4 ms·

>Why would any company encourage that? Exactly which is why this article is so useless and misunderstands capitalism and does not know economic law. Corporatio

>Why would any company encourage that? Exactly which is why this article is so useless and misunderstands capitalism and does not know economic law. Corporations can never be family friendly becasue it is antagonistic to profit and therefor in direct violation to shareholders rights. See Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., 170 N.W. 668 (Mich. 1919) “A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end. The discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of means to attain that end and does not extend to a change in the end itself, to the reduction of profits or to the non-distribution of profits among stockholders in order to devote them to other purposes.“ EDITING TO ADD: Down voting this comment is typical the sociopathic world we are living in where you cannot even show the truth of the law lest it affect sociopathic sensibilities. If one person would explain why my comment, which is just a fact, deserves to be downvoted I would appreciate the conversation.

bluGill 1y ago
> Corporations can never be family friendly becasue it is antagonistic to profit and therefor in direct violation to shareholders rights. This can be false (can, not is!). When good employees demand family live then the company that gives it to them can get those good employees. There are good employees who are willing to settle for less money if the company allows for a good family life and so the company makes more money. (hint you won't find many of them in the Bay area, but if you can expand your reach to other cities they are not uncommon)
- FollowingTheDao 1y ago
  But this is an ethical call, not a legal one. And the law will always over rule ethics. We need to change the laws to make corporations "family friendly" like mandatory 4 week vacations, better family leave compensation, and Medicare for All. Corporations are essentially sociopaths and have to be forced to have emapthy.
  - nickff 1y ago
    Corporations don’t need to have empathy to make deals with the benefits you mention, they just need counter-parties which prioritize those terms. Medicare has little to do with corporations (which usually don’t like having to spend time and money on health insurance), and many/most would be happy to be relieved of the obligation. With respect to more vacation time, we’ve reached the current equilibrium because government has enacted standards which encourage ‘anchoring’, and most people prefer extra wages over vacation. Much like with airline seats, the companies are giving people what they want.
    - FollowingTheDao 1y ago
      > Corporations don’t need to have empathy to make deals with the benefits you mention No, they will only do these family friendly things if it benefits them. That is what a sociopath does. > Medicare has little to do with corporations It has everything to do with the workers. > most people prefer extra wages over vacation Do you have statistics for this? Because all my friends want more time off with the same pay.
      - nickff 1y ago
        Sociopathy is characterized by a lack of empathy. Regardless, the only way to make a deal stick is to ensure it is beneficial to all parties. Healthcare definitely impacts workers, but the only reason for widespread employer-provided healthcare in the USA is the tax exemption. This is not an employer-driven phenomenon. I am talking about revealed preferences; it’s not a real preference if you are not willing to give something up for it. Extra vacation time comes at a cost in productivity and availability, which aren’t free, so your friends want their employers to give them something for nothing.
        9rx 1y ago
        > so your friends want their employers to give them something for nothing. The presented alternative (written by you, oddly enough) was extra wages without vacation. His friends aren't wanting something for nothing. He asserts that they are willing to give up the apparent extra wages coming their way in exchange for vacation.
rawgabbit 1y ago
I don't believe the law spells out Corporations must act only for the profit of stockholders. If you look at Delaware's code for Corporations, it doesn't spell out the duties of a corporate officer. https://delcode.delaware.gov/title8/c001/sc04/index.html https://delcode.delaware.gov/title8/c001/sc04/index.html Legal cases said their duties are as follows. And "profit at all costs" is not one of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule act in good faith; act in the best interests of the corporation; act on an informed basis; not be wasteful; not involve self-interest In one case, fiduciary duty is actually defined as: good faith, loyalty, or due care.
rawgabbit 1y ago
In response to the 1919 case. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1070284 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1070284 Quote There is much more to Dodge v. Ford Motor Company than meets the eye. Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate. The business judgment rule protects many decisions that deviate from this standard. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1013744 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1013744 Courts accordingly treat Dodge v. Ford as a dead letter. (In the past three decades the Delaware courts have cited the case only once, and then on controlling shareholders' duties to minority shareholders). Nevertheless, legal scholars continue to teach and cite it. This Essay suggests that Dodge v. Ford has achieved a privileged position in the legal canon not because it accurately captures the law - it does not - or because it provides good normative guidance - it does not - but because it serves professors' need for a simple answer to the question, What do corporations do? Simplicity is not a virtue when it leads to misunderstanding, however. Law professors should mend their collective ways, and stop teaching Dodge v. Ford as anything more than an example of how courts can go astray.
- FollowingTheDao 1y ago
  This is only an opinion by both, and Henderson is someone who worked for Brett Kavanaugh and the federal Society. https://fedsoc.org/contributors/todd-henderson https://fedsoc.org/contributors/todd-henderson And again, Stout is only making an argument here, but the case is still the law. And she is actually against shareholder primacy.

bluGill 1y ago

> Corporations can never be family friendly becasue it is antagonistic to profit and therefor in direct violation to shareholders rights. This can be false (can, not is!). When good employees demand family live then the company that gives it to them can get those good employees. There are good employees who are willing to settle for less money if the company allows for a good family life and so the company makes more money. (hint you won't find many of them in the Bay area, but if you can expand your reach to other cities they are not uncommon)

FollowingTheDao 1y ago
But this is an ethical call, not a legal one. And the law will always over rule ethics. We need to change the laws to make corporations "family friendly" like mandatory 4 week vacations, better family leave compensation, and Medicare for All. Corporations are essentially sociopaths and have to be forced to have emapthy.
- nickff 1y ago
  Corporations don’t need to have empathy to make deals with the benefits you mention, they just need counter-parties which prioritize those terms. Medicare has little to do with corporations (which usually don’t like having to spend time and money on health insurance), and many/most would be happy to be relieved of the obligation. With respect to more vacation time, we’ve reached the current equilibrium because government has enacted standards which encourage ‘anchoring’, and most people prefer extra wages over vacation. Much like with airline seats, the companies are giving people what they want.
  - FollowingTheDao 1y ago
    > Corporations don’t need to have empathy to make deals with the benefits you mention No, they will only do these family friendly things if it benefits them. That is what a sociopath does. > Medicare has little to do with corporations It has everything to do with the workers. > most people prefer extra wages over vacation Do you have statistics for this? Because all my friends want more time off with the same pay.
    - nickff 1y ago
      Sociopathy is characterized by a lack of empathy. Regardless, the only way to make a deal stick is to ensure it is beneficial to all parties. Healthcare definitely impacts workers, but the only reason for widespread employer-provided healthcare in the USA is the tax exemption. This is not an employer-driven phenomenon. I am talking about revealed preferences; it’s not a real preference if you are not willing to give something up for it. Extra vacation time comes at a cost in productivity and availability, which aren’t free, so your friends want their employers to give them something for nothing.
      - 9rx 1y ago
        > so your friends want their employers to give them something for nothing. The presented alternative (written by you, oddly enough) was extra wages without vacation. His friends aren't wanting something for nothing. He asserts that they are willing to give up the apparent extra wages coming their way in exchange for vacation.

rawgabbit 1y ago

I don't believe the law spells out Corporations must act only for the profit of stockholders. If you look at Delaware's code for Corporations, it doesn't spell out the duties of a corporate officer. https://delcode.delaware.gov/title8/c001/sc04/index.html https://delcode.delaware.gov/title8/c001/sc04/index.html Legal cases said their duties are as follows. And "profit at all costs" is not one of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule act in good faith; act in the best interests of the corporation; act on an informed basis; not be wasteful; not involve self-interest In one case, fiduciary duty is actually defined as: good faith, loyalty, or due care.

rawgabbit 1y ago

In response to the 1919 case. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1070284 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1070284 Quote There is much more to Dodge v. Ford Motor Company than meets the eye. Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate. The business judgment rule protects many decisions that deviate from this standard. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1013744 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1013744 Courts accordingly treat Dodge v. Ford as a dead letter. (In the past three decades the Delaware courts have cited the case only once, and then on controlling shareholders' duties to minority shareholders). Nevertheless, legal scholars continue to teach and cite it. This Essay suggests that Dodge v. Ford has achieved a privileged position in the legal canon not because it accurately captures the law - it does not - or because it provides good normative guidance - it does not - but because it serves professors' need for a simple answer to the question, What do corporations do? Simplicity is not a virtue when it leads to misunderstanding, however. Law professors should mend their collective ways, and stop teaching Dodge v. Ford as anything more than an example of how courts can go astray.

FollowingTheDao 1y ago
This is only an opinion by both, and Henderson is someone who worked for Brett Kavanaugh and the federal Society. https://fedsoc.org/contributors/todd-henderson https://fedsoc.org/contributors/todd-henderson And again, Stout is only making an argument here, but the case is still the law. And she is actually against shareholder primacy.