Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Prooooooooooooop-8



http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/supporting-equality.html



Now this is interesting for me.  I am pro-gay marriage.  But I'm not 100% sure I'd want to work for a company that would take a social stand like this.  I'm with them in this case, but a company that will take a stand for an issue I agree with, will certainly someday take a stance I disagree with.  I wonder if shareholders will argue the point.


4 comments:

JimII said...

I think equal rights is a different topic than many political issues. I think you value equality and that is what the gay marriage issue is.

Cf. nuclear power, solar power, gun control, taxes, military force, preemptive war, coercive interrogation, immigration, etc. I think each of these can come and go out of fashion. I think equality is a unique value that seems to be generally expanding.

So, I think you can feel safe.

JimII said...

Would be able to feel safe.

shadowfax said...

I'm fascinated by the larger question of "what role should corporations play in civic life"? Meaning that of course corporations often do lobby for laws which directly impact their business, or which are closely related to their field. That's accepted -- maybe not a great thing for the republic but is clearly legitimate, both legally and from a fiduciary perspective.

But what about unrelated items? Should IBM have advocated for Civil Rights laws in the '50s and '60s? Would it have been OK for US Steel to have lobbied for (or against) Prohibition in the '20s? What if Monsanto's CEO were really anti-abortion?

As a shareholder, I wouldn't want the corporation spending my money on a political campaign I did not agree with. Is it a breach of fiduciary responsibility for companies to do so? What about simply taking a public stand?

I don't know the answer to this -- maybe Jim can shed some light on it.

JimII said...

Well, that's an interesting idea about violating the fiduciary duty. I don't think that would fly because I can't see how it is not in the corp's interest.

The spending money thing is preempted by the fact that candidates can't take their money. They have to set up separate PACs. Which BTW, is something I do. That and give advice on who can contribute and who you can solicit, etc.

(When I'm not deriving mathematical theorems)