Steve Jobs Succession Plan Was Wildly Unpopular With Shareholders [Apple Shareholder Resolution That Would Of Forced Board To Disclose Plans For Life After Jobs Was Struck Down By Wide Margin]
Earlier this week, we told you how at the Apple shareholders meeting, there would be an attempt by the Laborers’ International Union of North America to force the Apple Board of Directors to disclose their plans for what would happen with the CEO role after Steve Jobs was permanently done with the position. We told you that resolution was voted down – but now we’ve got more details about it. It was beaten resoundly, with shareholders voting it down almost 2-to-1. I guess ignorance is bliss?

According to the Wall Street Journal, 172 million shares voted in favor of the board disclosing their plans for the CEO position, while a whopping 400 million shares voted against. Obviously, Jobs and his friends control a large percentage of the company – and even those shareholders who aren’t friends of Steve J were made rich by the company and probably don’t want to cross him.
As many readers will know, Steve Jobs is on this third medical leave of absence in seven years. The company’s success is closely tied to Jobs, who is said to have close control on every aspect of product design. There has been concern on Wall Street about what happens to Apple when Jobs is gone for good from the CEO role.
Obviously though, the majority of Apple shareholders (or the more powerful ones) aren’t interested in finding out what the Apple Board has planned once Jobs is gone for good. I can’t tell if they’re doing it out of respect for Jobs, or if they honestly don’t even want to think about it. Do we know that the Board of Directors even has a plan for Apple after Jobs? Almost all members on board were hand-picked by Jobs himself, and I think it’s plausible they don’t even have any formalized plans set out for what would happen if Jobs was unable to continue.
What do you think? Should the Apple Board disclose what they’re planning to do once Jobs leaves for good?
Source
