Nouvelles diverses | Page 3

L’auteur américain Robert Reich a pris sa plume pour dénoncer la situation de GM et le fait que les actionnaires sont encore les victimes d’une gouvernance critiquable : « Robert B. Reich: GM is the story of the American worker » (The Baltimore Sun, 23 septembre 2019). Une belle réflexion que je vous fait connaître ici.

Extrait :

When GM went public again in 2010, it boasted to Wall Street that 43 percent of its cars were made outside the United States in places where labor cost less than $15 an hour, while in America it could now pay « lower-tiered » wages and benefits for new employees. The corporation came roaring back. Over the last three years it’s made $35 billion in North America. But its workers are still getting measly pay packages, and GM is still outsourcing like mad. Last year it assigned its new Chevrolet Blazer, a sport utility vehicle that had been made in the United States, to a Mexican plant, while announcing it would lay off 18,000 American workers. Earlier this year it shut its giant plant in Lordstown, Ohio, which Donald Trump had vowed to save. « Don’t move. Don’t sell your house, » he said at a rally in Youngstown, Ohio, in 2017. GM is still getting corporate welfare — since Trump took office, some $600 million in federal contracts and $700 million in tax breaks (including Trump’s giant corporate tax cut). Some of this largesse has gone into the pockets of GM executives. Chairman and CEO Mary Barra raked in almost $22 million in total compensation last year. Last month, the Business Roundtable — a confab of American CEOs, on whose executive committee Barra sits — pledged to compensate all employees « fairly » and provide them « important benefits. » Why should anyone believe them? For 40 years these CEOs have fought unions, outsourced jobs abroad, loaded up on labor-replacing technologies without retraining their workers, and abandoned their communities when they could do things more cheaply elsewhere. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos signed the same statement. Last week, Amazon-owned Whole Foods announced it would be cutting medical benefits for its entire part-time workforce — at a total savings of about what Bezos makes in two hours. Corporate profits have reached record levels, but nothing has trickled down to most workers. Profits now constitute a larger portion of national income, and wages a lower portion, than at any time since World War II. These profits are generating higher share prices (fueled by share buybacks) and higher executive pay, resulting in wider inequality. The richest 1 percent of Americans own about 40 percent of all shares of stock; the richest 10 percent, around 80 percent. The demise of unions explains much of this. In the mid-1950s, over a third of all workers in the private sector were unionized. This gave them substantial bargaining power to get higher wages and benefits. Today, just 6.4 percent of private-sector workers are unionized, eliminating most of that bargaining power. Researchers have found that between 1952 and 1988, almost all of the rise in share values came as a result of economic growth, but from 1989 to 2017, economic growth accounted for just 24 percent of the rise. Most of the increase has come from money that otherwise would have gone to workers. America’s shift from farm to factory was accompanied by decades of bloody labor conflict. The subsequent shift from factory to office and other service jobs created further social upheaval. The more recent power shift from workers to shareholders — and consequentially, the dramatic widening of inequality — has happened far more quietly, but it has had a more unfortunate and more lasting consequence for the system: stagnant wages, abandoned communities and an angry working class vulnerable to demagogues peddling authoritarianism, racism and xenophobia. Donald Trump didn’t come from nowhere, but he’s a fake champion of the working class. If he were the real thing, he’d be walking the picket line with GM workers.

À la prochaine…

Belle nouvelle d’il y a quelques heures : la loi PACTE a été définitivement adoptée !

Texte adopté, en lecture définitive, par l’Assemblée nationale le ‎11 avril 2019‎

À la prochaine…

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, merci à Leo Strine de rappeler cette évidence : les CA doivent se préoccuper des parties prenantes ! Dans son article « Corporate Power is Corporate Purpose I: Evidence from My Hometown », Leo Strine s’appuie sur une analyse historique ô combien intéressante… À lire de toute urgence

Le message est clair (j’ai extrait deux phrases qui me semblent ne prêter guère le flanc à la critique) :

• This article is the first in a series considering a rather tired argument in corporate governance circles, that corporate laws that give only rights to stockholders somehow implicitly empower directors to regard other constituencies as equal ends in governance.
• DuPont’s board knew that only one corporate constituency — the stockholders — called the shots and that they were expected to make their end investors’ best interests, even if that meant hurting other constituencies. The DuPont saga isn’t a story about bad people, but a reminder to those with genuine concern for non-shareholder constituencies to face the truth and support changes in the power dynamics affecting corporate governance that make due regard for non-shareholder constituencies a required obligation for the conduct of business.

Using recent events in the corporate history of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company—more commonly referred to today as DuPont—as a case study, this article makes the point that the board of directors is elected by only one constituency—stockholders—and that core power structure translates into corporate purpose. DuPont is an American icon, creator of household names like Nylon and Mylar, which prided itself on its core values, which included commitments to the safety and health of the communities in which DuPont operated and to treat its employees with dignity and respect. But when an activist investor came, DuPont reacted by preemptively downsizing—cutting jobs, and spinning off assets. After winning the proxy fight, DuPont failed to meet the aggressive earnings it used in its campaign. More job cuts came, the CEO was replaced with a member of her proxy fight slate, and DuPont soon embraced a merger consistent with the activists’ goals. At the same time, DuPont demanded tax and other incentives from the affected community it had asked to rally around it in the proxy fight. It did all this even though at no time was there a threat of a lawsuit or judicial intervention from unhappy shareholders. The DuPont saga illustrates how power dictates purpose in our corporate governance system. DuPont’s board knew that only one corporate constituency—the stockholders—called the shots and that they were expected to make their end investors’ best interests, even if that meant hurting other constituencies. The DuPont saga isn’t a story about bad people, but a reminder to those with genuine concern for non-shareholder constituencies to face the truth and support changes in the power dynamics affecting corporate governance that make due regard for non-shareholder constituencies a required obligation for the conduct of business.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian