4 ms·

He has an ethical responsibility not to. This is a big problem I have with capitalism and publicly traded companies. It's a problem without an answer, since I d

He has an ethical responsibility not to. This is a big problem I have with capitalism and publicly traded companies. It's a problem without an answer, since I don't intend on trying other forms of government. Ultimately, his responsibility is to the shareholders. If mistreating employees is legal, and is in the best interest of shareholders, he has a responsibility to mistreat them. Doing anything else is unethical. We can haggle about whether it actually helps shareholders, especially in the long run. We can even encourage more corporate responsibility. At the end of the day, this is a tough issue to get around. This is why we need regulations with teeth.

Mononokay 8y ago
He has a legal responsibility not to.^1 Legal does not equal ethical does not equal legal. ^1 Arguably, although even that's a topic of debate.
- P_I_Staker 8y ago
  I agree, the way my comment was worded was unfortunate, but I'm looking at it from a very narrow perspective. Ethics don't tend to be absolute. What's fair for one person, may seem unfair to another. The devil is in the details. It all comes down to the way you do the calculation. I think that process is perverse for many businesses.
IntelMiner 8y ago
I think you're mixing up "ethical" and "legal" responsibilities Putting humanity first over shareholders is not an "ethical" problem
- sokoloff 8y ago
  He doesn’t even have the claimed legal responsibility to do so either.
- rgbrenner 8y ago
  He doesn't have a legal responsibility either. This is a myth. CEOs have broad discretion to act in ways that are beneficial to a company. Costco is not acting illegally, or even against their own interests, by paying workers higher wages. They can make the very true argument that paying higher wages results in happier employees that reduces turnover (and therefore training costs), increases sales (since employees are more knowledgeable about products), and results in happier customers that increases repeat visits/member retention. If the shareholders disagree with the way that the CEO is maximizing company value, then the correct response is to replace the board through a vote, who will replace the CEO. There's no legal or ethical argument here. Costco doesn't exist in a hypothetical world where everything stays the same, but wages get reduced to minimum wage. Taking that action has costs for Costco, and the end result may or may not result in an increase or decrease of company value. Hypotheticals aren't valid legal cases.
pishpash 8y ago
That's not an ethical responsibility, just a fiduciary one, and only on behalf of the subset of anethical (not a typo) suppliers of capital.
mygo 8y ago
> He has a responsibility to mistreat them. Doing anything else is unethical. That’s not how ethics works. Ethics is concerned with what is morally correct, not what a business can get away with. In fact, a common question about ethics is whether a business can be ethical. By the way, I’m a business owner, so I’m not anti-business. I just know a BS argument about ethics when I see one.
- P_I_Staker 8y ago
  I'm getting a lot of flack for this comment, but this was kinda my point. I wasn't talking about ethics in any kind of "pure" sense. If you look up definitions for fiduciary you might get something like this: > A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties. I'm talking about ethics in a very narrow sense. Like if you're wearing blinders or have tunnel vision. That's my criticism. Shareholders come first. People play a "role" in society, they put on their masks and costumes, and quit being human. They become the role. > In fact, a common question about ethics is whether a business can be ethical. This is the exact question I'm asking. I tend to think not, at least if they're publicly traded. It's our responsibility as a society to keep them honest, through regulations and shame. > I just know a BS argument about ethics when I see one. This isn't a BS argument, or argument at all. I was musing about the ethics and philosophy of the world we live in, and being critical of it. Not saying things should be that way, just that they often are.
  - rgbrenner 8y ago
    People play a "role" in society, they put on their masks and costumes, and quit being human. They become the role. No. People are human at all times. They are not machines. Yours is not a view taught in management. I think you need to put more effort into understanding where/why/how decisions are being made. "whether a business can be ethical" ... I tend to think not, at least if they're publicly traded. You've taken a very closed minded approach to business operations, and somehow elevated it to a responsibility to act unethically. All decisions have trade offs and consequences. For example, if you pay someone minimum wage, the consequences might be higher turn over, higher training costs, lower ability to recruit workers, higher rate of theft, lower customer satisfaction, boycotts by outside groups, etc. If you pay people more, you may lessen these consequences, but then you'll be paying more money in wages. Is management acting in the company's best interest by paying minimum wage and ignoring these risks? No one with any sort of management training would agree with you that there is a duty to pay minimum wage and risk incurring consequences that may out weigh the costs of increased wages. Why do you imagine that companies are duty bound to hurt themselves, and judged solely on wage expenses?
late2part 8y ago
For the record, morals and ethics are a bit conflated in this discussion. People choose morals. Organizations and groups have ethics. Your morals are not mine, and your group’s ethics may not be my group’s. And if you think morals are universally absolute we will have deep pointless threads.

Mononokay 8y ago

He has a legal responsibility not to.^1 Legal does not equal ethical does not equal legal. ^1 Arguably, although even that's a topic of debate.

P_I_Staker 8y ago
I agree, the way my comment was worded was unfortunate, but I'm looking at it from a very narrow perspective. Ethics don't tend to be absolute. What's fair for one person, may seem unfair to another. The devil is in the details. It all comes down to the way you do the calculation. I think that process is perverse for many businesses.

IntelMiner 8y ago

I think you're mixing up "ethical" and "legal" responsibilities Putting humanity first over shareholders is not an "ethical" problem

sokoloff 8y ago
He doesn’t even have the claimed legal responsibility to do so either.
rgbrenner 8y ago
He doesn't have a legal responsibility either. This is a myth. CEOs have broad discretion to act in ways that are beneficial to a company. Costco is not acting illegally, or even against their own interests, by paying workers higher wages. They can make the very true argument that paying higher wages results in happier employees that reduces turnover (and therefore training costs), increases sales (since employees are more knowledgeable about products), and results in happier customers that increases repeat visits/member retention. If the shareholders disagree with the way that the CEO is maximizing company value, then the correct response is to replace the board through a vote, who will replace the CEO. There's no legal or ethical argument here. Costco doesn't exist in a hypothetical world where everything stays the same, but wages get reduced to minimum wage. Taking that action has costs for Costco, and the end result may or may not result in an increase or decrease of company value. Hypotheticals aren't valid legal cases.

pishpash 8y ago

That's not an ethical responsibility, just a fiduciary one, and only on behalf of the subset of anethical (not a typo) suppliers of capital.

mygo 8y ago

> He has a responsibility to mistreat them. Doing anything else is unethical. That’s not how ethics works. Ethics is concerned with what is morally correct, not what a business can get away with. In fact, a common question about ethics is whether a business can be ethical. By the way, I’m a business owner, so I’m not anti-business. I just know a BS argument about ethics when I see one.

P_I_Staker 8y ago
I'm getting a lot of flack for this comment, but this was kinda my point. I wasn't talking about ethics in any kind of "pure" sense. If you look up definitions for fiduciary you might get something like this: > A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties. I'm talking about ethics in a very narrow sense. Like if you're wearing blinders or have tunnel vision. That's my criticism. Shareholders come first. People play a "role" in society, they put on their masks and costumes, and quit being human. They become the role. > In fact, a common question about ethics is whether a business can be ethical. This is the exact question I'm asking. I tend to think not, at least if they're publicly traded. It's our responsibility as a society to keep them honest, through regulations and shame. > I just know a BS argument about ethics when I see one. This isn't a BS argument, or argument at all. I was musing about the ethics and philosophy of the world we live in, and being critical of it. Not saying things should be that way, just that they often are.
- rgbrenner 8y ago
  People play a "role" in society, they put on their masks and costumes, and quit being human. They become the role. No. People are human at all times. They are not machines. Yours is not a view taught in management. I think you need to put more effort into understanding where/why/how decisions are being made. "whether a business can be ethical" ... I tend to think not, at least if they're publicly traded. You've taken a very closed minded approach to business operations, and somehow elevated it to a responsibility to act unethically. All decisions have trade offs and consequences. For example, if you pay someone minimum wage, the consequences might be higher turn over, higher training costs, lower ability to recruit workers, higher rate of theft, lower customer satisfaction, boycotts by outside groups, etc. If you pay people more, you may lessen these consequences, but then you'll be paying more money in wages. Is management acting in the company's best interest by paying minimum wage and ignoring these risks? No one with any sort of management training would agree with you that there is a duty to pay minimum wage and risk incurring consequences that may out weigh the costs of increased wages. Why do you imagine that companies are duty bound to hurt themselves, and judged solely on wage expenses?

late2part 8y ago

For the record, morals and ethics are a bit conflated in this discussion. People choose morals. Organizations and groups have ethics. Your morals are not mine, and your group’s ethics may not be my group’s. And if you think morals are universally absolute we will have deep pointless threads.