423
"YOU VOTED FOR THIS": Ford Shuts Down Kentucky EV Battery Operations, Fires 1,600 Workers Right Before Christmas as Trump Rolls Back Emissions Rules (thedailyadda.com)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/antitrumpalliance@lemmy.world
81 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

“There are a lot more people out here living in abject poverty than what people like to think or admit to. You voted for this—and now we’re paying the price.”

Employees learned of the cuts on Monday in a video message from Michael Adams, CEO of BlueOval SK.

Adams announced the transition would mean “the end of all BlueOval SK positions in Kentucky.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

You are asking a publicly traded company to just kill itself, which would ALSO be illegal, so here we are. They are literally required to make the decision that most economically benefits the company, and that is clearly not to build products for a market that does not exist and which may never exist.

I mean yeah, we are getting fucked, but at the moment in this particular case its Trump doing the fucking.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    That is like saying Toyota was going to screw itself over by releasing the Prius.

    They are literally required to make the decision that most economically benefits the company

    No, that not true. Many shareholders will push for that, but many companies i vest heavily into development that stifles short term profits for long term gain and running a company into the ground with poor decisions is not illegal in any way whatsoever.

    How would the law even know what decisions are the most profitable anyway? That bit of misinformation needs to die.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Seriously. Yes, the management of the company could be sued for intentionally tanking a company, but even that would need some egregious shit like emails saying "lol we're tanking the company on purpose" to get anywhere with it.

    Long term profits, building brand awareness and goodwill are things companies can aim for instead of short term profits.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    Remember that scene in the Dark Knight where the Joker holds a giant cash bonfire, burning all that mob cash? I'm pretty sure a CEO would have to do that before they could actually be sued by shareholders for not seeking maximum profit. There are just too many possible paths to profit otherwise, and they're allowed to focus on the long term rather than the short term.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    That's not how the shareholder theory of value works. Companies have wide latitude in how they pursue profit, including being able to focus on the long term over the short term. As a shareholder, the only way you're winning a lawsuit against a publicly traded company for not seeking profit is if they do something insane to deliberately lose money. Like if the CEO gathers up a billion in cash and holds a literal money bonfire. That's what it would take for you to actually be able to sue a company for not seeking maximum profit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •