It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: torok67
Ok so it should be established that these companies are corporations and are owned by stockholders. Not private individuals.
Plus, if you read the request it just gives more control to employees to appoint directors. Then additionally directors and shareholders have to agree by 75% before political contributions are made. Why is any of this a bad thing? Why won't anyone seriously answer this question and everyone keeps giving me platitudes and talking points?
... for executives to set aside shareholder profits in pursuit of some other goal like environmental protection, racial justice, community stability, or simple common decency would be a form of theft. If reformulating your product to be more addictive or less healthy increases sales, then it’s not only permissible but actually required to do so. If closing a profitable plant and outsourcing the work to a low-wage country could make your company even more profitable, then it’s the right thing to do.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Here's a thought.
If you WANT to be a boss.
Start your own business.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: darkbake
If a corporation abuses its employees too much, they leave. This is power an employee always has.
There is a certain department in my husband's company that is experiencing this phenomena right now because the overall boss abuses the employees and they're in a place rich with jobs they could all move to ... and they are. Sooner or later, the brain drain will catch up with the company and people in higher positions will notice.
Holding a corporation accountable to the stakeholders does not mean taking orders from them, it means making decisions with them in mind as well as the shareholders.
When I take a job with a company I also take a risk with my livelihood. I take the risk that I am working for a company with good leadership that will continue to be profitable and be able to continue my employment.
You say things like "become a boss". News flash, not everyone has the mental aptitude to own and run a business. We can't have a world of bosses becaue there would be no workers.
But to you somehow the working class is too incompetent to have their own vote on how to run the company.
Many companies put a three month notice period on "senior" employees
The German economy would seem to suggest otherwise.
Stakeholder representing on company boards has been in place there for decades and it has been consistently one of the most successful and stable economies the world.
It has also managed to maintain manufacturing as a significant portion of its economy, unlike most other large developed economies.
People in Germany and Japan…do not have quite the same views about money and motives as Gordon Brown and Bill Clinton have. They tend to believe that, although money is a splendid thing to have, and few people would not put themselves out to get some, if you want to know why people work hard, work conscientiously, work creatively, work entrepreneurially, money is only a small part of the answer: you need also look at social structures, the perceived fairness of organizational arrangements, friendships, collegiality, obligations arising from personal relations, as well as the intrinsic satisfactions of the work itself.