undefined | Better HN

0 pointsArainach3d ago0 comments

"acting in the interests of shareholders" (which, for the record, no employment contract I've ever signed requires) does not mean blind allegiance to management and certainly doesn't mean not calling out bad actions by management.

The employee's statement here was fact. The CEO did harm the careers of employees and did call in to harass them without even bothering to come to a company office.

The CEO, who has much more of an obligation to act in shareholders' interests than an IC, shouldn't be attacking and alienating their labor force.

0 comments

ivan_gammel3d ago

> no employment contract I've ever signed requires

The sole reason for existence of for-profit corporations does not have to be explicitly stated in the contract. It’s implied and better be understood.

> does not mean blind allegiance to management…

Yes, it doesn’t. Nobody said it does.

> The employee's statement here was fact.

Sure. It it wasn’t the fact, it would be even worse.

> The CEO shouldn't be attacking and alienating their labor force.

It’s irrelevant. One person’s bad judgement does not justify another’s.

ArainachOP3d ago

No, employees have no obligations to shareholders. They get money for their labor. End of obligation. They are not the corporation.

This is ignoring that the concept of companies having to care about shareholders above everything else is a lie spread to justify evil behavior.

ivan_gammel3d ago

> They get money for their labor.

Yes, and what is the essence of that labor? It is to create profits for shareholders. You are not getting paid to contribute to toxic culture or to seize the means of production. CEO could have been in the wrong, but the moment when the “us vs them” idea starts dominating in corporate culture is the moment company dies and those jobs that everyone is so afraid to loose are ceasing to exist.

>This is ignoring that the concept of companies having to care about shareholders above everything else is a lie spread to justify evil behavior.

Nobody is claiming the “above everything else” here

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsArainach3d ago0 comments

The employee's statement here was fact. The CEO did harm the careers of employees and did call in to harass them without even bothering to come to a company office.

The CEO, who has much more of an obligation to act in shareholders' interests than an IC, shouldn't be attacking and alienating their labor force.

0 comments

ivan_gammel3d ago

> no employment contract I've ever signed requires

The sole reason for existence of for-profit corporations does not have to be explicitly stated in the contract. It’s implied and better be understood.

> does not mean blind allegiance to management…

Yes, it doesn’t. Nobody said it does.

> The employee's statement here was fact.

Sure. It it wasn’t the fact, it would be even worse.

> The CEO shouldn't be attacking and alienating their labor force.

It’s irrelevant. One person’s bad judgement does not justify another’s.

ArainachOP3d ago

No, employees have no obligations to shareholders. They get money for their labor. End of obligation. They are not the corporation.

This is ignoring that the concept of companies having to care about shareholders above everything else is a lie spread to justify evil behavior.

ivan_gammel3d ago

> They get money for their labor.

>This is ignoring that the concept of companies having to care about shareholders above everything else is a lie spread to justify evil behavior.

Nobody is claiming the “above everything else” here

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse