Hacker News Reader

Comment by rapsey | Hacker News Reader

Google employees sure love to chip away at the branch they are standing on.

Google should just call their bluff. The company isn't going to "cut carbon emissions entirely", and I'd bet that next to none of these employees would quit and toss away their fat paycheck over climate change. In the best case scenario, Google spends money to clean up their emissions and these same employees wonder why they're not seeing as big of pay raises.

They're not getting big pay raises because they don't understand what an S curve is.

> I'd bet that next to none of these employees would quit and toss away their fat paycheck over climate change.

So quitting is the only acceptable solution to disagreeing with your company? That'd ridiculous.

I've never understood why they don't just go work somewhere else. A publicly traded corporation has a legal obligation to maximize value for their shareholders, even if that means doing business with ICE, big oil, the military, etc. A CEO who continually turns away legitimate and legal business on moral grounds can be removed, and in some cases sued by the board of directors.

If you have qualms with working for a large corporation whose primarily purpose is to maximize value and profit within the boundaries of the law, then you need to find a non-profit or privately held firm that's more aligned with your values and flourish there.

> A publicly traded corporation has a legal obligation to maximize value for their shareholders

No, it doesn't. Stop spreading myths.

But they do have a legal obligation to do what the board wants. Guess what the board wants 99% of the time?

Should all these guys be sued?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2019/08/19/nearly...

You'd better believe that if these CEO's who say shareholder value isn't everything, stopped delivering on growth and earnings, they'd be shown the door real quick. They're free to say shareholder value isn't everything so long as they act as if it is.

Should the law be written this way? Probably not, but that's a much larger and somewhat tangential debate.

This is about a group of talented people who have the option to put some skin in the game and take their labor elsewhere, but who choose instead to put forth empty talk about the ethics of their employer all while enjoying the lifestyle that employer has offered them.

> Should the law be written this way?

No, which is why it's a good thing the law is not written that way.

Part of maximizing profit is dependent upon being able to attract and retain top performing human resources. Another part is public perception: brand value and customer engagement. Yet another part in dependent on their network of partners, who might want to refrain from doing business with parties engaged in unsound (unethical) business practices.

Since large parts of these are hidden variables and only come to light when certain actions are taken, I would say it is actually in the shareholders best interest for employees to complain and strike. The alternative is that top talent is leaving the company, partners untie relations and customers seek alternatives.

It's all about perception and communication.

Why not work to change things internally? Why run away? Clearly internal change is possible, so why do you want us to turn away from this course of action available to us?

> I've never understood why they don't just go work somewhere else.

Because they don't want to walk away from their responsibility, and they believe they are able to change the company from within.

That myth really needs to die... there is no law and no requirement of any business that dictates that shareholder value/profit must be primary focus above all else.

I really encourage you and anyone else that thinks this way to spend some time learning about the growing "Conscious Capitalism" movement.

A true disadvantage for publicly traded companies. That would mean for concious people that they have to work for privately owned companies.

Although you could always spin it like it would be a long time disadvantage to work with these kind of companies. I think shareholders are the ones that take the risk of people just not wanting to work under these conditions.

Google would degrade to be a career starter for gifted developers if shareholders will continue enforce their immediate profit expectations.

Basically that means that the legal obligation for profit maximization is a pretty crappy law. I doubt that people would stop investing without that legal handle.

> legal obligation for profit maximization

Not the law. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-v...

Makes sense actually.

It is a disadvantage and probably a bad legal framework, but it's the one that exists right now and companies are obligated to follow it, Google is no exception. When you go to work for a large corporation, this is one of the things you need to make peace with, and if you can't, you should work somewhere else so you can live according to your values.

I do work for a family owned company. A bit conservative at times, and the owners don't despise money, but there are honest attempts to become greener for example.

Still, I doubt you can make a rational argument that forgoing contract X is undermining shareholders in any honest court of justice if all factors are considered.

edit: And if employees are indeed protesting, the case will be much cleaner.

I don't think that's as useful an analogy when there's a million branches and it's easy to find another. Sure, in other industries people don't have the same luxury of speaking up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com