[bolt7469]

Consider the following:

Google has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders.

Google has no duty to retain an employee hired at-will.

Is it more ethical to reject a duty by favoring the employees? Deontological ethics suggests otherwise.

[AndrewKemendo]

>Google has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders.

"Shareholder Primacy" is the biggest most unethical scam that continues to go unchecked as though it were law, which it is most certainly not. It is an unethical and outdated relic of rapacious greed

"On August 19, 2019, 181 CEOs of America’s largest corporations overturned a 22-year-old policy statement that defined a corporation’s principal purpose as maximizing shareholder return" [1]

[1] https://purpose.businessroundtable.org/

[AlbertCory]

> continues to go unchecked as though it were law, which it is most certainly not.

On the contrary, Andrew, corporations are chartered through a particular state's corporate code. In every case I'm aware of, the shareholders are the ones who own the company. The "stakeholders" (employees, customers, neighbors) have legally defined rights, which do not include ownership. So it most certainly IS law.

From https://short-facts.com/how-many-major-corporations-are-ther...:

The US Constitution was interpreted by the US Supreme Court to allow corporations to incorporate in the state of their choice, regardless of where their headquarters are. Over the 20th century, most major corporations incorporated under the Delaware General Corporation Law, which offered lower corporate taxes,

These 181 CEOs: did they have any rule-making authority? Or was that result just the opinion of 181 people?

What about all the corporations and single-proprietor businesses that were not part of that? Or the state of Delaware, whose laws govern most of them? Not to mention the Congress and the courts.

[HDThoreaun]

A corporations primary goal is enacting shareholders wishes. You can talk about stakeholders all you want. It’s bullshit. Companies exist to do what shareholders want, and 9 times out of ten that is make as much money as possible.

[squokko]

There is nothing to say that additional stakeholders cannot be added in by law, though. Companies would dump mercury into the rivers to make a buck if the law didn't prohibit it.

[HDThoreaun]

Sure, companies follow the law because it's in their long term best interests and doing otherwise would interfere with their ability to make money down the line.