3 ms·
But they are. You may consider it be terrible. There’s a good argument for that, the original Ford versus Dodge case we started by allegations from Dodge that F
by nailer 2y ago
But they are. You may consider it be terrible. There’s a good argument for that, the original Ford versus Dodge case we started by allegations from Dodge that Ford paying its workers more was not in the interest of Ford’s shareholders. But there is no rational reason to pretend the obligation doesn’t exist.
- JKCalhoun 2y agoIf I'm reading this correct, there is no law that says they have to do this, but they have to do this.
- nailer 2y agoThe law says they have to do this. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
- JKCalhoun 2y agoApparently, from my research, it's not the law. There's fiduciary "duty", but not law. Judge's apparently give wide berth to management to decide what, perhaps long term, is going to be profitable.
- nailer 2y agoFair enough that makes good sense. What bothers me is that Ford’s actions probably were in a good long-term interests of Ford. It seems the ruling was very much focused on the short-term interests.