
How GE, GM, Coca-Cola and Kodak Put Shareholders Ahead of Employees - mpweiher
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2017/06/29/how-ge-gm-coca-cola-kodak-put-shareholders-ahead-of-employees/#1d1cd6ef6429
======
moomin
The graph at the start of the article is terrifying: it basically says that
since 1973, on average, there was no correlation between your productivity and
your earnings. None. Work hard? No difference. Work longer? No difference.
Work smarter? No difference. Firm introduces new working practices? No
difference.

The people who started work in 1973 are now retiring. This means that this
disconnect is not only true of everyone currently working, it's always been
true for pretty much everyone they know or report to.

We've normalized a situation in which employees have no skin whatsoever in
their company being a success. And then we wonder why the productivity figures
are lackluster. Given that graph, I think it's amazing they're as good as they
are.

~~~
louithethrid
But you get all the circus-money, the goudy extras... are you not happy having
the parking space near the entrance, and the paper tuxedo...

To think of all the outrage that crashed down upon that poor soul on stack
exchange who automated his job away and gambled the gamblers.

------
fallingfrog
Kind of makes the corporate mission statement and team building exercises
sting a little, doesn't it?

------
awkwarddaturtle
That's the point of corporations. To look out for the interest of the
shareholders. It is the fiduciary duty of the Board of Directors to look out
for shareholders' interests.

Also, I thought we had a rule against forbes here?

------
ryanx435
Whether or not you think it is moral to do so or not, it is those company's
fiscal and legal obligation to put shareholders ahead of employees.

don't hate the players, hate the game.

~~~
mikestew
_it is those company 's fiscal and legal obligation to put shareholders ahead
of employees._

[citation needed]. Seriously, this is one of those things that keeps being
repeated, without anyone stopping to go see if it's true before they parrot it
elsewhere. It's a safe bet, right? It makes one sound clever, and enough
people say it, it's probably true, right?

It's not.

~~~
JadeNB
> [citation needed]. Seriously, this is one of those things that keeps being
> repeated, without anyone stopping to go see if it's true before they parrot
> it elsewhere. It's a safe bet, right? It makes one sound clever, and enough
> people say it, it's probably true, right?

> It's not.

I am inclined to believe this rebuttal, but only because I've seen lots of
people say it, which is no better a reason than for believing the original
statement. Without doubting your statement, I hope I may ask non-snarkily if
_you_ have a citation (though I know we're in "proving a negative" territory"
here).

~~~
mikestew
_(though I know we 're in "proving a negative" territory" here)_

If it's codified in law, it shouldn't be hard to find. I've looked, I can't
find it. Hell, I can't even find the origins of where such a falsehood
originated. So, to put it as non-snarkily as I can, I've put more time into
the question than those that hold the statement as truth; my obligation is
fulfilled.

EDIT: and to be clear, because someone always thinks themselves clever by
bringing it up, this does not preclude shareholders from kicking the board's
collective asses to the street. But that is a long way from "legal
obligation".

