Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> They would not collapse or lose their competitive edge if they refrained from doing so.

Alphabet is a Deleware corporation, where executives that leave money on the table for moral reasons have to at least claim that it was their business judgment that the action would ultimately increase profits for shareholder value in the long term.

There are many arguments those executives could make, such as that employees could get dissatisfied with the company and cost them more in the long run, so it is important for employees to be loud about it.



They're literally not allowed to make decisions on a moral basis, only a monetary one? That's pretty dystopian.


Probably not literally, evidenced by Tim Cook’s “I don’t consider the bloody ROI” comment.


He can only really say that knowing in court he can say that saying it was for PR to help the long term bottom line.


That’s not a thing. It doesn’t require explicit opt outs all of the time in shareholder meetings where they explain all of the unethical things they decided not to do to make money.


>Alphabet is a Deleware corporation, where executives that leave money on the table for moral reasons have to at least claim that it was their business judgment that the action would ultimately increase profits for shareholder value in the long term.

Naw. In order for the directors to be stopped by 'leaving money on the table' someone would need to bring a claim against them. One which they would almost certainly lose.

And then even if someone did, the executives wouldn't even need to make the claim that the actions ultimately increased profits at all, because the courts just toss them a strong presumption for free.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule

You're repeating a lie. Stop it.


They have to make decisions in support of their charter, which usually includes profit maximization. Google at least used to have "Don't be Evil" in there, which should be a pretty relevant shield.


It was never in the charter. It's not a shield of any sort. It's just a motto in the code of conduct. The motto has since changed but those words are still there, now in the last sentence.

It's meaningless and always has been. Why do people think that this cheesy phrase makes any difference for a giant corporation?


Thanks, I appreciate the correction.

> Why do people think that this cheesy phrase makes any difference for a giant corporation?

Speaking for myself. I thought it made a difference as part of the charter, with the expectation that overtly evil behavior can be punished eith real teeth (shareholder lawsuits for violating the charter)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: