Hacker News Reader

Comment by jeffjose | Hacker News Reader

Investors, by very definition, are (part) owners. And management is put in place by the board, that owners/investors control

View on HN

Yeah I understand, but having a stake in a company doesn't give you the right to act as an advisor to the board or management. You're aren't a worker or a consultant and you're not on the board. If they have an issue with the board then then there are manoeuvres that they can take.

This, and this is one such maneuver. Hell, it's just an open letter! I don't understand all the fuss over it. There are much more damaging maneuvers that are available, like lawsuits.

I don't think it's that big of a deal. I do think that it's more likely to have a negative than positive effect, in that it risks the proliferation of the negative press surrounding the company at the moment.

Yes you do have that right. Investors literally own the company.

People who literally own the company are of course expected to give their opinion on matters concerning the company that they own.

You can give your opinion, you can't install yourself as a worker with your own personal goals of changing a company's culture. Again, if you have a problem with how the company is being run then you can take action.

No one is arguing that. Please don't move the goalposts and/or set up straw men.

What I said:

> you can't install yourself as a worker with your own personal goals of changing a company's culture

From their letter:

> As early investors in Uber, starting in 2010, we have tried for years to work behind the scenes to exert a constructive influence on company culture.

What strawman?

It's not a strawman if you grant that only people installed as workers get to have influence. As the rest of the people in this thread have pointed out, that premise is false.

They verbatim say they want to work behind the scenes in the company to change the culture. That's not advising or just "having influence". It's simple...they do not have a right to do this as investors unless it was part of their terms.

That's ridiculously. They certainly have a right to do that. Sure, it depends on management etc.'s willingness to listen and take the advice, but they absolutely have the right.

No they do not have that right. They have the right to if management is willing as you say, which they aren't, in this case. They do also have the right to play their part in replacing the board, and they do have the right to try and pursue board membership. But they aren't entitled to work within the company to change its culture simply because they're an investor. Companies could not accept investment if this was a right extended to investors.

I am sorry, so do you not believe in the First Amendment?

Nothing that they did was illegal.

They invested on the pretense of Uber being a company that enacts positive social change. That is one of their measures of return on investment (not just money). That premise has been violated.

It is within the investors' rights to do whatever is in their power to try and steer the ship towards their original goal: positive social change.

I don't see what installing people has to do with it. I don't even know what you're arguing. They gave Uber money. Uber isn't doing what they said they would with the money. They are mad at Uber. Seems pretty easy to understand to me.

> having a stake in a company doesn't give you the right to act as an advisor to the board or management

Delaware's General Corporation Law § 220(b) gives shareholders inspection rights. These are generally interpreted to include consultation rights.

> You're aren't a worker or a consultant

You're not, you're an owner. You have a more direct right to information than at-will employees or contractors.

> If they have an issue with the board then then there are manoeuvres that they can take.

Yes, and public pressure like this is one of those maneuvers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com