4 ms·
This is downvoted, I assume because people are maybe disagreeing with the principle rather than the validity of what you said. A lot of large companies clearly
by headmelted 5y ago
This is downvoted, I assume because people are maybe disagreeing with the principle rather than the validity of what you said.
A lot of large companies clearly do look at unions as something that forces them to pay more compensation for less work, which they'd have to justify to shareholders and the board. Even if the board would be cool with it, and they could make it fly with shareholders, leadership bonuses and stock grants are tied to performance. I really don't see where this is an incorrect statement to make.
- pwinnski 5y ago"It is their duty to shareholders" is a factually-incorrect statement.[0] That piece of misinformation needs to die out. 0. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co...
- headmelted 5y agoIs it factually incorrect, though? They may not have a legal duty to maximise profits, but investors will expect them to do so - and negative reactions in the stock price would be expected if they were to support unionisation within their business, as it would (rightly or wrongly) be expected to reduce profits going forward. Boards don't like unhappy shareholders. I'm not defending an anti-union stance - I'm simply saying that company leads will most certainly see it as a threat to their job if they are unable to increase profits or keep margins fat in perpetuity. The highlighted explanation in your link supports this assertion.
- stefan_ 5y agoI downvoted because it brings up this pointless trope of "duty to shareholders", as do you. The reality is that company officers have nearly limitless latitude to make strategic decisions as they see fit.
- brightstep 5y agoYou may be technically correct if we want to get pedantic, the observed reality supports my conclusion.