4 ms·

I've never understood why they don't just go work somewhere else. A publicly traded corporation has a legal obligation to maximize value for their shareholders,

by tharne 7y ago

I've never understood why they don't just go work somewhere else. A publicly traded corporation has a legal obligation to maximize value for their shareholders, even if that means doing business with ICE, big oil, the military, etc. A CEO who continually turns away legitimate and legal business on moral grounds can be removed, and in some cases sued by the board of directors. If you have qualms with working for a large corporation whose primarily purpose is to maximize value and profit within the boundaries of the law, then you need to find a non-profit or privately held firm that's more aligned with your values and flourish there.

sharemywin 7y ago
Should all these guys be sued? https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2019/08/19/nearly-200-ceos-say-shareholder-profit-isnt-everything/#61899fb9d410 https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2019/08/19/nearly...
- tharne 7y ago
  You'd better believe that if these CEO's who say shareholder value isn't everything, stopped delivering on growth and earnings, they'd be shown the door real quick. They're free to say shareholder value isn't everything so long as they act as if it is. Should the law be written this way? Probably not, but that's a much larger and somewhat tangential debate. This is about a group of talented people who have the option to put some skin in the game and take their labor elsewhere, but who choose instead to put forth empty talk about the ethics of their employer all while enjoying the lifestyle that employer has offered them.
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    > Should the law be written this way? No, which is why it's a good thing the law is not written that way.
edejong 7y ago
Part of maximizing profit is dependent upon being able to attract and retain top performing human resources. Another part is public perception: brand value and customer engagement. Yet another part in dependent on their network of partners, who might want to refrain from doing business with parties engaged in unsound (unethical) business practices. Since large parts of these are hidden variables and only come to light when certain actions are taken, I would say it is actually in the shareholders best interest for employees to complain and strike. The alternative is that top talent is leaving the company, partners untie relations and customers seek alternatives. It's all about perception and communication.
ahelwer 7y ago
Why not work to change things internally? Why run away? Clearly internal change is possible, so why do you want us to turn away from this course of action available to us?
raxxorrax 7y ago
A true disadvantage for publicly traded companies. That would mean for concious people that they have to work for privately owned companies. Although you could always spin it like it would be a long time disadvantage to work with these kind of companies. I think shareholders are the ones that take the risk of people just not wanting to work under these conditions. Google would degrade to be a career starter for gifted developers if shareholders will continue enforce their immediate profit expectations. Basically that means that the legal obligation for profit maximization is a pretty crappy law. I doubt that people would stop investing without that legal handle.
- tharne 7y ago
  It is a disadvantage and probably a bad legal framework, but it's the one that exists right now and companies are obligated to follow it, Google is no exception. When you go to work for a large corporation, this is one of the things you need to make peace with, and if you can't, you should work somewhere else so you can live according to your values.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    I do work for a family owned company. A bit conservative at times, and the owners don't despise money, but there are honest attempts to become greener for example. Still, I doubt you can make a rational argument that forgoing contract X is undermining shareholders in any honest court of justice if all factors are considered. edit: And if employees are indeed protesting, the case will be much cleaner.
- MaupitiBlue 7y ago
  > legal obligation for profit maximization Not the law. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-value-myth/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-v...
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    Makes sense actually.
Fnoord 7y ago
> I've never understood why they don't just go work somewhere else. Because they don't want to walk away from their responsibility, and they believe they are able to change the company from within.
vonmoltke 7y ago
> A publicly traded corporation has a legal obligation to maximize value for their shareholders No, it doesn't. Stop spreading myths.
- tryptophan 7y ago
  But they do have a legal obligation to do what the board wants. Guess what the board wants 99% of the time?
ziggyzoomber 7y ago
That myth really needs to die... there is no law and no requirement of any business that dictates that shareholder value/profit must be primary focus above all else. I really encourage you and anyone else that thinks this way to spend some time learning about the growing "Conscious Capitalism" movement.

by tharne 7y ago

sharemywin 7y ago

Should all these guys be sued? https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2019/08/19/nearly-200-ceos-say-shareholder-profit-isnt-everything/#61899fb9d410 https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2019/08/19/nearly...

tharne 7y ago
You'd better believe that if these CEO's who say shareholder value isn't everything, stopped delivering on growth and earnings, they'd be shown the door real quick. They're free to say shareholder value isn't everything so long as they act as if it is. Should the law be written this way? Probably not, but that's a much larger and somewhat tangential debate. This is about a group of talented people who have the option to put some skin in the game and take their labor elsewhere, but who choose instead to put forth empty talk about the ethics of their employer all while enjoying the lifestyle that employer has offered them.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  > Should the law be written this way? No, which is why it's a good thing the law is not written that way.

edejong 7y ago

Part of maximizing profit is dependent upon being able to attract and retain top performing human resources. Another part is public perception: brand value and customer engagement. Yet another part in dependent on their network of partners, who might want to refrain from doing business with parties engaged in unsound (unethical) business practices. Since large parts of these are hidden variables and only come to light when certain actions are taken, I would say it is actually in the shareholders best interest for employees to complain and strike. The alternative is that top talent is leaving the company, partners untie relations and customers seek alternatives. It's all about perception and communication.

ahelwer 7y ago

Why not work to change things internally? Why run away? Clearly internal change is possible, so why do you want us to turn away from this course of action available to us?

raxxorrax 7y ago

A true disadvantage for publicly traded companies. That would mean for concious people that they have to work for privately owned companies. Although you could always spin it like it would be a long time disadvantage to work with these kind of companies. I think shareholders are the ones that take the risk of people just not wanting to work under these conditions. Google would degrade to be a career starter for gifted developers if shareholders will continue enforce their immediate profit expectations. Basically that means that the legal obligation for profit maximization is a pretty crappy law. I doubt that people would stop investing without that legal handle.

tharne 7y ago
It is a disadvantage and probably a bad legal framework, but it's the one that exists right now and companies are obligated to follow it, Google is no exception. When you go to work for a large corporation, this is one of the things you need to make peace with, and if you can't, you should work somewhere else so you can live according to your values.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  I do work for a family owned company. A bit conservative at times, and the owners don't despise money, but there are honest attempts to become greener for example. Still, I doubt you can make a rational argument that forgoing contract X is undermining shareholders in any honest court of justice if all factors are considered. edit: And if employees are indeed protesting, the case will be much cleaner.
MaupitiBlue 7y ago
> legal obligation for profit maximization Not the law. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-value-myth/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-v...
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Makes sense actually.

Fnoord 7y ago

> I've never understood why they don't just go work somewhere else. Because they don't want to walk away from their responsibility, and they believe they are able to change the company from within.

vonmoltke 7y ago

> A publicly traded corporation has a legal obligation to maximize value for their shareholders No, it doesn't. Stop spreading myths.

tryptophan 7y ago
But they do have a legal obligation to do what the board wants. Guess what the board wants 99% of the time?

ziggyzoomber 7y ago

That myth really needs to die... there is no law and no requirement of any business that dictates that shareholder value/profit must be primary focus above all else. I really encourage you and anyone else that thinks this way to spend some time learning about the growing "Conscious Capitalism" movement.