Should workers be rewarded for the profits they help to create?

Graham_Devon

Question says it all really.

Comes as new figures are released for cheif exec pay of the FTSE100 companies. The figure has risen again, now standing at 183x the average wage.

Impossible to put a figure on how much it "should" be, but should employees of these companies also benefit. Many of them will be on minimum wage or in some cases zero hour jobs. Would you be more inclined to use a business if they did?

Many see this kind of situation as a backward step in society - maybe one of the reasons (among many) people such as Corbyn are riding high.

So answers on a postcard. Reasons would help too I guess.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33952393

chucknorris

No

I think all workers should be rewarded, since slavery was abolished most are though, by being paid a salary/wages and perhaps a bonus.

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Question says it all really.

Comes as new figures are released for cheif exec pay of the FTSE100 companies. The figure has risen again, now standing at 183x the average wage.

You are asking the wrong question.

It should be is executive pay excessive?

Sharing £10 million between 100,000 employees is only an average of £100 per employee per annum.

chucknorris

No

Thrugelmir wrote: »

You are asking the wrong question.

It should be is executive pay excessive?

Sharing £10 million between 100,000 employees is only an average of £100 per employee per annum.

You hit the nail on the head, there Thrug.

mayonnaise

No

The thread says 'Should workers be rewarded for the profits they help to create?'
The poll asks 'Should workers share more of the pay'
2 entirely different questions.

Graham_Devon

Yes

mayonnaise wrote: »

The thread says 'Should workers be rewarded for the profits they help to create?'
The poll asks 'Should workers share more of the pay'
2 entirely different questions.

Don't worry - it's not there to catch you out, it's just a mistake. It's supposed to state the same as the thread title.

ukcarper

Yes

Thrugelmir wrote: »

You are asking the wrong question.

It should be is executive pay excessive?

Sharing £10 million between 100,000 employees is only an average of £100 per employee per annum.

Is it as simple as that though we are often told a happy workforce is an efficient workforce it's doesn't help towards that if you see your directors getting large pay rises and bonuses while there wages are frozen.

JencParker

Yes

Thrugelmir wrote: »

You are asking the wrong question.

It should be is executive pay excessive?

Sharing £10 million between 100,000 employees is only an average of £100 per employee per annum.

£100 might be nothing to you, but it would be to those on minimum wage - a few nights out that they wouldn't be able to otherwise afford!


More importantly, there are more benefits than financial to be gained. A look at the John Lewis model should show you that people take a greater pride, sense of achievement and are generally more positive if they feel like they are part of something rather than cannon fodder to be taken advantage of.

danothy

Should workers be rewarded for the profits they help to create?

Yes, and as has been stated, they by and large are by a salary.

Should workers share more of the pay

More of the pay than what?

Graham_Devon

Yes

JencParker wrote: »

£100 might be nothing to you, but it would be to those on minimum wage - a few nights out that they wouldn't be able to otherwise afford!

More importantly, there are more benefits than financial to be gained. A look at the John Lewis model should show you that people take a greater pride, sense of achievement and are generally more positive if they feel like they are part of something rather than cannon fodder to be taken advantage of.

Was going to come to John Lewis - only today we have a bit of a double whammy.

The pay for executives are up, while at the same time, Amazon is being slammed for it's workplace culture. Amazon are dire anyway, with little to no chance of anything above zero hour minimum wages, let alone bonus or profit share for those working the lower end jobs, but it's headline business news at the moment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33957484

The report included testimonials from 100 current and former employees who depict a "bruising" workplace at Amazon, where employees are expected to "toil long and late".

Some claimed the company edged out workers who were suffering from personal crises, including miscarriages and cancer.

I'm on record stating on here I refuse to buy from Amazon (unless i have no real choice as the item isn't available elsewhere).

While not linked, on the business page we have the amazon thing and executive pay rising at the same time.

Then you have companies like John Lewis, Lidl, Aldi whose model is completely different. It also appears that their brand reputation of these 3 stores is running high in the UK.

Can't really say the same for those listed as paying their executives the most and their workers the least (Amazon, Sports Direct, Tesco etc).

So is there something to be gained from sharing a little more (not necessarily in an annual bonus, but like Aldi do, by paying a little more hourly)? Does reputation matter anymore?

lessonlearned

I think profit sharing is a great idea. If you work hard, go the extra mile and help your employers make a good profit then you should share in the spoils.

I received a salary, plus commission, plus target bonuses. In a good year I could practically double my basic salary.

My son works in retail, just above min wage. He is one of their top sales people, bringing in tens of thousands of revenue each week. Not a penny in commission or bonuses.

My BIL also works in retail. He does get commission and bonuses.