Riding your OD to Canadian Optical Franchise Dominance in 10 Easy Steps

[optio]

removed

[NAICITPO]

A for profit company is ethically driven (within the bounds of the law) to make profit for the shareholders. Lawmakers know this, they usually multi-generation business people or lawyers themselves. The lawmakers decided in the moment during the pandemic that including a clawback provision would mean companies might not take the money. They decided that giving the economy a life raft was more important than including this provision.

So my argument is not that it is moral for the company to take money they didn't need, but that it was both ethical and legal. It is up to the lawmakers, if they want to enforce a moral code on the businesses that operate within it, to put that into law.



It's almost like you are mad at a shark for eating a fish because it is not very nice. That is what a shark does, and similarly companies make money.

[optio]

removed

[optio]

removed

[optio]

removed

[optio]

removed

[NAICITPO]

Specsavers is privately held. It has no shareholders.

Actually a privately held company can have sharehodlers, investors and even issue stock (this would just not be traded publicly).

And what I am going on about it is it seems you are morally outraged that a company acted in its own best interests by taking money freely offered to them by a government. And what I am saying is it is the job of lawmakers to protect their citizens best interests, it is not the job of private companies to protect the citizens best interests.

I don't care what Wiki says.

[optio]

removed

[optio]

removed

[optio]

removed

[eastgtaod]

Actually a privately held company can have sharehodlers, investors and even issue stock (this would just not be traded publicly).

And what I am going on about it is it seems you are morally outraged that a company acted in its own best interests by taking money freely offered to them by a government. And what I am saying is it is the job of lawmakers to protect their citizens best interests, it is not the job of private companies to protect the citizens best interests.

I don't care what Wiki says.

Can't someone be upset at BOTH the government AND Specsavers? At the government for poor policy and at Specsavers for benefitting from it?

It's pretty easy to find examples of where have-nots direct their anger at haves, and not just at policy makers.

[NAICITPO]

Can't someone be upset at BOTH the government AND Specsavers? At the government for poor policy and at Specsavers for benefitting from it?

You can be mad at whoever you want. But you should expect a for profit company to put profit at the top of their priority list. You should also expect a government to prioritize what is best for their citizens. One did what was expected of them, and one did not.

[eastgtaod]

But you should expect a for profit company to put profit at the top of their priority list.

Yes. But I think you've been arguing more than this. That money acquired in ANY (legal) fashion is ethical because it benefits shareholders.

In this case, it's about almost a hundred million in tax dollars intended for businesses in dire need, whisked away by a foreign company valued in the billions. Legal yes. Morally correct? More like morally bankrupt.

[optio]

removed

[optio]

removed