←back to thread

202 points akersten | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
yndoendo ◴[] No.45767812[source]
Who knew electing shitty representation leads to a shitty environment and economy? I wish those effected by the shitty government the best

Forcing people to work and not pay them is slavery!

replies(4): >>45767866 #>>45767914 #>>45768170 #>>45775123 #
tombert ◴[] No.45767866[source]
I got in trouble at a BigCo because I said "we all do this for the money", and they claimed that I had a "bad attitude".

But I don't think I was wrong. Work is fundamentally a business transaction; I sell my time and expertise and they give me money and benefits. Ultimately for any job I've had, even jobs that I really loved, if they stopped paying me I'd stop showing up [1]. It's nothing personal, that's just the transaction that I agreed to.

If I had some bloviating wannabe-demagogue telling me that I should keep working and to not expect backpay, I am quite confident that I would quit, or at least keep calling in sick. I am not going to blame anyone who would do the same. I have no fucking idea why half the country voted for this.

[1] This has actually been tested for one job.

replies(8): >>45767940 #>>45767943 #>>45767958 #>>45767977 #>>45768057 #>>45768133 #>>45770847 #>>45772686 #
deepsun ◴[] No.45767977[source]
It's not just wrong, if a company is registered as "commercial" (as opposed to non-profit or public-benefit), then "for the money" is a legal obligation.

Shareholders can literally sue the management if they don't pursue the obligation.

replies(2): >>45768076 #>>45768566 #
jaredklewis ◴[] No.45768566[source]
> Shareholders can literally sue the management if they don't pursue the obligation.

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. It’s not remarkable.

Now cite even a single case where shareholders sued and won. In reality, the “obligation” you are referencing has basically only ever been relevant in situations where the board or management is taking bribes. I’m not aware of any cases where shareholders won because the company was too nice to customers, the environment, or whatever.

For whatever reason, “shareholders” live rent free in the heads of Internet commentators, but it’s hard to understate their actual influence.

replies(2): >>45768942 #>>45778652 #
UzPPw337CtTbKQd ◴[] No.45768942[source]
The Dodge v. Ford case is known for just that.
replies(3): >>45771401 #>>45772171 #>>45776366 #
1. jaredklewis ◴[] No.45776366[source]
Fair, this case fits the bill, but it’s interesting we have to go back more than 100 years to find one. Also worth noting that a major fact in this case is that Ford explicitly said and maintained that shareholder value was not his priority.

That’s a mistake that business leaders have long since learned from. Wanna drop a billion dollars to add legs to your metaverse characters? Do whatever you want and just present a plausible argument that it serves shareholders. You don’t need evidence, any rationale is fine as long as you don’t explicitly state that you don’t care about shareholder value.

Another similar case might by something like eBay v Newmark, in that to the extent shareholders got relief it was because of things the business leaders said about shareholder primacy, rather than any actual actions taken by the company.

I guess that’s the real influence of shareholders: boards and executives can do whatever they want as long as when they talk, they don’t speak ill of shareholder primacy.