cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/32365208
Back in the 90s, Jeff Bezos went on record as hoping his employees would wake up on the wrong side of the bed—for the greater good, or for the customer at the very least.
Edit: Courtesy of @CatZoomies@lemmy.world :
Here’s the archived version to bypass the paywall:
If the CEO isn’t ruthless in their pursuit of increasing shareholder value they will get booted and may even be breaking the law.
Natural selection but you select for psychopathy.
“May even be breaking the law” is pure spin by sociopaths, for sociopaths. Ceos have a fiduciary duty to owners, i.e shsreholders, but that can easily mean you invest in long term gains like employee support, safer and more efficient tooling and policies building up community goodwill, etc.
It doesn’t mean you have to cut throat brutalize all you can grasp in your greed soaked hands. No law, of any type, compels that. If a board does, it’s just empowered by the thought terminating cliche that “no, no we have a duty to gut people’s lives so line goes up.”
The above is people making excuses for their socially destructive behavior, not an actual justification.
I agree with your sentiments, but I do not think you’re right about the legal responsibilities. There are several terrible court precedents, going back to the time of Henry Ford, that establish draconian requirements for those running a corporation. The laws dealing with incorporation need to be rewritten, for many reasons, but with the power corporations currently have over our political process that is not likely to happen.
I would argue that unfettered capitalism generally rewards the least humane management and the worst people.
I’ve heard they must maximise value by law, it seems that was wrong. If that’s not literally the law, then that’s a relief to hear.
Either way, the line must go up. Can’t continuously deliver a good service: if growth starts flatlining it is made more predatory.
You’re right they have a fiduciary duty. I think what the other commenter was saying is that the interpretation of that duty can be twisted into all kinds of shapes. If someone believed in pro social ideas they could make the case that treating workers with respect and growing sustainably is the best way to continue making money. That a shareholder would demand other crueler or more short-sighted policies doesn’t mean a legal requirement.