138
submitted 2 years ago by lautan@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Kiosade@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 years ago

Downvoting you because this is factually incorrect. They WANT the profit, but it’s not illegal to not make a certain amount of profit, that’s silly.

[-] null@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago
[-] Kiosade@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

Every time this view point is parroted, they either imply or outright state the company will be sued/break the law because they didn’t do their best to make money. Notice how they used words like “need”, “swearing an oath”, etc. I’ve seen it time and time again on here and on Reddit, it’s tiresome at this point. The companies are just greedy, and know they can pretty much get away with stuff like this, end of story.

[-] null@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The shareholders will oust the CEO who doesn't meet that need. No legal action required.

Maybe other people inaccurately say it is a law, but this is not an example of that. Especially since you said "FACTUALLY INCORRECT".

No, no incorrect facts were stated.

this post was submitted on 02 May 2024
138 points (97.9% liked)

Canada

12018 readers
524 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 Sports

Baseball

Basketball

Curling

Hockey

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS