JWSC

robin huber said:

We beat these guys when my Community College went union some years back. When will U.S. corps realize that partnering with their union is a win-win compared to perpetual haggling? Both union and management say they want what’s best for employees and customers; why not test it? This approach is common in Germany where unions have a seat on the board and work together. 

The German solution where the union has a seat on the BoD is brilliant.  It acknowledges that the company is not just about the profits and shareholders but also about the employees and the local communities.  Implementing that here in the U.S. poses both cultural and legal challenges.  The fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders enshrined in U.S. law would be tricky to navigate.  I'm sure it can be done.  But it would not be easy.  Perhaps someone knows of some examples.

It is disappointing that Apple has allowed fruit-stand employee morale and sentiment to deteriorate so badly that a majority are ready to unionize.  Something has gone wrong.  Regardless of what one might think about unions, the employees are sending a loud and clear message to management.  Apple should listen.

Poor iPhone mini.  We (apparently a vocal minority) asked for one and Apple delivered.  No one can complain.  I got an iPhone 12 mini.  Love it.  Will be sad to see it go.

Although my wife and my mother complain about the size of the iPhone Max, they still prefer the large size because they like to read books on their iPhones.  I ask why they don't use their perfectly good iPads for reading and they shrug their shoulders.  I don't get it.

Assuming this is true, the recent Shanghai lockdowns have provided Apple with a politically acceptable excuse (from a CCP perspective) for Apple to move a large percentage of its supply chain outside China.  Apple can point to 'supply chain instability' as a business reason, rather than the more concerning aspect of being reliant on business entities within a totalitarian regime that thinks little of human rights.  Apple doesn't want to talk about that with China for fear that it would put them in bad standing with CCP officials.  But the supply chain excuse can be viewed as non-political.

We all get the government we deserve.

foregoneconclusion said:

JWSC said:

sevenfeet said:

I think Elon Musk realized that being a board officer would put him under even more constraints on the use of Twitter than he currently has. Musk's problems right now come from the fact that he can't say anything he wants about a public company about Tesla without running afoul of SEC rules. Joining Twitter's board wouldn't change that....in fact, he'd be under even more communication constraints since he'd be a fiduciary officer who is supposed to be looking out for the company's best interests. It's not that he cannot publicly disagree with the rest of the board, but there would be limits as an officer as to when and how that is done. It's better for him to remain on the outside.

Yea, I think a lot of people are misreading what's happening.  Musk is not backing off in any way.  As you state, joining the board would constrain him in ways that he has determined would be unhelpful to his ambitions for Twitter.  Get your popcorn out people.  This is going to be fun to watch.

LOL...Musk and his brother are both being investigated for insider trading by the SEC. That's happening AFTER Musk already had to settle a securities fraud charge with the SEC several years ago and is now attempting to back out of the settlement. How is he qualified to sit on Twitter's board and provide "advice"? 

So I did a little on-line research into the SEC investigation.  They're probing him about the sales of Tesla shares after he asked Twitter users via a poll if he should sell his shares in order to pay taxes.  This was done after much criticism was leveled at Musk for paying so little in taxes.  One only pays taxes on capital gains and not stock prices rises, which didn't seem to matter to his detractors.  So Musk asked and the people answered - sell shares and pay taxes, which he did.  This was all done publicly.  Accusations of insider trading are spurious in this case.  It appears that the SEC is going after him for not having his public Tweets be vetted by the SEC in advance, which was included in the terms of settlement in an earlier dust up with the SEC.

As far as I can tell, the SEC is not currently investigating Musk for his trading of Twitter stock - at least not publicly.  Musk has been open about his contempt for the SEC as an organization, stating that it is under the purview of vested interests that are not aligned with the good of the general public and the markets.  He has stated that he is prepared to expose them.  I guess you could call it a sort of threat to the SEC apparatchiks.  No love lost there.