this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
367 points (98.7% liked)

politics

18966 readers
9 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 29 points 6 months ago (2 children)

They aren’t cowards. They are legally obligated to make more profit for the shareholders. They couldn’t give a rats ass about anything else. Any public company showing “support” for pride is only doing it because they think it will drive more business than they’ll lose. The system is fucked

[–] [email protected] 65 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Common misconception. Fiduciary Duty means the Board of Directors has to act in a company's best interest. It does not mean they legally have to maximize every single profit possibility, short and long-term. Some people feel that improving a company's reputation or outreach is in its best interest, even if it doesn't increase profits.

It's also important to know that no one has ever been found guilty of failing to fulfill fiduciary duty, and it's pretty vague. Companies can still do what they want, don't let them tell you their hands were tied and they had to do [awful, greedy thing that everyone hates]...

[–] MagicShel 30 points 6 months ago (1 children)

no one has ever been found guilty of failing to fulfill fiduciary duty

For as big a deal as is made of this by investment advisors and similar roles, this is shocking to read.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

That must be hyperbole, right?

Like... The Enron guys at least, right?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Madoff was straight up ponzi scheme fraud, not profit maximisation.

Enron guys were fraudulently booking future possible revenues as certainties.

Deliberate illegal misrepresentation is very different from making a (possibly) sub optimal business decision.

[–] MagicShel 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

A quick search suggests Enron and Bernie Madoff are a couple of examples of conviction, but maybe there are nuances I'm not familiar with.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

Those... are examples of straight-up fraud. Of course that's illegal.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Tim Cook even famously responded to a right-wing troll during a shareholder meeting asking Apple to commit to only doing profitable things and dropping stuff like making their production climate neutral with "When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don't consider the bloody ROI.” “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock.” and somehow he's still around

edit: it really pissed them off too haha https://nationalcenter.org/ncppr/2014/02/28/tim-cook-to-apple-investors-drop-dead/

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

Wow those people are scum bags. They call it "so called climate change"

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

I dislike Apple, but respect for that. 👊

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

They are required to provide a safe working environment. I think this has more to do with that for the companies in the retail space.

Those that just produce products are all image and can suffer whatever PR backlash they create.