Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Meh. That's kinda false. The employees own peanuts. Most stocks of the big publicly traded companies are owned by the extremely wealthy or institutional investors. A fraction of 1% own more than 50% of all stocks. That ain't the employees. 10% own around 90% of all stocks. Again...that ain't the employees.

Man, there are a whole lot of wealthy people who worked for publicly traded companies, and retired early when they sold their shares and exercised options.

I'm trying to think of an example where a large company acted unethically but legally for profit.  I'm sure an example exists, but it could be arguable as to the ethical part.

The legal part at least tries to be clear cut.  Ethics is in the eye of ...

Walmart employee received more than $6 billion in public assistance one year. Perhaps it is ethical to employ people at a level where they still get government assistance. But I dunno.

Walmart employee received more than $6 billion in public assistance one year. Perhaps it is ethical to employ people at a level where they still get government assistance. But I dunno.

HuH?

I'm trying to think of an example where a large company acted unethically but legally for profit.  I'm sure an example exists, but it could be arguable as to the ethical part.

The legal part at least tries to be clear cut.  Ethics is in the eye of ...

An example would perhaps be when Nike was getting criticized for basically using sweatshop labor in low cost countries. 

I think an argument can be made for using low cost countries, even when wages or working conditions aren't the same as what we enjoy in the US. The reason people are lining up for those jobs is because they're a lot better than subsistence farming. And sometimes in a competitive market, you HAVE to use those lower cost countries to be competitive on price. 

But it's hard to justify paying sweatshop (and sometimes child) labor to assemble sneakers for peanuts and then selling those sneakers for $200 a pair. It's not like they were doing this to compete on price--it was by definition a luxury lifestyle item.

A particular unethical version of this that exists is when a company contracts out production of item X to the lowest bidder, and turns a blind eye to what corners must be cut to reach that lowest bid. And then if they're "caught" for it, blaming the third party instead of owning up to the fact that they had zero oversight. 

None of that's illegal. But I'd charge it's unethical.

That's a better example, I think.  Imagine Nike doesn't do this, but a competitor does.  The competitor has a lower cost structure and can either make more profit or charge lower prices (or both).  Eventually Nike is going to suffer as a result.

Nike isn't going to suffer shit. They have an economic moat. There is no shoe company ever that is putting a dent in anything they do. Not happening.

So let's assume that the analogy is that Fortune 500 CEOs are like P5 HCs. Any level below that (G5, FCS, etc) probably isn't an amenable analogy to this discussion. P5 should be the level of elite, yes, even though we usually call "elite" a much smaller group.

Let me ask you this... Would ALL P5 HCs cheat if it meant they'd get some blue chip athlete? Heck, would ALL P5 HCs outright lie to the blue chip recruit--promise playing time, promise that he wouldn't switch his position, etc to get him on campus?

Because that's the direct analogy of your statement.

And lest we put words in your mouth, if you don't actually believe they ALL would do that, what percentage do you believe would?

Again, this is comparing what I said to the whole population when I specified only the big corporations, which isn't like all P5 HCs, but only the successful ones at helmet programs.  

If the executives are making decisions that harm or piss off the employees, and the best employees--the ones with the most alternative options--start leaving en masse to competitors, what happens to the shareholders?

The execs have to answer to the BoD and the owners (i.e. shareholders), but they also have to answer to the employees. Swinging the balance too far in either direction hurts both.

And here, you're saying the decision-makers' choosing profits over ethics would only affect the employees.  But there are the customers, competitors, etc. to consider. 

Hey, a company can axe 20% of the workforce, but if I'm part of the 80% that stayed, I'm happy.  Don't forget that the idea of answering to your employees is time-sensitive.  They're only your employees if you haven't gotten rid of them (yet).