2 ms·
"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/
by 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.