▲ 861 ▼ A billionaire wrote this letter to Google a year ago. How likely is that Google's layoffs and actions since then are at least partly because of this? (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by lledrtx@lemmy.world to c/workreform@lemmy.world 206 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] Yearly1845@reddthat.com 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Uh... its not illegal for an investment to not make money? permalink fedilink source parent [–] sus@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago* Fiduciary duty is real, in many jurisdictions at least. It means that the executives of a company are required to act in the best interest of the shareholders. In 99% of the cases what shareholders want is maximum profit. But really, in almost every case where someone is found to be guilty of breaching this duty, it's because they actually actively did something fraudulent. Otherwise it's much easier for the shareholders or board to just fire the problematic people and get new ones. It's not like being incompetent is a crime. for source you can look at eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary permalink fedilink source parent [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago This goes through the legal cases in the US and UK that establish it isn't generally a requirement to maximize shareholder value above all else: https://legislate.ai/blog/does-the-law-require-public-companies-to-maximise-shareholder-value permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Uh... its not illegal for an investment to not make money? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sus@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago* Fiduciary duty is real, in many jurisdictions at least. It means that the executives of a company are required to act in the best interest of the shareholders. In 99% of the cases what shareholders want is maximum profit. But really, in almost every case where someone is found to be guilty of breaching this duty, it's because they actually actively did something fraudulent. Otherwise it's much easier for the shareholders or board to just fire the problematic people and get new ones. It's not like being incompetent is a crime. for source you can look at eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary permalink fedilink source parent
[–] candybrie@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago This goes through the legal cases in the US and UK that establish it isn't generally a requirement to maximize shareholder value above all else: https://legislate.ai/blog/does-the-law-require-public-companies-to-maximise-shareholder-value permalink fedilink source parent