rockdoc123 wrote:How about Boeing? That CEO just got canned, after the fact. You wanted an example. That's just a very public one. Since the 737 Max crisis hit the company, I've seen several employees interviewed who tried to tell somebody about something wrong with the plane.
Suffering some cognitive dissonance are we? You were complaining that the owners of corporations were taking money and enriching themselves at the expense of workers. Did the CEO of Boeing get enriched? No, in fact, he lost his job because the Board got fed up with the lack of delivery on promises to fix the issues. Did employees lose money? No. They were paid precisely what their employment contracts entailed. Issues happen in manufacturing and what happened with Boeing is exactly how it should be handled. Try to figure out the problem as soon as possible and fix it. If the guy you put in charge isn’t up to the task put someone else in there. Honestly, you approach this as if it is some kind of conspiracy happening.Or, again, I recently read a story about how a major car company in the US had allowed SUV's to roll off of the assembly line with too many defects.
Again nothing to do with what you were claiming. How did this benefit the owners or management? In fact if the Board of that company were to find this out (and I think it is BS as you can't hide that sort of thing...ie. recalls) they would have had heads roll. That is the way it works.These examples are nothing, compared to all of those companies which rely upon things in society to keep their underpaid employees working for them. Yes, things which they, or those like minded to them, have lobbied for over the decades. The sort of things exemplified in single issue politics.
Perhaps you should try English? What "things in society".....what "like minded" individuals lobbied for what? And wtf does single issue politics have to do with corporations and they way they are run?
You ought to try reading comprehension as well. You don't ask the right questions, just those which further your point of view. The model you are using may be too restrictive.
No, no, no that's me saying that "returning value to shareholders" is not necessarily in favor of shareholders, when taken as a whole. Citing labor is only a means to get at a relationship which should exist between ownership and those who work for them. Out of that relationship, checks and balances would develop. Likewise, bad management wrought at the behest of a dominant view regarding control of a corporation escapes our attention. Those examples are, therefore, relevant.