4 ms·

Whether or not you think it is moral to do so or not, it is those company's fiscal and legal obligation to put shareholders ahead of employees. don't hate the

Whether or not you think it is moral to do so or not, it is those company's fiscal and legal obligation to put shareholders ahead of employees. don't hate the players, hate the game.

omnipath 9y ago
Ahead is fine. But not to the point where employees are the fire to keep the shareholders warm. There are degrees in which shareholders' concerns should be a priority, but I'm afraid it's too much in the past 40 years.
moomin 9y ago
Historically and even today, there's been plenty of variation in the _interpretation_ of that imperative. As the article says, the current behaviour is very much a pretty recent invention. We just act like it was always this way. Fiduciary responsibilities were just as well served in the fifties as they are now.
devwastaken 9y ago
Why not hate both?
pkaye 9y ago
Maybe they should cut the executive pay ten fold to keep the fiscal obligations to shareholders?
mikestew 9y ago
it is those company's fiscal and legal obligation to put shareholders ahead of employees. [citation needed]. Seriously, this is one of those things that keeps being repeated, without anyone stopping to go see if it's true before they parrot it elsewhere. It's a safe bet, right? It makes one sound clever, and enough people say it, it's probably true, right? It's not.
- JadeNB 9y ago
  > [citation needed]. Seriously, this is one of those things that keeps being repeated, without anyone stopping to go see if it's true before they parrot it elsewhere. It's a safe bet, right? It makes one sound clever, and enough people say it, it's probably true, right? > It's not. I am inclined to believe this rebuttal, but only because I've seen lots of people say it, which is no better a reason than for believing the original statement. Without doubting your statement, I hope I may ask non-snarkily if you have a citation (though I know we're in "proving a negative" territory" here).
  - mikestew 9y ago
    (though I know we're in "proving a negative" territory" here) If it's codified in law, it shouldn't be hard to find. I've looked, I can't find it. Hell, I can't even find the origins of where such a falsehood originated. So, to put it as non-snarkily as I can, I've put more time into the question than those that hold the statement as truth; my obligation is fulfilled. EDIT: and to be clear, because someone always thinks themselves clever by bringing it up, this does not preclude shareholders from kicking the board's collective asses to the street. But that is a long way from "legal obligation".
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
  Shareholders are the owners of the business. Lets say you owned a business and you hire a manager. Are you saying you expect the manager to put his employees interest ahead of your own? If you owned a dairy queen, are you saying the manager should keep terrible employees because he should put employees ahead of the shareholder who hired him? Since you asked for sources. Board Member/Shareholder A similar fiduciary duty can be held by corporate directors, seeing as they can be considered trustees for stockholders if on the board of a corporation, or trustees of depositors if service as director of a bank. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fiduciary.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fiduciary.asp

Whether or not you think it is moral to do so or not, it is those company's fiscal and legal obligation to put shareholders ahead of employees. don't hate the players, hate the game.

omnipath 9y ago

Ahead is fine. But not to the point where employees are the fire to keep the shareholders warm. There are degrees in which shareholders' concerns should be a priority, but I'm afraid it's too much in the past 40 years.

moomin 9y ago

Historically and even today, there's been plenty of variation in the _interpretation_ of that imperative. As the article says, the current behaviour is very much a pretty recent invention. We just act like it was always this way. Fiduciary responsibilities were just as well served in the fifties as they are now.

devwastaken 9y ago

Why not hate both?

pkaye 9y ago

Maybe they should cut the executive pay ten fold to keep the fiscal obligations to shareholders?

mikestew 9y ago

it is those company's fiscal and legal obligation to put shareholders ahead of employees. [citation needed]. Seriously, this is one of those things that keeps being repeated, without anyone stopping to go see if it's true before they parrot it elsewhere. It's a safe bet, right? It makes one sound clever, and enough people say it, it's probably true, right? It's not.

JadeNB 9y ago
> [citation needed]. Seriously, this is one of those things that keeps being repeated, without anyone stopping to go see if it's true before they parrot it elsewhere. It's a safe bet, right? It makes one sound clever, and enough people say it, it's probably true, right? > It's not. I am inclined to believe this rebuttal, but only because I've seen lots of people say it, which is no better a reason than for believing the original statement. Without doubting your statement, I hope I may ask non-snarkily if you have a citation (though I know we're in "proving a negative" territory" here).
- mikestew 9y ago
  (though I know we're in "proving a negative" territory" here) If it's codified in law, it shouldn't be hard to find. I've looked, I can't find it. Hell, I can't even find the origins of where such a falsehood originated. So, to put it as non-snarkily as I can, I've put more time into the question than those that hold the statement as truth; my obligation is fulfilled. EDIT: and to be clear, because someone always thinks themselves clever by bringing it up, this does not preclude shareholders from kicking the board's collective asses to the street. But that is a long way from "legal obligation".
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
Shareholders are the owners of the business. Lets say you owned a business and you hire a manager. Are you saying you expect the manager to put his employees interest ahead of your own? If you owned a dairy queen, are you saying the manager should keep terrible employees because he should put employees ahead of the shareholder who hired him? Since you asked for sources. Board Member/Shareholder A similar fiduciary duty can be held by corporate directors, seeing as they can be considered trustees for stockholders if on the board of a corporation, or trustees of depositors if service as director of a bank. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fiduciary.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fiduciary.asp