“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.”

  • UnspecificGravity@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    9 days ago

    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.

    • [deleted]@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      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.

      • stevestevesteve@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 days ago

        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.

        • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 days 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.

    • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.