I believe all of these generally stem from US law making it impossible to charge someone for being an idiot. So provably contradictory claims like "Hit the payroll goals" and "Don't commit wage theft" can be demanded by management all day.
However, actual liability is only accrued by those who act on those policies.
It'd be nice to see liability, once determined at a lower level, forced to follow the organization chart back to the root decision. Possibly balanced for something like direct reports.
E.g. you manage 100 people, 20 of them committed fraud, you have a 20/100 share of the crime
It's even worse because, unless someone is stupid enough to send an e-mail saying "hahaha wage-theft, they'll never catch us," bad-actors can hide behind the veil of idiocy. They might have been promoted up from these stores, know that wage-theft is happening, but continue on knowing that they won't face consequences for it later.
However, actual liability is only accrued by those who act on those policies.
It'd be nice to see liability, once determined at a lower level, forced to follow the organization chart back to the root decision. Possibly balanced for something like direct reports.
E.g. you manage 100 people, 20 of them committed fraud, you have a 20/100 share of the crime