaves this way, even others with millions of employees. Feel free to call me naive and tell me the others just haven't been caught yet.

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#155

Post by rahimnathwani »

dahfizz wrote: post #136
pmiller2 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walmart’s EBITDA for the quarter ending April 30, 2019 was $7.659B. I’d call $280M a very minor annoyance.

That's roughly ~3.5% of their income. If I took 3.5% of your income, you would be much more than minorly annoyed. You can make the argument that 3.5% isn't high enough, but it's not nothing.

The fine covers 10 years of activity.

Your 3.5% uses 3 months of income as the denominator.

I haven't looked up Walmart's past income, but there are 40 quarters in 10 years, so it's possible they've been fined <0.1% of their income (3.5% / 40).

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#156

Post by cf498 »

salmo wrote: post #131

I'm sorry, It's an unpopular opinion to hold, but the overseas bribery thing is a ridiculous standard to hold. [These opinions are just mine, and while I have them as opinions I would never act on them as a representative of my company, not that I would ever have the chance, and I don't work for Walmart] Over the course of human history, bribery has been the norm. I would dare to say that today, by population, it is…

Have you thought through the implications of companies not being held accountable to the home countries laws and morals? This invites creating colonial regimes by bribing local dictators and creating something of the likes of Belgian Kongo. The step to enabling and starting warcrimes is a rather short one. A good example would be Daimler Benz and the Argentinian military dictatorship, where the local Daimler leadership got their workers' council disappeared by the secret police.

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#157

Post by jakelazaroff »

dahfizz wrote: post #106
mmanfrin wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No employee is breaking laws in an effort to further the objectives of a company in a vacuum. A CEO is absolutely not absolved of crimes committed in the name of the company, especially over the span of a decade.

> No employee is breaking the law... That's absolutely absurd. Would a teenaged cashier be absolved of all guilt for murdering a troublesome customer? But the CEO should be held accountable? If I literally cannot break a law as long as I'm working for a company, then why don't bank robbers get a job at Walmart first and claim robbing banks was for the benefit of Walmart? How could you ever convict anyone if the excus…

GP isn't saying that employees can't break the law. They're saying that if an employee breaks the law for the benefit of the company, it's probably because they know the company will reward them for it somehow.

> People are always responsible for their own actions.

Leaders also bear some responsibility for the actions of those within their purview. Why do CEOs get paid so much? Because they get credit (and blame) for the aggregate actions of everyone in the company.

Responsibility isn't zero sum. If the CEO orders a cashier to murder someone, they're an accomplice. If your boss knows you're robbing banks at work and says nothing, they're an accessory.

Let's flip the Nazi analogy around. The foot soldiers should certainly be held accountable for their actions. But — given that all he did was ask others to carry out his wishes — should Hitler?

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#158

Post by onetimemanytime »

StillBored wrote: post #97
rayiner wrote: post #61

I suspect people cynically demanding that CEOs be put in jail haven’t really dug into the facts of this or other FCPA cases. Holding the CEO liable for employee misdeeds is like holding teachers responsible for teenagers getting into fights or having sex. It’s a strong moral position to take (holding teachers accountable), but it’s wholly impractical and unfair. In a company with a million employees, it’s guaranteed…

From the article: "But even as employees frequently raised alarm, the company’s top leaders did little to prevent Walmart from being involved in bribery and corruption schemes." Which means the "top leaders" knew of the problem, and choose to ignore it. It would be a different story if they put real effort into self policing and there was evidence they pushed the guilty contractors/etc but again: "The plea agreement,…

Top leaders knew the problem and they will use bribes again, or close shop. Very simple is a lot of countries. Pay up or go home.

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#159

Post by c3534l »

geofft wrote: post #35
c3534l wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human beings are allowed to organize for the purposes of political action and whether or not they decide to form a corporation doesn't matter because "corporation" isn't a constitutional concept. Further, "personhood" means you can sue the corporation, it can hold property, etc. Lawyers usual call "corporate personhood" "legal entity."

> Human beings are allowed to organize for the purposes of political action and whether or not they decide to form a corporation doesn't matter because "corporation" isn't a constitutional concept Sure it does - if I am killed by a natural person due to negligence, the state can imprison the person who killed me. If I am killed by a corporation due to negligence, the state generally does not imprison any individual,…

You're still making the mistake that legal personhood is literally being a person. People can go to prison. Abstract concepts cannot.

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#160

Post by boulos »

adventured wrote: post #148
hanniabu wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's just say employees raise alarm and they're intentionally ignored to sweep things under the rug, I feel it'd be incredibly easy to claim that nothing happened due to improper record keeping Also, if Walmart wasn't in the wrong then why would they agree to a $330M settlement?

A $330 million settlement for a company with a $500 billion per year business. That's a business nearly the size of Poland's entire economy. It's a very small settlement. It's entirely plausible that what they did was not as bad as what the mob would like to believe, and that also they're not innocent.

“$500 billion per year business” is a sort of meaningless term, especially in retail, when you compare to the fine.

Walmart’s operating income was “just” $22M with a final net income of “just” $6.7B (in the ballpark of large tech company quarterly profits).

It’s still true that a $330M settlement is then just 5% of their annual profit (and thus looks like that’s how the number was chosen), but comparing to their $500B revenue isn’t directly meaningful (though it is for your Polish GDP, sort of!).

Post reply on HN