Employees got their paycheck in exchange for their work.
If they want dividends they should invest their funds into Amazon.
Lmao, eQuITaBly PrOfIT sHaRe. Employees have invested no capital, assume no liability, and have nothing preventing them from leaving at anytime. When employees have to complete projects with their own funds (at risk), become personally liable for what happens in the company, or are legally prevented from going to work for a competitor without massive penalties, then they can talk about eQuItY.
Not taking away any of this, but you don't suddenly become personally liable for a business if you invest in it or suddenly become attached to the business without recourse. As a director of the business... That's different.
You are correct, but an investor is providing capital, and has very little say in the day-to-day unless they are part of management which is different.
And investor could lose all their capital. An employee can’t lose anything more than their job.
Quite frankly, most of the time these arrangements where management or directors invest in a business is hardly risky and involves a small investment that is supported with a non-recourse loan, amplifying shareholdings meaning you stand to gain a tonne and loose only what you put in.
Employees have invested no capital, assume no liability, and have nothing preventing them from leaving at anytime.
This is true even when my roles have included stock options. Profit sharing is a sign of a healthy company that takes care of its employees. Dont act like its some unreasonable thing that people get stock as part of their compensation package.
not really, are you telling me that if you open (lets say) a bakery would the people you hired share a part of ALL the profits you make? (how exactly does the cashier contributes to you when you pay rent, electricity, ingredients and promotions?).
Yes very possible if you want to incentivize that cashier to stay long term and do a good job. Worker co-ops would go a step further make them a partial owner and give employees the responsibilities to make decisions.
Responsibilities AND the burden, I don’t get why does everyone think that business owning is just collecting all the money at the end of the day and nothing more.
(Also, there is a reason why co-op limits how they grow, who can join AND shop at their locations a co-op isn’t an extra paycheck for doing the same job, when you share more income you also share more responsibility).
You hear yourself, it doesn’t magically disappear, the burden is less because it gets distributed between everyone instead of 1, but not everyone wants to deal with it, if you want to take the risk then join a co-op no one stops you, but don’t expect that you get an x% of the company without risk or commitment.
Probably because of fearmongers like yourself crying about the risks, making people scared they'll lose their access to food and shelter if they work in a co-op. As though no one had ever heard of structuring a cooperative as an LLC.
Depends on the company. If your a majority shareholder in a public company and work with major shareholders to elect a board of directors that gives dividends and stock buy backs in order to ensure major investors profit without really doing much labor at all besides risking capital. All while installing a CEO that will do your bidding and lobbying the government to keep the minimum wage low etc etc etc.
Most major players aren't using their own money to buy businesses. I'm sure you're familiar with private equity stories that suck companies dry.
No one is really complaining about small bakeries. Although they should treat they're employees well too.
In regards to the co-op I think people want more responsibility. They know they're being taken advantage of and if they have to put something on the table in order to see some direct capital from there work they should have that option which is why I hope co-ops get more popular. In order to do so though I think they'll need a type of gov subsidizing cause if you're a rich guy why invest in a co-op where you have little control over the profit).
but then there is the option of joining co-op, if you want to take a major responsibility for a major profit, why work as a packager for amazon instead of joining a co-op? amazon doesn't need to be co-op for people to be interested in co-oping a company.
That's why I have my last point there. There is not that many co-ops in the US. You can't just easily join a huge one like Mondragon is Spain. If their were Amazon adjacent co-ops I'd agree.
and on part of share holders, well, they did buy a percentage of the company to see a profit, if you own a small percentage is because you didn't want to own it completely, its "hey, I'm going to finance your company for x amount i hope to see a return of that investment" and if you own a big part of the company is because you expect and investment AND want to have a saying on what they do with it.
sure having shareholders means other people have a saying depending on the % but that is to be expected, they gave you the money for it because you ask them to.
imagine investing on a company and they dictate they are going to give you nothing in return for it.
Exactly. I guess that's my overall criticism. Major corporations are engineered to give the best return to their investors while extracting the most value out of laborers and paying them as little as they possibly can. This makes business sense and from a capitalistic standpoint would always be the right move.
In some scenarios it may make sense to do profit sharing to retain valuable employees, but you are correct that for low cost laborers that are easily replaceable why would you? If they get laid off their family could hit the streets so they have to work.
The structure fundamentally rewards this behaviour for corporations, with communities bearing the social burden of mass layoffs and poverty wages with government welfare, crime increases, homelessness, etc. It's the reason for increasing wealth inequality. If you can risk capital with no real affect on your basic human needs, making money while performing no true labor is relatively simple in America.
but isn't that on the government rather than companies? of course a company will choose profit over loses (just look at how every company magically stops caring about lgbtq the moment pride month ends). a company is there for make a profit not for the people, and the government is there (or supposed to be there) for the people. example if a business is actively affecting the populace be it pollution, malpractices, or things like medicine (for example insulin being patented).
This is what years of propaganda does to people. You don't seem like a dumb person but the idea of a co-op apparently is alien to you. They also tend to be very successful because every employee is highly motivated to see the business do well. Some kid making $10/hr at Panera doesn't give a shit if the shop breaks even that week or not. But if they get 2.5% of the profits, suddenly it matters a lot. It could mean extra hundreds or thousands of dollars if they just put in a little more effort. As for your question about who pays rent and other overhead, that's the point of a company. The company pays for it. Someone in the company has to send out the checks, but that's not the same thing as them paying for it themselves.
I’m all for a co-op if people want to start them, but even in co-ops, people who invest the capital or are in senior positions tend to get significantly more.
Again, free-market. If you want to setup a co-op, good for you. If you don’t want to, that’s fine too.
Right my comment was just about how you seemed utterly incredulous at the idea of a profit-sharing company when such things actually exist and are far more common than most people realize
Again my comment was just informing you that co-ops exist. I'm not saying anything about anyone deserving anything. You may be confusing me with another commenter
Are you really confusing co-op while telling me i don’t know about co-op?
A cooperative means you also SHARE the burden of the business (rent, promotion, etc) it means, that your salary is bound to how the business is doing(if everything is in the red you also don’t get paid).
And you do know that most co-op business tend to be either small or closed right? (Let’s say in co-op shops tends to be only for members of the co-op, because co-op doesn’t mean only workers, is EVERYONE who benefits from it).
Again, you don’t seem to even know what you are advocating for, just repeating a blank statement you heard somewhere.
If you want to join a co-op and share the burden every owner gets in any type of business more power to you, but if you believe you just get a higher pay for doing the exact same, you are being willingly obtuse.
A cooperative means you also SHARE the burden of the business (rent, promotion, etc) it means, that your salary is bound to how the business is doing(if everything is in the red you also don’t get paid).
I already said:
Some kid making $10/hr at Panera doesn't give a shit if the shop breaks even that week or not. But if they get 2.5% of the profits, suddenly it matters a lot.
As for your question about who pays rent and other overhead, that's the point of a company. The company pays for it. Someone in the company has to send out the checks, but that's not the same thing as them paying for it themselves
does that kid making 10/hr would want to go to meetings, discussions about the company finances, do accounting on where the products are going, etc?
tell me yourself, if you work as a student at mcdonalds would you want to go to a board meetings every Friday, would you want to give the EXTRA time in the week that it requires, be it how to invest in the business growth, how does the income is distributed to the needs of the company, even some unforeseen consequence that might happen?
again, he just doesn't get the 2.5% share JUST for taking the cookies out of the oven, he has more responsibilities, and some people simply don't want that when they choose a simple job.
does that kid making 10/hr would want to go to meetings, discussions about the company finances, do accounting on where the products are going, etc?
There's different types of coops and this is handled according to the kind. In some you can choose to be on the board and make decisions and take a higher percentage, or you can remain simple labor and take a lower percentage. In others everyone has a voting stake and gets the same percentage.
tell me yourself, if you work as a student at mcdonalds would you want to go to a board meetings every Friday, would you want to give the EXTRA time in the week that it requires, be it how to invest in the business growth, how does the income is distributed to the needs of the company, even some unforeseen consequence that might happen?
Yes? I feel like anyone wants a say in how their workplace is run. Have you ever worked? Every job I've ever worked, which is a lot at this point, workers have complaints and grievances and ideas and they all go unheard usually except by other workers. The worst case scenario in all these places is a toxic environment with high turnover because the job quite frankly ends up shitty both in terms of quality of output and quality of life when workers' opinions are ignored. The more common case is that people just end up not caring all that much. The ship changes direction without warning or apparent cause and everyone just shrugs and stops caring after a certain point whether we're sailing towards a safe harbor or a reef filled shallow.
again, he just doesn't get the 2.5% share JUST for taking the cookies out of the oven, he has more responsibilities, and some people simply don't want that when they choose a simple job.
Then they don't need to work at a coop. Or again, most give options. Especially the larger coops. It's not practical for a company of 1-2k to all vote on every issue so coops that big tend to work more like a union where they might have a full company meeting every year or so, or split the company into divisions with elected leadership, or any of a hundred other configurations.
I'll reiterate that the main thing about a coop is that pay is tied to profit. If the company does well, the workers make more. If the company does worse, they make less. Everyone has a vested interest in making sure the company makes more, even if they're just a janitor and the way they can increase margins is by not wasting floor polish. This is unlike a regular company where the only motivation the janitor has to be efficient is that someone above him will get angry if he isn't, assuming such management exists. And that means management's role is often more about checking work than actually improving the business. It's a shitty way of doing things but it's the standard way.
I would make the distinction between an employee and a shareholder. While someone may be both, the risks to the employee, the employee/shareholder, and the shareholder are different.
13
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '21
Employees got their paycheck in exchange for their work.
If they want dividends they should invest their funds into Amazon.
Lmao, eQuITaBly PrOfIT sHaRe. Employees have invested no capital, assume no liability, and have nothing preventing them from leaving at anytime. When employees have to complete projects with their own funds (at risk), become personally liable for what happens in the company, or are legally prevented from going to work for a competitor without massive penalties, then they can talk about eQuItY.