Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[Mike Schilling]

"Steven D'Aprano" <steve at REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.10.20.13.46.50.253609 at REMOVETHIScyber.com.au...
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:17:14 +0000, axel wrote:
>
>> Employees have *no* obligations towards the shareholders of a company.
>> They are not employed or paid by the shareholders, they are employed
>> by the company itself which is a separate legal entity.
>>
>> It is a different matter for the board of directors of a company.
>
> The board of directors are also employees of the company. That's why the
> company can fire them.

The relationships are a bit more complex than that:

The shareholders elect a Board of Directors to represent their interests. 
The board then hires a management staff, which reports to them.  The 
management staff hires other employees, who report (directly or indirectly) 
to management.

An employee who refuses to act as directed, claiming that he's thinking of 
the shareholders' interests, can be fired for cause.  His only recourse 
would be to become a shareholder (not hard), and then get the attention of 
either the board or a large block of shareholders (much harder).  If 
management is actually breaking the law (say by Enron-like looting) rather 
than simply making decisions he considers suboptimal, he can also go to the 
authorities, but he does this in his capacity as private citizen; his status 
as employee gives him no additional rights or responsibilities in this 
respect.

As Axel says, a regular employee has no direct obligations towards the 
shareholders.