cross-posted from: https://yall.theatl.social/post/3229309
From the Atlanta Daily World:
In a surprising yet increasingly common move, Microsoft has quietly dismantled its team dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The decision, communicated via email to the affected employees on July 1, cited “changing business needs” as the reason for the layoffs. While the exact number of employees impacted remains unclear, the team’s lead didn’t … Continued
The post Microsoft Says Bye-Bye DEI, Joins Growing List Of Corporations Dismantling Diversity Teams appeared first on Atlanta Daily World.
Well yeah. The point of a corp is to make a profit. By any means necessary. They are even legally compelled to do so. They are not here to serve us. They are here to take your money. Sometimes even backing you into a corner to force you to do it.
I just got done watching Fallout and I fully believe our corporations would do the same as the ones in the series given the chance.
Edit: after some research and the person below me informing me, I was mistaken about the legal requirement.
Minor niggle: they’re legally compelled to work in the best interests of the shareholders which is usually but not always seeking profit at all costs.
But, in general, I don’t disagree, I merely was mentioning that people keep getting suckered by pretty words and meaningless promises of change and then not bothering to make it have actual legal requirements behind it.
The mistake is looking at a CEO going Trust Me Bro, and trusting them. See: frog and scorpion story.
You are right, I made a correction.
They are not legally compelled to do so. That’s a nonsense myth, even for publicly traded companies.
A CEOs job is literally to serve the financial interests of the shareholders.
In fact a CEO can be fired or charged for not doing it.
How is that not legally compelling a company to make the most money possible, when to have their top employee by the balls like that?
A CEO can be fired for anything.
A CEO can absolutely not be criminally charged for not maximizing short term profits at all costs. That’s not what fiduciary duty means.
Fair, charged is the wrong word.
But please explain how you see the fiduciary duty then?
It’s not “how I see it”. It’s a clearly defined legal term, that functionally means that you’re required to act in good faith.
It doesn’t mean more than that, and minority shareholders that have tried to sue on the grounds that they have any additional legal obligation have been laughed out of court.
Serving the financial interests of shareholders doesn’t necessarily mean maximizing short-term profits, as this often leads to less profit in the long term due to things like legal issues, loss of reputation, high turnover, etc. Long term growth and stability can be much more valuable than a couple quarters of unsustainable profit.
A good example of this is Red Lobster, whose new owners sold off all their restaurant real estate holdings to a newly formed shell company and then began charging each individual restaurant massive amounts of rent. Selling these properties gave the company a short-term boost of cash, but now they’re bankrupt because they saddled the company with so much debt and rent that they can’t cover.
I corrected my comment. Thanks.