LogFAQs > #910680844

s0nicfan posted...

It also says no less than 40% of the board needs to be elected by the company, which seems like its just federal unionization by a different name.

You may be unfamiliar with how board elections work, but shareholders vote for their board members, and typically 1 share = 1 vote.

I'll need to read the subsection she references for the employee-election more closely to verify relevance of the rule and whether this would actually supersede shareholder voting.

s0nicfan posted...

Let's start with this: the president gets to appoint the director of this new federal agency. Ignoring the panic this would cause when someone like Trump appoints someone he wants, how do corporations deal with the fact that, potentially every 4 years, the rules they're expected to follow can be arbitrarily adjusted by a single person's whims?

Same way they deal with literally every other federal agency out there: the agencies are required to be forthcoming with what rules they expect to roll out or remove, and companies are generally provided substantial lead time (often > 1 year) to adjust for the new regulations.

s0nicfan posted...

How about the fact that said person has the ability to reject charters, effectively blocking businesses from even competing?

Lead/rollout times are likely to make this a non-issue.

The vagueness of the 'materially positive impact' portion makes it a weak bill, further undermining the risk from this. Vague rules like this lead to court rulings that state that 'materially positive' allows for much more flexibility on the corporation's side, not much more stringency from the regulator's side.

It's a weak bill, rather than an unreasonably strong bill.
---

And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not.