Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SizzlerWA t1_j7y7ikq wrote

Yeah, this feels silly to me. They should be protected by their employer unless they actually did something criminal. Otherwise what’s the point of incorporating?

What’s next if this is allowed to progress?

I’m in favor of addressing climate change even if it costs $, but this is an unfair personal attack if you ask me. The end does not justify the means here.

−1

epelle9 t1_j7yf6cw wrote

You got this whole lawsuit wrong.

They aren’t suing them for hurting the environment, they are auing them for putting short term profits (which result in bonuses for the board) instead of investing in renewable energies that are now better investment for long term profits and survival of those corporations.

This isn’t about reducing profits to improve climate change, but its actually about them reducing corporate profits to worsen climate change (and improve their personal profit).

The board has a legal duty to handle the risks that come (to the company) from overuse of oil, and they failed that duty because they increased the long term risks to the company’s bottom line by overusing oil for increased bonuses.

4

SizzlerWA t1_j82bdgh wrote

I appreciate what you’re saying, and thanks for the analysis, I think it’s fair.

I just don’t condone doing an end run around the legal shields that corporations provide, otherwise everyday employees could be sued for their involvement in non-criminal work outcomes that people disagree with.

1