[Arainach]

"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.

[ivan_gammel]

> 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.

[Arainach]

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_gammel]

> 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

[Arainach]

> Yes, and what is the essence of that labor? It is to create profits for shareholders

No, it's not. I'm not sure what your source of capitalism koolaid is, but employees are transacting labor for money, and shareholders do not come into it at all.

The nature of labor is stocking shelves, writing code, emptying trash bins, or whatever else you do. Full stop.

If you want employees to "think of the shareholders first", you give them enough ownership that the stock price actually makes a major difference in their life, and crucially, enough control at the company to actually influence the stock price. In practice that's the C Suite and maybe some senior VPs. No one else should be stressing out trying to make the owners richer.

[ivan_gammel]

This conversation is not about „employees thinking/not thinking about shareholders“. You are cherry-picking that topic and taking it out of context, for what reason exactly?

I have explained already a few times why and what context matters here. Are you struggling to understand it or just avoiding it?

[Arainach]

You started your initial response with "When you sign the working contract, your job is to act in the interests of shareholders".

Working for a company does not mean blind allegiance to leadership, nor does it mean no criticism.