The term make it sounds like a good thing, however I do not know if this was really a net positive. It might have helped the companies but isn't this anti-competitive at the employee level?
I might be wrong but that's the impression I get when talking with US people about unions and workers rights.
Think of it like a football club holding a vote to flatten player pay. The benchwarmers will be falling over themselves to unionize, and the top players will be looking where to move too.
This is why union efforts fail, which many find perplexing. The most valuable players get better deals negotiating without a union.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Basketball_Players_As...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_Players_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_Actors_Guild
Aren't all of these industries where the top workers get fat plates and others are pushing hard to get there?
Generally when workplaces unionize, jobs are clearly delineated, and everyone in that role has a defined pay.
There's a bright, clear line between targeted attempts to hire someone who has a job working for a competitor, and trying to get that person to take confidential information with them when they switch jobs. The latter is wrong and will rightfully result in legal action. The former is perfectly fine, and good for employees, which I'd wager still includes most of this site's audience despite the startup-founder focus.
Remember, employers don't own the people who work for them. They cannot be "poached." They can only be given a better offer. If your employee decides they'd be better off working for your competitor instead, then you have only yourself to blame for not giving them enough incentive to stay. Either up your game, or give them a friendly goodbye.
I wouldn't describe this as "poaching." What OpenAI is accused of doing is industrial espionage and IP theft. It did this as part of hiring somebody away from another company, which is commonly (and IMO incorrectly) described as "poaching." But the problem isn't the "poaching," it's the theft. If they'd "poached" without the theft it would be fine. If they'd found a way to steal IP without hiring anyone it would still be bad.
I read into these PR blasts, lawsuits that Apple is sour about losing employees to higher salary opportunities, and is likely using lawsuits instead of higher salaries to retain them.
You're not though, legally anyway. Courts will generally not second-guess a board's business decisions so long as the board acted in "good faith" even if that decision results in loss for shareholders, or does something that does not maximize their returns.
Board just has to link the decision and the long term health of the company. But it's just that, health of the company which is legally distinct from the health or short-term desires of individual shareholders and investors.
Sometimes I think it’s time to give shareholder supremacy a rest. If they don’t like what they own, they can sell it. But this is probably also why I’m not on a board of directors.
> “When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don’t consider the bloody ROI,” Cook said. “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock.”
That was back in 2014.
But I do agree, it's time to normalize telling shareholders where they can shove it. If they don't like it, they can sell.
This is not true. Fiduciary responsibility does not mean "maximize earnings". This one fiction has done more damage in the name of unfettered capitalism than anything else.
Sure. Also, don't care. Lets focus on the devil currently doing harm.