That’s an outdated way of thinking about management styles. Managing for the stockholders only is meaningful than managing for all stakeholders — including customers, employees, and community. If some investors don’t like that, they’re free to divest and invest in an org that better matches their values.
Nonsense. A company is legally obligated to act in the interests of their shareholders and their board. They are not required or expected to posture and seek out attention for “human rights” or identity politics or anything which is not strictly about Apple. Confusing Apple’s mission with political distractions drags the entire company off message and off focus.
apple factory workers work in TERRIBLE conditions and even commit suicides and they wanna talk about human rights? why don’t they just fix their terrible practices first?
apple factory workers work in TERRIBLE conditions and even commit suicides and they wanna talk about human rights? why don’t they just fix their terrible practices first?
Wrong. Apple pays their workers ABOVE the standard wages for similar jobs in China and suppliers which violate their requirements are “fired” from their supplier list.
Steve Jobs had stated ad nauseam "Get out of this stock" to those that suggested Apple should be more profit driven.
Unfortunately that's not the motto of Cook, who is all about the numbers.
Umm... Cook specifically told a pesky, anti-climate shareholder in 2014 to stuff it: "“When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don’t consider the bloody ROI;” Cook said, adding that the same sentiment applied to environmental and health and safety issues.He told Danhof that if he did not believe in climate change, he should sell his Apple shares. “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock,” he said."
apple factory workers work in TERRIBLE conditions and even commit suicides and they wanna talk about human rights? why don’t they just fix their terrible practices first?
There is no such thing as “human rights.” If there was, everyone would have them. Apple should stop buckling to pressure from radical progressive groups and stay laser-focused on products and profitability. If any execs from Apple want to be political, they should do it on their own time and not use Apple’s money to do it.
Idiotic nonsense. Of course there are. Just because they aren’t recognized by all state actors doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Apple has a culture of shares values, and it’s free to manage to that culture of values. If it offends you, then get out of Apple and stop whining.
For someone who is supposedly all about equality, that obviously doesn't extend to equality of wealth.
There is no such thing as “human rights.” If there was, everyone would have them. Apple should stop buckling to pressure from radical progressive groups and stay laser-focused on products and profitability. If any execs from Apple want to be political, they should do it on their own time and not use Apple’s money to do it.
That’s an outdated way of thinking about management styles. Managing for the stockholders only is meaningful than managing for all stakeholders — including customers, employees, and community. If some investors don’t like that, they’re free to divest and invest in an org that better matches their values.
Nonsense. A company is legally obligated to act in the interests of their shareholders and their board. They are not required or expected to posture and seek out attention for “human rights” or identity politics or anything which is not strictly about Apple. Confusing Apple’s mission with political distractions drags the entire company off message and off focus.
The fucked up thing is you equate these actions with "posturing" and "seeking attention" when the reality is they're taking responsibility for managing their impact on society and the environment. To be clear, by dismissing this policy, you apparently are advocating for: harassment, discrimination, violence, retaliation, prejudice, bigotry, injustice, racism, slavery, and other violations of international human rights and labor standards. That's pretty messed up.
"As a global technology company, we feel a deep sense of responsibility to make technology for people that respects their human rights, empowers them with useful tools and information, and enhances their overall quality of life." — clearly this not only applies to the products they make, but the processes used to make them.
apple factory workers work in TERRIBLE conditions and even commit suicides and they wanna talk about human rights? why don’t they just fix their terrible practices first?
Those aren't Apple factories, they belong to their manufacturing partners. And you can read Apple's commitment to holding those companies accountable here:
There is no such thing as “human rights.” If there was, everyone would have them. Apple should stop buckling to pressure from radical progressive groups and stay laser-focused on products and profitability. If any execs from Apple want to be political, they should do it on their own time and not use Apple’s money to do it.
Thankfully the world disagrees with this myopic mindset.
Maybe yours does, but for the most part the real world doesn’t give a rat’s ass about you or anyone else. It sounds harsh, but so is the real world. If “the world” cared you wouldn’t have the world you have.
You are correct if you are speaking of nature and the universe.
If you are speaking of society and developed society -- particularly democratic societies not under the thumb of a corrupt despot -- then it strives to recognize and enforce those human rights including the right to "life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
We here in the U.S., as we are seeing, tend to talk a better game than we play. But still, despite groups of racists, homophobes and misogynists, overall we strive to recognize and support those inalienable human rights.
There is no such thing as “human rights.” If there was, everyone would have them. Apple should stop buckling to pressure from radical progressive groups and stay laser-focused on products and profitability. If any execs from Apple want to be political, they should do it on their own time and not use Apple’s money to do it.
I agree, Cook needs to stop using Apple as a political platform. There is nothing to gain by doing so and a lot to lose. Jobs never did it because he knew what a hole he could dig himself and Apple.
Jobs was political and he made contributions to his political party of choice, but he never advertised that fact and never sought attention for it. This is an unfortunate failing of Tim Cook to not always keep focus on Apple the company and their products.
Wrong
Cook avoids politics. But not values and ethics. He even stoops to working with Chump.
apple factory workers work in TERRIBLE conditions and even commit suicides and they wanna talk about human rights? why don’t they just fix their terrible practices first?
This is patently absurd nonsense.
Actually, and unfortunately, it has enough truth in it to make it legitimate: Workers assembling iPhones often work under conditions the U.S. saw 100 some years ago and, yes, there have been suicides.
But, not only has Apple worked to improve conditions for those workers but, it must be realized that things like working conditions are relative: what a U.S. worker sees as acceptable is very, very different from what worker in a developing country sees as acceptable,
It has been clear for years that you are the target for Facebook. Just stop feeding the dragon.
I don't use Facebook, I never had an account there and NEVER visited their site but I have always tracking cookies from them. And now Apple is postponing the tracking cookies blocking, so I say again that Cook and Zuck are driven only by $ and not by some human righta!
There is no such thing as “human rights.” If there was, everyone would have them. Apple should stop buckling to pressure from radical progressive groups and stay laser-focused on products and profitability. If any execs from Apple want to be political, they should do it on their own time and not use Apple’s money to do it.
What an abhorrent attitude. It is the attitude of the privileged and of the boot-licker. There’s nothing “radical” about human rights and the stock market should NEVER come first over human rights.
Get out of the stock market; it poisons everything, including minds. Open your eyes to, and embrace the real world where people actually live.
That’s an outdated way of thinking about management styles. Managing for the stockholders only is meaningful than managing for all stakeholders — including customers, employees, and community. If some investors don’t like that, they’re free to divest and invest in an org that better matches their values.
Nonsense. A company is legally obligated to act in the interests of their shareholders and their board. They are not required or expected to posture and seek out attention for “human rights” or identity politics or anything which is not strictly about Apple. Confusing Apple’s mission with political distractions drags the entire company off message and off focus.
No, YOUR comments are Nonsense. It is not a legal obligation. That’s a myth. It’s simply one of those messed-up norms because law allows stockholders to sue the company for poor performance.
That’s an outdated way of thinking about management styles. Managing for the stockholders only is meaningful than managing for all stakeholders — including customers, employees, and community. If some investors don’t like that, they’re free to divest and invest in an org that better matches their values.
Nonsense. A company is legally obligated to act in the interests of their shareholders and their board. They are not required or expected to posture and seek out attention for “human rights” or identity politics or anything which is not strictly about Apple. Confusing Apple’s mission with political distractions drags the entire company off message and off focus.
It's not nonsense at all. Maybe in your retirement you aren't abreast of what's current out here in the real world and real market place. Tons of major corporations have iterated their comment to multiple stakeholders -- including customers, employees, and the community. And human rights is a perfectly valid corporate value. They're free to implement corporate governance as they see fit.
"Many business leaders, policymakers, and average Americans accept this doctrine of corporate governance as “natural” law—the unshakeable reality of business. However, shareholder-focused corporations are not natural market creations, and the idea of “maximizing shareholder value” is relatively recent. This misguided focus, driven by the neoliberal conception of shareholders as the only actor within the firm who is critical to corporate success, is the result of decades of flawed theory in corporate law and policy. Increasing economic evidence suggests that shareholder primacy is not benefiting other corporate stakeholders, including workers, suppliers, consumers, or communities."
And more, on the 200 CEOs who are committing to multiple stakeholders:
...If you don't like it, you don't like Apple. You're free to get out of Apple....or just keep whining about it. As is you're confusing your "grievance politics" with something important, or the values of Apple. They're free to disregard your crankpot grievance politics.
That’s an outdated way of thinking about management styles. Managing for the stockholders only is meaningful than managing for all stakeholders — including customers, employees, and community. If some investors don’t like that, they’re free to divest and invest in an org that better matches their values.
Nonsense. A company is legally obligated to act in the interests of their shareholders and their board. They are not required or expected to posture and seek out attention for “human rights” or identity politics or anything which is not strictly about Apple. Confusing Apple’s mission with political distractions drags the entire company off message and off focus.
It's not nonsense at all. Maybe in your retirement you aren't abreast of what's current out here in the real world and real market place. Tons of major corporations have iterated their comment to multiple stakeholders -- including customers, employees, and the community. And human rights is a perfectly valid corporate value. They're free to implement corporate governance as they see fit.
"Many business leaders, policymakers, and average Americans accept this doctrine of corporate governance as “natural” law—the unshakeable reality of business. However, shareholder-focused corporations are not natural market creations, and the idea of “maximizing shareholder value” is relatively recent. This misguided focus, driven by the neoliberal conception of shareholders as the only actor within the firm who is critical to corporate success, is the result of decades of flawed theory in corporate law and policy. Increasing economic evidence suggests that shareholder primacy is not benefiting other corporate stakeholders, including workers, suppliers, consumers, or communities."
And more, on the 200 CEOs who are committing to multiple stakeholders:
...If you don't like it, you don't like Apple. You're free to get out of Apple....or just keep whining about it. As is you're confusing your "grievance politics" with something important, or the values of Apple. They're free to disregard your crankpot grievance politics.
Yes, it's different models:
Corporations that are in it for the long haul know that, while they need to serve their shareholders, that they are not in it alone: They know that to succeed over the long term they are partners with employees, vendors and customers and that everybody benefits from serving each other.
On the other hand, increasingly we have private equity MBAs buying up companies and milking them dry before moving on to the next. And the next. And the next.
Plus, with management increasingly being paid in stock and options, they are much more inclined to serve the short term benefit of stock holders while short changing employees, vendors and customers as well as the long term prospect of the corporation they are supposed to serve.
Neither is good for the future of American capitalism.
That’s an outdated way of thinking about management styles. Managing for the stockholders only is meaningful than managing for all stakeholders — including customers, employees, and community. If some investors don’t like that, they’re free to divest and invest in an org that better matches their values.
Nonsense. A company is legally obligated to act in the interests of their shareholders and their board. They are not required or expected to posture and seek out attention for “human rights” or identity politics or anything which is not strictly about Apple. Confusing Apple’s mission with political distractions drags the entire company off message and off focus.
It's not nonsense at all. Maybe in your retirement you aren't abreast of what's current out here in the real world and real market place. Tons of major corporations have iterated their comment to multiple stakeholders -- including customers, employees, and the community. And human rights is a perfectly valid corporate value. They're free to implement corporate governance as they see fit.
"Many business leaders, policymakers, and average Americans accept this doctrine of corporate governance as “natural” law—the unshakeable reality of business. However, shareholder-focused corporations are not natural market creations, and the idea of “maximizing shareholder value” is relatively recent. This misguided focus, driven by the neoliberal conception of shareholders as the only actor within the firm who is critical to corporate success, is the result of decades of flawed theory in corporate law and policy. Increasing economic evidence suggests that shareholder primacy is not benefiting other corporate stakeholders, including workers, suppliers, consumers, or communities."
And more, on the 200 CEOs who are committing to multiple stakeholders:
...If you don't like it, you don't like Apple. You're free to get out of Apple....or just keep whining about it. As is you're confusing your "grievance politics" with something important, or the values of Apple. They're free to disregard your crankpot grievance politics.
When Tim Cook dismissed a critic in a shareholder meeting, that was his opinion. He is not guaranteed a job at Apple, nor is anyone else.
Also, what do opinions about running a business coming out of Harvard have to do with anything? Who cares what they say? And... CNBC and the NY Times? Please.
That’s an outdated way of thinking about management styles. Managing for the stockholders only is meaningful than managing for all stakeholders — including customers, employees, and community. If some investors don’t like that, they’re free to divest and invest in an org that better matches their values.
Nonsense. A company is legally obligated to act in the interests of their shareholders and their board. They are not required or expected to posture and seek out attention for “human rights” or identity politics or anything which is not strictly about Apple. Confusing Apple’s mission with political distractions drags the entire company off message and off focus.
It's not nonsense at all. Maybe in your retirement you aren't abreast of what's current out here in the real world and real market place. Tons of major corporations have iterated their comment to multiple stakeholders -- including customers, employees, and the community. And human rights is a perfectly valid corporate value. They're free to implement corporate governance as they see fit.
"Many business leaders, policymakers, and average Americans accept this doctrine of corporate governance as “natural” law—the unshakeable reality of business. However, shareholder-focused corporations are not natural market creations, and the idea of “maximizing shareholder value” is relatively recent. This misguided focus, driven by the neoliberal conception of shareholders as the only actor within the firm who is critical to corporate success, is the result of decades of flawed theory in corporate law and policy. Increasing economic evidence suggests that shareholder primacy is not benefiting other corporate stakeholders, including workers, suppliers, consumers, or communities."
And more, on the 200 CEOs who are committing to multiple stakeholders:
...If you don't like it, you don't like Apple. You're free to get out of Apple....or just keep whining about it. As is you're confusing your "grievance politics" with something important, or the values of Apple. They're free to disregard your crankpot grievance politics.
When Tim Cook dismissed a critic in a shareholder meeting, that was his opinion. He is not guaranteed a job at Apple, nor is anyone else.
Also, what do opinions about running a business coming out of Harvard have to do with anything? Who cares what they say? And... CNBC and the NY Times? Please.
Let me know how firing Tim (or dismissing our preeminent business school, and news papers) works out for you....
There is no such thing as “human rights.” If there was, everyone would have them. Apple should stop buckling to pressure from radical progressive groups and stay laser-focused on products and profitability. If any execs from Apple want to be political, they should do it on their own time and not use Apple’s money to do it.
Thankfully the world disagrees with this myopic mindset.
Maybe yours does, but for the most part the real world doesn’t give a rat’s ass about you or anyone else. It sounds harsh, but so is the real world. If “the world” cared you wouldn’t have the world you have.
I’ll wager I have seen a lot more of the world than you have and yes the consensus of people is that human rights are very real.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/03/tim-cook-climate-change-sceptics-ditch-apple-shares
Add: I see that someone else posted this as well. But I'll leave it here.
The fucked up thing is you equate these actions with "posturing" and "seeking attention" when the reality is they're taking responsibility for managing their impact on society and the environment. To be clear, by dismissing this policy, you apparently are advocating for: harassment, discrimination, violence, retaliation, prejudice, bigotry, injustice, racism, slavery, and other violations of international human rights and labor standards. That's pretty messed up.
"As a global technology company, we feel a deep sense of responsibility to make technology for people that respects their human rights, empowers them with useful tools and information, and enhances their overall quality of life." — clearly this not only applies to the products they make, but the processes used to make them.
Meanwhile, you're over here like:
Maybe you'd prefer a different brand?
https://appleinsider.com/articles/16/08/11/samsung-accused-of-poisoning-over-200-workers-then-withholding-information-on-toxins-it-exposed-them-to
Yeah, except when he said exactly that:
Tim Cook to Climate Skeptic Group: Get Out of Apple Stock
"If you only want me to make things, make decisions that have a clear ROI, then you should get out of the stock," Cook said to applause.https://mashable.com/2014/02/28/apple-ceo-tim-cook-climate-change/
https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/
And now Apple is postponing the tracking cookies blocking, so I say again that Cook and Zuck are driven only by $ and not by some human righta!
Get out of the stock market; it poisons everything, including minds. Open your eyes to, and embrace the real world where people actually live.
https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/academics/clarke_business_law_institute/corporations-and-society/Common-Misunderstandings-About-Corporations.cfm
Educate yourself here:
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/02/11/towards-accountable-capitalism-remaking-corporate-law-through-stakeholder-governance/
"Many business leaders, policymakers, and average Americans accept this doctrine of corporate governance as “natural” law—the unshakeable reality of business. However, shareholder-focused corporations are not natural market creations, and the idea of “maximizing shareholder value” is relatively recent. This misguided focus, driven by the neoliberal conception of shareholders as the only actor within the firm who is critical to corporate success, is the result of decades of flawed theory in corporate law and policy. Increasing economic evidence suggests that shareholder primacy is not benefiting other corporate stakeholders, including workers, suppliers, consumers, or communities."
And more, on the 200 CEOs who are committing to multiple stakeholders:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/19/the-ceos-of-nearly-two-hundred-companies-say-shareholder-value-is-no-longer-their-main-objective.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/business/business-roundtable-ceos-corporations.html
...If you don't like it, you don't like Apple. You're free to get out of Apple....or just keep whining about it. As is you're confusing your "grievance politics" with something important, or the values of Apple. They're free to disregard your crankpot grievance politics.
Yes, it's different models:
Also, what do opinions about running a business coming out of Harvard have to do with anything? Who cares what they say? And... CNBC and the NY Times? Please.