Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[axel at white-eagle.invalid.uk]

In comp.lang.perl.misc Roedy Green <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website at munged.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 03:15:03 -0700, "David Schwartz"
> <davids at webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :
 
>>    Did I say their obligation was to secure their shareholders as much 
>>profit as possible? I said their obligation was to their shareholders.
 
> You are literally saying people work for a company have an obligation
> to the shareholders. That is too obvious to be bothered with
> announcing. The employees take the shareholder's money, so obviously
> they have an obligation to produce something in return.  When I read
> your words, I think you really mean this is the prime or sole
> obligation of an employee.  I disagree with that. There are many
> loyalties that compete.

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.

Axel