4 ms·
So you're saying that they voluntarily chose to modify their arbitration policy for sexual harassment complaints to fulfill their fiduciary obligations and not
by save_ferris 8y ago
So you're saying that they voluntarily chose to modify their arbitration policy for sexual harassment complaints to fulfill their fiduciary obligations and not to create a safer work environment?
How do shareholders benefit from the increased legal exposure of this new policy? And why, if everything Google does is to benefit the bottom line, are they choosing not employ this new policy retroactively? They didn't have to do any of this.
- Devils_Avocado 8y ago_
- vonmoltke 8y ago> So you're saying Google doesn't give a shit about its net profits? Google obviously gives a shit about its net profits. > So you're saying that Google's board weren't all hired with the express instruction to maximise earnings per share? Board members aren't "hired", they're elected by the shareholders. They are not employees of the corporation (usually) and they do not have contracts with shareholders. Shareholders will, obviously, vote them out if company performance suffers.
- Devils_Avocado 8y agoWho pays the salary & bonuses? Who owns the entity that pays the salary & bonuses?
- vonmoltke 8y ago> Who pays the salary & bonuses? Salary and bonuses for who? The board doesn't get salary and bonuses. > Who owns the entity that pays the salary & bonuses? Corporate ownership is a complex topic. The oversimplification that shareholders "own" a fractional portion of the corporation is not entirely accurate and breaks down in complex cases like this. You get into share classes, the status of the corporate entity as an independent legal entity (which, in turn, goes down a rabbit hole that leads to corporations as non-natural people), and what power shareholders have over the guidance of the corporate entity.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y agoAlso, it's hardly rare for boards to make self-destructive insanely stupid decisions for what must have seemed like good reasons at the time. Boards are not infallible, nor are the people on them. They're not even infallible at maximising profit - never mind trying to handle challenging cultural problems without being eaten alive by them.
- dfxm12 8y agoFree publicity about having a safe work place, gaining a competitive advantage with regards to attracting talent based on this new policy, being seen as a pioneer as many other large firms inevitably adopt a similar policy, which leads to further publicity, which leads to attracting more talent, etc. Sometimes fulfilling fiduciary obligations and creating a safer work environment aren't mutually exclusive...
- save_ferris 8y agoI agree that they aren't mutually exclusive, but there's a lot of aggressive degenerative arguing about how Google only cares about profits and nothing else in this thread. Absolutely no nuance to the argument.