this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
596 points (96.1% liked)

World News

39041 readers
2409 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 38 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

If they are told they make more money harming you, CEOs literally have a legal responsibility to choose that option.

No they fucking don't.

They choose to do so out of greediness the vast majority of the time, but it isn't a legal obligation.

[–] granolabar@kbin.melroy.org 18 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You are actually not wrong but if they dont obey BoD, it is the shed.

Bigger question here if this "simplification" is a valid tactic to communicate the message.

Theoretically BoD could sue the CEO, but i dont think that ever happened in this context... Only in cases of fraud, ie stealing company assets

[–] Glytch@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

Something similar has happened. Look up Dodge vs. Ford Motor Co where the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that a ceo must operate in the interest of the shareholders not in the interests of the business and it's employees.

[–] Glytch@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes they actually do. Look up Dodge v. Ford Motor Company. A business must be run in the interests of the shareholders, not the public, not the employees, not even the business itself.

Is it morally right? Fuck no. Is it the law? Unfortunately yes.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Grobow v. Perot, 539 A.2d 180 (Del. 1988).

Directors in a business should:

  • act in good faith;
  • act in the best interests of the corporation;
  • act on an informed basis;
  • not be wasteful;
  • not involve self-interest (duty of loyalty concept plays a role here).
[–] Glytch@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Fair point, I was unaware of this case.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

And let’s not forget that most significant forms of “harm” are illegal in the first place. The comment above you makes it sound like any minute now, Nabisco might decide it’s more profitable for them to roll out to your house and kill you.

[–] iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 3 weeks ago

I mean.... if something is illegal but the penalties are low or enforcement nonexistent then it's more like a recommendation. Fines become a "cost of doing business".

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

If they thought they would profit from a direct murder, they would. It's not like they ever see any significant penalties for murder.

Usually it is an indirect murder, though. Like we are reading about chicken processing plants deciding it is more profitable to maim or kill children rather than pay adults.

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Plenty are greedy psychopaths, I'm not saying the above as a forgiveness, I'm stating it as a fact. A CEO is a legal "corporate officer" of a company. Seems you need to learn a bit more about fiduciary responsibilities for a CEO. It is a legal obligation.

Maybe you'll do some reading, probably not though, huh? The people in your life must be just fucking exhausted by that energy of yours.

It is a legal obligation.

Nope. There are these obligations but it is not illegal for a CEO to perform sub optimally, or even make multi year losses.