|
|
|
|
|
|
by ranger_danger
57 days ago
|
|
|
There can be other valid perspectives than your own, especially when one makes sweeping black-and-white generalizations without any evidence. > the CEO can't take actions that intentionally hurt the company And who gets to define what "hurt" means? |
|
|
You'd have to prove that the CEO knew that it would hurt the company and still did it or that it's so ridiculously negligent that any sane person should have known.