Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't apply to claims in progress

Re:Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't appl... by vonmoltke on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @10:51AM (#18494704)

> fiduciary obligations of maximising net returns on invested capital

There is no such obligation. Please stop spreading bullshit.

Edit:

To those who don't believe me, see another post in the thread[1] or other sources on corporate law[2][3]. Note that the duty of loyalty says nothing about maximizing anything, and such a legal standard is preposterous.

[1] https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/01/myth-maximizing-shar...

[2] https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/corporate-fid...

[3] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fiduciary-responsibi...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't appl... by Devils_Avocado on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @10:52AM (#18494720)

What do their contracts say? Agnostic of your own judgement of the morality of their actions, company agents are employed by shareholders to maximise returns on invested capital. It's literally the only reason the company pays them a salary from net profits.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't appl... by Devils_Avocado on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @10:59AM (#18494775)

...and who owns the corporate entity? The "owners of shares"?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google says its sex misconduct policy change doesn't appl... by vonmoltke on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @10:55AM (#18494743)

Company agents are not employed by shareholders and have no contracts with them. Company agents are employed by the corporate entity.

[ Parent | on HN ]