4 ms·

A little bit of background that might be helpful-- Shareholders that meet pretty minimal criteria are eligible to include a proposal on the proxy statement and

A little bit of background that might be helpful-- Shareholders that meet pretty minimal criteria are eligible to include a proposal on the proxy statement and to be voted on at a company's annual meeting. As part of this, the shareholder or a representative must be present at the annual meeting and gets a few minutes to stand up and present their proposal. In order to avoid this becoming a platform for every special interest group to gain an audience for their pet cause, the SEC has a list of criteria that proposals must meet. If the company believes that the proposal does not meet these criteria, they can petition the SEC for an exclusion, which if granted, lets the company ignore the proposal: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.14a-8 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.14a-8 Most shareholder proposals have no hope of passing and are a tool to raise awareness and get publicity for an issue. My guess is that this proposal has zero chance of passing, but that Amazon both wanted to exclude the proposal 1) because they want to exclude all shareholder proposals as a matter of course and 2) that they do not want to give this issue publicity.

mygo 8y ago
> 2) that they do not want to give this issue publicity. Well, that worked quite well. I'd think that, as a rule, you can't rely on rejection as a mechanism for preventing something from getting publicity. Someone savvy can use that as a fuel for publicity. You'd have to destroy both the message and the messenger.. and also any onlookers.
- daveFNbuck 8y ago
  It worked at least partially so far. I didn't hear about this until the rejection failed.
TaylorAlexander 8y ago
That does make it feel like they want the benefits of being a publicly traded company without being held accountable by the public. And hey, I get it - I hate being held accountable for things. But I hope Amazon loses and it at least goes to vote. Surveillance is a serious public concern and we should have an actual debate about it, not stifle discussion.
- okr 8y ago
  Another way is to sell the stocks, in my opinion. That is the tool by which the invested public can express, that they no longer trust in the future of a private company. Another tool is to go into politics and change the law, that forbids surveillance technology to be sold to governments. Which then influences the future of Amazon. And a third way, do not work for companies, that you do not see a future in. Either by your own moral standards or ideas or simply because of long term outcome. But maybe that is old fashioned, non collective me. :-)
mushufasa 8y ago
This is absolutely true. It's great that this amazon one went through, and a whole lot of issues don't go through, like this: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/03/sec-throws-out-investor-vote-pushing-exxon-mobil-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/03/sec-throws-out-investor-vote... Even though this amazon resolution may make the proxy ballot, most shareholders don't vote. Check out this online petition that makes it easier: https://www.yourstake.org/ask/amazoncom-inc-facial-recognition-privacy-and-civil-liberties/ https://www.yourstake.org/ask/amazoncom-inc-facial-recogniti...

mygo 8y ago

> 2) that they do not want to give this issue publicity. Well, that worked quite well. I'd think that, as a rule, you can't rely on rejection as a mechanism for preventing something from getting publicity. Someone savvy can use that as a fuel for publicity. You'd have to destroy both the message and the messenger.. and also any onlookers.

daveFNbuck 8y ago
It worked at least partially so far. I didn't hear about this until the rejection failed.

TaylorAlexander 8y ago

That does make it feel like they want the benefits of being a publicly traded company without being held accountable by the public. And hey, I get it - I hate being held accountable for things. But I hope Amazon loses and it at least goes to vote. Surveillance is a serious public concern and we should have an actual debate about it, not stifle discussion.

okr 8y ago
Another way is to sell the stocks, in my opinion. That is the tool by which the invested public can express, that they no longer trust in the future of a private company. Another tool is to go into politics and change the law, that forbids surveillance technology to be sold to governments. Which then influences the future of Amazon. And a third way, do not work for companies, that you do not see a future in. Either by your own moral standards or ideas or simply because of long term outcome. But maybe that is old fashioned, non collective me. :-)

mushufasa 8y ago

This is absolutely true. It's great that this amazon one went through, and a whole lot of issues don't go through, like this: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/03/sec-throws-out-investor-vote-pushing-exxon-mobil-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/03/sec-throws-out-investor-vote... Even though this amazon resolution may make the proxy ballot, most shareholders don't vote. Check out this online petition that makes it easier: https://www.yourstake.org/ask/amazoncom-inc-facial-recognition-privacy-and-civil-liberties/ https://www.yourstake.org/ask/amazoncom-inc-facial-recogniti...