3 ms·

No. The post represents a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what fiduciary duty is, but that isn't surprising. It seems to be misapplied or misundersto

by ska 3y ago

No. The post represents a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what fiduciary duty is, but that isn't surprising. It seems to be misapplied or misunderstood in the overwhelming majority of times it comes up in conversation.

shortrounddev2 3y ago
I mean that any competent CEO would oppose a union forming at their company because it will objectively be bad for the shareholders of that company. Any CEO who encouraged or did nothing to resist a union forming because of their own moral convictions would be breaching their duty to do what is best for their company. I would argue it would be grounds for firing them
- ska 3y ago
  This assumes facts not in evidence. Also doesn't seem to reflect a clear grasp of what fiduciary duty is.
  - shortrounddev2 3y ago
    Fiduciary duty is the requirement that the managers of a company act only in the best interest of that company and its owners. It would be clearly against the interests of the company and the shareholders to allow the employees to unionize
    - ska 3y ago
      No, fiduciary duty is broader and more subtle than that. Your second statement is categorical enough to be silly. In some cases it is true, but if you think a bit on it you'll soon realized it's not hard to construct cases where it is false. As for fiduciary duty, there are several aspects in this context, which applies to all of your D&O's not the CEO particularly (and less concretely so employees). One is a duty of care (you have to do the job properly). The aspect you are talking about boils down to a duty to act in the best interests of the corporation as you understand them as a professional. That means that you cannot act in the best interests of any stakeholder, third party, or yourself at the expense of the rest. You can't collude with the employees to screw over the shareholders, or the with the majority shareholder to screw over the others, or with your brothers company for a contract, etc. etc. etc. This is commonly mistunderstood to mean "maximize short term shareholder value", but that is not correct. Now as the CEO the board has the right to fire you if they can (majority) agree that they don't like the strategic or tactical direction you are going and you refuse to change tack, but none of that means you have failed a fiduciary duty. If you make a decision and can back it up with experience etc. in some way that other people in your position would likely agree with being a viable plan, you are not in breach of fiduciary duty. There are a bunch of other things, e.g. disclosure & loyalty, good faith action, etc. but you are getting hung up on the one that is usually misunderstood as a narrow interest in the shareholders.
      - shortrounddev2 3y ago
        You would have to be collosally incompetent or disingenuous if, as a CEO, you believe that it is in the shareholders best interest to allow your employees to unionize. Any competent board would fire such a CEO
        ska 3y ago
        This lacks imagination, the world is a more complex place than that. At any rate, a) this is not fiduciary duty and b) we hit diminishing returns a while ago.

by ska 3y ago

shortrounddev2 3y ago

I mean that any competent CEO would oppose a union forming at their company because it will objectively be bad for the shareholders of that company. Any CEO who encouraged or did nothing to resist a union forming because of their own moral convictions would be breaching their duty to do what is best for their company. I would argue it would be grounds for firing them

ska 3y ago
This assumes facts not in evidence. Also doesn't seem to reflect a clear grasp of what fiduciary duty is.
- shortrounddev2 3y ago
  Fiduciary duty is the requirement that the managers of a company act only in the best interest of that company and its owners. It would be clearly against the interests of the company and the shareholders to allow the employees to unionize
  - ska 3y ago
    No, fiduciary duty is broader and more subtle than that. Your second statement is categorical enough to be silly. In some cases it is true, but if you think a bit on it you'll soon realized it's not hard to construct cases where it is false. As for fiduciary duty, there are several aspects in this context, which applies to all of your D&O's not the CEO particularly (and less concretely so employees). One is a duty of care (you have to do the job properly). The aspect you are talking about boils down to a duty to act in the best interests of the corporation as you understand them as a professional. That means that you cannot act in the best interests of any stakeholder, third party, or yourself at the expense of the rest. You can't collude with the employees to screw over the shareholders, or the with the majority shareholder to screw over the others, or with your brothers company for a contract, etc. etc. etc. This is commonly mistunderstood to mean "maximize short term shareholder value", but that is not correct. Now as the CEO the board has the right to fire you if they can (majority) agree that they don't like the strategic or tactical direction you are going and you refuse to change tack, but none of that means you have failed a fiduciary duty. If you make a decision and can back it up with experience etc. in some way that other people in your position would likely agree with being a viable plan, you are not in breach of fiduciary duty. There are a bunch of other things, e.g. disclosure & loyalty, good faith action, etc. but you are getting hung up on the one that is usually misunderstood as a narrow interest in the shareholders.
    - shortrounddev2 3y ago
      You would have to be collosally incompetent or disingenuous if, as a CEO, you believe that it is in the shareholders best interest to allow your employees to unionize. Any competent board would fire such a CEO
      - ska 3y ago
        This lacks imagination, the world is a more complex place than that. At any rate, a) this is not fiduciary duty and b) we hit diminishing returns a while ago.