Re: No choice
If you had bothered to look up the legislation referenced, which is the thing actually phrased like an RFC, unlike Companies House guidance:
—-
(1)A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to—
(a)the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,
(b)the interests of the company's employees,
—-
MUST … have regard (amongst other matters) to … the interests of the company employees.
You can argue about the weight that might in practice be placed on those interests amongst competing concerns, but they are required by law to be considered. As I said.
You may have meant to say “My point was that the union was demanding boards ought to prioritise workers above shareholders which they can't do.“ but what you actually said was “Legally BT management is required to act for the best interests of the shareholders and nobody else”. Those are two different statements. The first is correct. The latter is clearly not.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
