vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I know the general principles of acting as a director in a company, and am familiar with the rights of shareholders. In the last ten years or so, I believe Australia has introduced legislation that strongly punishes those directors who do not act in a professional or prudent manner. While I will of course attempt to fulfill the duties required - I am new to conducting business at this level, and am concerned about mistakenly breaching some unknown rule/law and being subject to repercussions that I just don't know about. As you have already stated, the key to being director in a company is the additional responsibility. Legally you can be held in breach. At the same time you will be able to influence your decision much better if you a director and thus safeguard your interest. If you are only a shareholder, you cannot be held responsible for decision by company, individual malpractice may still be applicable, but this is less of a risk. However over a period of time, the board can take certain decision that may marginalize your holding in the company.
Yes and no. They can not do things related to work for periods of time, often long periods, but not if something big goes on or anything important goes on. They are responsible if anything, anything at all, that happens if shit hits the fan. The CEO is more responsible for strategy than anything else, not day-to-day, so yes, they can just leave...unless something happens.  Sure, 99.9+% of the time the COO or regional/segment managers at various levels are dealing with anything that comes up instead of them, just sending them updates, but CEOs are ultimately responsible for this. CEOs travel, get breakfast with customers/suppliers/investors and don't look at their phone for hours at a time. But someone knows where/how to find them or they are in contact soon enough. They can't go AWOL and be out of contact for long.
Completely depends on the business.  Apple and Amazon - I agree.  Millions of other companies - maybe not so much.  In many companies your customer tell you what they want and the CEO is far more valuable for maintaining relations, building teams, getting financing, eradicating inefficiencies, etc.
It is also worth noting that one of the character defining features of a publicly traded company is that the management that is responsible for the day to day operations of the stands independent of those who have ownership. Shareholder of a public company typically don't have influence over the day to day running of the company.
Yes, I agree.  Systems are everything. I'll need to really understand everything about the business before implementing a good system.   Good tip about designing roles around people and moving them around. It's quite a small business but I'm sure I can be creative regarding role specs, at the very least I could add projects which play to their strengths.
We invest heavily in skills and we expect you to contribute to our goal of becoming West Palm Beach, FL best advisory company. Within business consulting, it means that you have basic knowledge in all three main areas, business management, business development, NQ consulting and financial management, as well as developing deeper skills in one or more areas. We work with individual development plans and you have the opportunity to greatly influence your future work situation and role in the market.
They don't care..   the people making those choices are judged on the short term basis; ie yearly bonus.  They make the choice to move it over, reap a massive bonus for a couple of years before the profit starts to crumble then they bail out.  I've seen it happen at no less than 5 of my clients.
Business, complex economic operations concerning those functions that govern the production, distribution, and sale of goods and services for the benefit of the buyer and the profit of the seller. The economic transformation ushered in by the Industrial Revolution brought with it new and constantly changing ways of conducting business, and the creation of new forms of business organization that themselves have subsequently evolved to a greater or lesser degree. The main forms of business organization are described below.
This is one of the most repeated claims on reddit, that companies are legally obligated to maximize shareholder profit. But articles like [this say otherwise.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-goal-that-changed-corporate-america/2013/08/26/26e9ca8e-ed74-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_story.html)  Of course, it does all come back to regulations. Companies may not be forced to maximize profit, but its obviously their goal. They certainly won't always make decisions for the good of society over their profit, and I can't blame them for that. It isn't the responsibility of a business to fix the worlds problems. But it is still their choice.
Investors are typically a part of the board of directors of the company. Because of their ownership in the company, they have a vested interest in its stock price. The same is true for management also in cases where they hold a certain percentage of equity in the company. Their incentives also get aligned to the stock price.
And who do you trust to sell you a quality product? Someone so enamored with a company they will take a pay cut just to work with it, and only it? Or someone working for respectable living, just like you, who has several alternative choices in stock.
A very logical step for Starbucks and a smart business decision. This is especially true for the crowd that comes to hang out at their stores for the free wifi and can be there for over an hour. Having good food options will keep them there instead of making them leave to spend their money elsewhere.
I think that ties to overall attitudes in business. As much as IT isn't the money making aspect, and should act that way. Said money making aspects rely on IT to keep their systems running efficiently and effectively. That means equal levels of respect going both ways. Don't treat IT like plebs who only live to serve, because without them you're likely stuck trying to do things that you understand.
[**GLOBAL SERVICES**](http://www.corlissmoore.com)  We provide relevant insight to address a range of key business issues.  **Strategy Development and Execution**  - Strategic planning and strategy during uncertainty - Mergers and acquisitions (sourcing, transactions, and integration management) - Divestitures (sourcing, transactions, and separation management) - Project execution, implementation, and change management  **Pre-Crisis and Crisis Management**  - Turnaround - Liquidation  **Filling Gaps in Management**  - Global management - Interim management  **Corporate Governance Guidance**  - Board services  **Research and Analysis**  - Organizational, market, and strategic data collection and analysis  [CorlissMoore](http://www.corlissmoore.com/services.html) principals bring years of senior executive experience - we know and understand the issues faced by boards, management and stakeholders in today's turbulent economy.
This is a very good question and is at the core of corporate governance.  The CEO is a very powerful figure indeed. But always remember that he heads the firm's management only. He is appointed by the board of directors and is accountable to them. The board on the other hand is accountable to the firm's shareholders and creditors. The CEO is required to disclose his ownership of the firm as well.  Ideally, you (as a shareholder) would want the board of directors to be as independent of the management as it is possible. U.S. regulations require, among other things, the board of directors to disclose any material relationship they may have with the firm's employees, ex-employees, or their families. Such disclosures can be found in annual filings of a company. If the board of directors acts independently of the management then it acts to protect the shareholder's interests over the firm management's interest and take seemingly hard decisions (like dismissing a CEO) when they become necessary to protect the franchise and shareholder wealth.
No, you can also become more senior within the firm. It's not a board (of directors), it's just committees. Junior people (analyst/associates) screen deals and present it to senior people (VPs, directors) and if they think the deal should go ahead then even more senior people (MD/partners) will look at it and make the final decision. But such processes obviously depend on the firm...
"Malcolm Gladwell wrote a 2006 article called ""The Risk Pool"" documenting exactly that. Businesses did not want that power in their workers' hands, despite it being more efficient and better for their bottom line.  The unions went along with it because they thought eventually the costs would force them to come around.  They did not, instead places crushed by their benefit obligations like GM got bailed out and/or went into bankruptcy."
This one is pretty interesting in light of this OP's article (bold emphasis mine): &gt;“Mediocre company”  Former Employee in Park City, UT – **Reviewed Sep 1, 2010**  &gt;Pros – Convenient location, employee covered parking, ski passes (sometimes), competitive pay.  &gt;Cons – Corporate Management has no idea what's happening on the local level. **Owner of company sends emails to all employees with his political views, including who you should vote for during election season.** Health insurance premium is more expensive than I have ever paid elsewhere.  &gt;**Advice to Senior Management – Keep your political opinions to yourself.** Trust your local GM's and managers.
Most people will be in a different job 5-10 years down the line. For people working in these companies, for now, it's some other person's problem not theirs. Not because they don't believe it will happen, but individuals who's job it is to provide short term profits for shareholders are climbing the corporate ladder quicker than this tech gets implemented.  It's the ground floor workers that want jobs for life that end up getting shafted not the decision makers
A business consultant is more of an expert you turn to for help with your business. They teach you skills you don’t know, analyze your business and create an action plan for you to implement. Business consultants the goals you have for your business and help you create the plan of action required for you to actually accomplish those goals!
I work in finance so I like it. Although, many businesses are having their employees read it. My friends dad is the CEO of a metals company and he had his 100+ people at corporate all read it. Seemed to do well. All about perception I guess.
I understand where you are coming from, but you vote with your dollars. As long as you are willing to fork over for shitty service and shitty products, they will keep lowering the bar and keep treating the employees worse. When people stop buying, they either change their tune or go out of business. The financial reality is if you actually want improved working conditions for their employees, you need to have the fortitude to refuse to subsidise substandard behaviors.
My boss doesn't seem to do a good job of it.  I wonder, have you ever had a job?  I don't see any reason why I shouldn't have a say in the nature of my work, etc.  In fact, what I am saying is that some labor is necessary from the perspective of the capitalist, because she needs profits, but that doesn't mean it is necessary according to the workers.
I think it all boils down to choosing the right people to work for you whether they might be a local or from the other side of the world (outsourced).  What matters is they are able to do the work well. Saving on costs is just an added benefit.
Who really creates jobs? A symbiosis of entrepreneurs willing to take risk to introduce something to the market, consumer demand for more or new products, existing businesses expanding their base due to this demand, and yes, even government stimulation and incentive. Plus a hundred other factors I forgot.  It's never as simple as one might want it to be.
"I think I mis-read your comment above.    I agree, didn't mean to come off so snarky.   I don't believe her role involves what I would consider making traditional ""business decisions"".  However, I know from a few sources she is at the HQ regularly working on marketing and product / packaging designs."
While personal responsibility plays a vital role in economic mobility, forces outside individual control, such as access to better work, clearly applies as well. Different folks apply different weight to responsibility vs. access to opportunity, but in any case one should be at least mentioned with the other.
This information is often found toward the beginning of the proxy statement under a heading such as ""Votes Required to Adopt a Proposal"" or ""How Your Votes Are Counted."" Proposals other than an election of directors: Matters other than voting on the election of directors, like voting on shareholder proposals, are typically approved by a vote of a majority of the shares voting or present at the meeting. In this situation, you are usually given the choice to vote your shares ""for"" or ""against"" a proposal, or to ""abstain"" from voting on it. Again, the effect of an ""abstain"" vote may depend on the specific voting rule that applies. The company's proxy statement should again disclose the effect of an abstain vote."
Speaking as someone who manages their own HR for their small office business and has been through this before and knows full well the additional work involved from everyone, you'd be a proper dick if you let that influence your decisions.   Yes I know it's difficult, but these are valued members of the team, human beings to boot, and I'll happily do the extra work. It's all part of being human. I know I could make it easy on myself and just hire men, but from a moral standpoint that's repugnant and I'd never bring myself to do that.   Plus, prior planning for these eventualities makes it smoother. Not seamless, but not a massive shock either.
I have a union shop and participation has dropped dramatically. This is because have had no grievances in 20 years (1,600 employees at our height). In our perfect world we take care of the people who take care of us. I can't do my job without them and they can't do their job without me.
its about going all in instead of lets say keeping a half time job as backup, or maybe its about not doing something that is best for the business and doing something that will be easier to get rid of in case things dont work out (a different way of not going all in)
Society sets the values by which we judge actions. In the US, the choice has been to have business first class citizens, and humans second class. In the US you believe greed is good (and Christian for some bizarre reason) and you distrust your government.   In Europe we expect our government to protect us from sociopathic corporations, which are seen as a useful, but problematic, tool. Humans come before businesses. etc.   In the US you assign different values than we do in Europe. We optimize for a different goal function.
Maybe, maybe not. By and large my union rep and my governor (nevermind the secretary of state) are also likely to engage in high stakes--possibly higher-stakes--negotiation. So I'll ask again: what distinguishes public employees and union reps so that they should fly coach, but c-corp execs should get fancier tickets?
Miro Zecevic ‘s Tax Advisory Team works closely with you to understand your business and its corporate tax issues by Andrea rubio, the opportunities and risks your business faces. Corporate tax can be a complex issue. Enhanced regulatory and other relevant obligations mean you have less time to focus on the areas of your business that are important to you.
I disagree, the United States is one of the largest corporations in the world. The legislative and judiciary serve as the board, and the president; by virtue of his function, is the chairman.     Office of the President of the United States  The Executive Branch  Officer ... Executive  Commander in Chief  This isn't semantics; his role is to be CEO.
I too live in Europe.   being that you live in Europe you must also be aware of the vastly more generous labor laws than in the US. yet you would have the audacity insinuate that such laws are causing such social and economic upheaval.   You should ALWAYS care about the well being of your employees. when you need them to perform the job well, they will certainly remember that time you fucked them over when their kid broke their leg. or their mental health declined as you refused to give time off for bereavement. all of those things impact how said role is performed. if you cannot manage the fact that other people have personal lives you have no business as a manager.  and i know this might come as a shock. but bear with me. when people are paid more....they can afford to by more things. that drives.....the economy (unless your sole target demographic are the wealthy.). how anyone could be so short sighted to do otherwise is simply beyond reason.  ^ see a few examples of risks listed above. overworked employees fuck up more. thats a risk. disgruntled employees are a risk. underpaid workers are a risk. strong labor laws ensure employers don't become unruly, greedy slapdicks.
It's not about popularity.  The CEO position is quite demanding.  They usually have to manage many things.  Sure CEOs get terrible reputations because they make much more money than anyone else on the company, but the type of things they have to do and deal with aren't exactly simple.  The choices they make can literally make or break a company.
First, business turns into socialism because of heavy government regulation, trusts, collusion, corruption, lobbying, I could go on but I digress.  I think the debate here is:  &gt;If companies made wrong choice then market would punish them and companies that hire quality personnel would win out.  This is not an accepted truth by everybody on Reddit, in the USA, or in the world. For one thing, lobbying exists. For another: four competing companies can differ on more than 16 different choices, one of them can be company A ruins the environment and hires cheap immigrant labor, company D is good for the environment and good for labor, while companies B and C do one and not the other, alternatively. The environment and cheap immigrant labor are only 2 of 16 choices, such as marketing, donating to charity, having a corporate office near one of the plants versus in a geography with low taxes, having plants near certain resources, etc.  So, it isn't like one bad choice would ruin a company, or one right choice will ruin all of a company's competitors.  &gt;If companies made wrong choice then market would punish them and companies that hire quality personnel would win out.  You act like Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Cox Cable, and Comcast, must have terrific customer service ratings. That simply isn't how the market works, not for big banks, and not for telecoms. It probably doesn't work that way for oil companies, or major media conglomerates like Disney, it probably doesn't work that way for one single industry in the USA. Then again, maybe it does. But it certainly is conjecture, and you can't say,  &gt;That's not how economy work. If good people are worth the money, then companies would hire them.  As if this is a given or a fact. That is completely your opinion, popular or not.  In Capitalism, those who start out with the capital have a huge advantage to put out of business or buy out competition, until there is a monopoly, or at least a trust.
Every customer's circumstance is checked on consistently to guarantee top notch control. Amid business hours, one of our Account Associates is accessible for conference and aptitude. Instead of acquiring the cost of a full-time bookkeeper you pay just when you require guidance. Our key favorable position by Miroslav zecevic  to our clients is our coordinated business relationship that starts on the principal day a customer joins our firm. Consistently, our experts have worked with businesses of all sizes. Our extensive variety of services and aptitude secures the future development for some businesses over the globe.
The folks who hold stock are the legal owners of the company. If a majority of stock holders become unhappy with the management of a company they can fire the executives and put in new management, or they can direct the company to close its doors and sell off its assets. As a crude approximation, the stock holders are happier when the stock price goes up and unhappier when it goes down. Therefore, executives are highly motivated to drive the stock price up.  A frequent criticism of corporate governence is that management can be so motivated to drive the stock price up, that they will take actions that drive the stock price up in the current year, even if undercuts the company in the long term.
"That's the problem with capitalism.  It doesn't seem to recognize any conservation principle.  People may be employees when they're working, but when they're off the clock, they're customers.  Maybe not at the same place where they work, but at some other business somewhere else.  As a whole, businesses must pay employees in income what they expect to receive from customers in revenue.  Otherwise the economic ""circle of life"" ends.  What we've been seeing for decades however is business taking ever larger pieces of the pie, while employees/customers see their incomes wither.  This is where government comes in.  Taxation of the wealthiest individuals is the economic pump which takes the accumulated wealth and puts it back into circulation."
The fact you are asking this question, the number of up votes, uncovers the real cause of the banking crisis.    Answers which mention that shareholders will fire a public company board are on the bottom. It is obvious that a company owners are interested in company value. And should have direct and easy impact on a directors board if management doesn't increase shareholders wealth.  With large number of passive shareholders and current stock market system that impact is very limited. Hence your question.  So bank directors, upper management aren't that interested in company value. They are mostly interested in theirs bonuses, their wealth increase, not shareholders. And that's the real problem of capitalism. Public companies slowly drift to function like companies in former socialistic countries. These is no owner, everything is owned by a nation.
"Bad employees are a risk when they are not easily replaceable or have great responsibility, neither of which apply to Subway. I am aware of the multiplier effect, but there must be a corresponding value added to the economy, otherwise you artificially inflate prices and no one is better off. Caring for good employees and their well being is not the same as giving everyone a blanket ""living wage"" which could be honestly anything, depending on the standard of living used as an index."