3 ms·

If they won, yes. >By this measure they might as well try not paying their employees at all and letting that go to court too If they can figure out the way to

by matz1 6y ago

If they won, yes. >By this measure they might as well try not paying their employees at all and letting that go to court too If they can figure out the way to do that, they should.

jchw 6y ago
No, no they should not. I am not going to argue with this. edit: Also, "if they won" -- that's an assumption that is already false. If you just disregard risk all the time, you go out of business.
- matz1 6y ago
  Not saying to disregard risk. Of course the cost vs benefit analysis have to be done.
  - jchw 6y ago
    OK, but you also shouldn't disregard ethics. Even if you have the most egregiously simplified view of capitalism, disregarding ethics continuously can catch up with you. Plus, there are plenty of other reasons to not short-change your employees. Your employees are.. You. They're your company. If you try to skimp on paying your employees, they will find ways to return the favor. Trust me, I worked in retail.
    - matz1 6y ago
      Not saying to disregard ethics. >you try to skimp on paying your employees, they will find ways to return the favor. That would be included in the cost/risk part. If the cost/risk of skimp on paying your employees < benefit then they should do it.
      - jchw 6y ago
        Looking at the world through the lens of only corporate cost/benefit and essentially disregarding externalities feels unwise. You could always just follow the rules as they were intended to be followed, not end up in the news, not pay court fees, and have happier employees, regardless of if your bottom line will technically better at year-end. (I know roughly ~nobody actually does this, but wishful thinking.) Regardless, at this point you seem to basically be saying, "They should do it, unless it's not worth it." Everyone else is saying "It's not worth it, and that's why they should not do it."
        JoshTriplett 6y ago
        > Regardless, at this point you seem to basically be saying, "They should do it, unless it's not worth it." Everyone else is saying "It's not worth it, and that's why they should not do it." Some people are also saying "whether it'd be worth it or not, they should not do it."
stale2002 6y ago
> If they won, yes. They didn't though. So maybe the shareholders should sue Apple for not working in their interests? If, as you say, Apple is required to maximize shareholder value, or whatever, then this seems like an excellent example of them failing to uphold that. This was an obviously stupid decision on Apple's part.

by matz1 6y ago

If they won, yes. >By this measure they might as well try not paying their employees at all and letting that go to court too If they can figure out the way to do that, they should.

jchw 6y ago

No, no they should not. I am not going to argue with this. edit: Also, "if they won" -- that's an assumption that is already false. If you just disregard risk all the time, you go out of business.

matz1 6y ago
Not saying to disregard risk. Of course the cost vs benefit analysis have to be done.
- jchw 6y ago
  OK, but you also shouldn't disregard ethics. Even if you have the most egregiously simplified view of capitalism, disregarding ethics continuously can catch up with you. Plus, there are plenty of other reasons to not short-change your employees. Your employees are.. You. They're your company. If you try to skimp on paying your employees, they will find ways to return the favor. Trust me, I worked in retail.
  - matz1 6y ago
    Not saying to disregard ethics. >you try to skimp on paying your employees, they will find ways to return the favor. That would be included in the cost/risk part. If the cost/risk of skimp on paying your employees < benefit then they should do it.
    - jchw 6y ago
      Looking at the world through the lens of only corporate cost/benefit and essentially disregarding externalities feels unwise. You could always just follow the rules as they were intended to be followed, not end up in the news, not pay court fees, and have happier employees, regardless of if your bottom line will technically better at year-end. (I know roughly ~nobody actually does this, but wishful thinking.) Regardless, at this point you seem to basically be saying, "They should do it, unless it's not worth it." Everyone else is saying "It's not worth it, and that's why they should not do it."
      - JoshTriplett 6y ago
        > Regardless, at this point you seem to basically be saying, "They should do it, unless it's not worth it." Everyone else is saying "It's not worth it, and that's why they should not do it." Some people are also saying "whether it'd be worth it or not, they should not do it."

stale2002 6y ago

> If they won, yes. They didn't though. So maybe the shareholders should sue Apple for not working in their interests? If, as you say, Apple is required to maximize shareholder value, or whatever, then this seems like an excellent example of them failing to uphold that. This was an obviously stupid decision on Apple's part.