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

danothy

lessonlearned wrote: »

In practice what would normally happen is that you would continue to get just a basic salary and no profits

That really is the best of both worlds. Getting paid for your work, and if it's profitable you get paid again. Sign me up.

Graham_Devon

Yes

danothy wrote: »

That really is the best of both worlds. Getting paid for your work, and if it's profitable you get paid again. Sign me up.

Sign away...

http://jlpjobs.com/

Graham_Devon

Yes

Interesting so far that no ones actually given a reason why profit sharing is a bad idea?

Though two thirds so far are against it.

the reality is that it's normally 1-2% of profits. The Telegraph hit out at labour for suggesting this very idea. However, all the telegraph could come up with as a reason is that business already profit shares via CGT (which obviously isn't profit sharing with employees) and companies would no longer hire people....

So how would they grow without hiring? The telegraph suggests they would use agencies. Which, of course, will cost the company more than paying a worker (and most likely lots more than a 2% profit share).

So seems the telegraph didn't really have anything concrete. Hence my post on here.

lessonlearned

michaels wrote: »

Sounds like your son should seek employment elsewhere?

Yes, he's looking. He's also trying to build up a little sideline business too.

lessonlearned

danothy wrote: »

That really is the best of both worlds. Getting paid for your work, and if it's profitable you get paid again. Sign me up.

Why shouldn't someone be rewarded if they perform well. It's not about being paid twice. It's about being paid extra for exceeding expectations and adding extra value.

lessonlearned

Perhaps the Telegraph is fearful about a loss of tax revue.

If the company pays out higher wages then they would need to pay less in CGT. Although of course the workers would pay increased income tax on their additional earnings which should redress the balance.

Seems a bit of a daft argument.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Interesting so far that no ones actually given a reason why profit sharing is a bad idea?

Though two thirds so far are against it.

the reality is that it's normally 1-2% of profits. The Telegraph hit out at labour for suggesting this very idea. However, all the telegraph could come up with as a reason is that business already profit shares via CGT (which obviously isn't profit sharing with employees) and companies would no longer hire people....

So how would they grow without hiring? The telegraph suggests they would use agencies. Which, of course, will cost the company more than paying a worker (and most likely lots more than a 2% profit share).

So seems the telegraph didn't really have anything concrete. Hence my post on here.

I've already give a very good reason IF the profit sharing is significant (and if its not why bother)

JencParker

Yes

danothy wrote: »

The corollary of this of course is that when a loss is made that loss is shared.

Ha ha.... You think CEOs and Directors share a loss when the company makes a loss?


So when RBS had a loss of £24billion did Fred Goodwin share the loss? Did he heck... a handsome payoff and an enormous pension was the reward for his failure.

danothy

JencParker wrote: »

Ha ha.... You think CEOs and Directors share a loss when the company makes a loss?

No, I think the corollary of profit sharing is loss sharing

danothy

lessonlearned wrote: »

It's not about bring paid twice.

It is if you want your fair share of the profits with no liability for the losses and a full salary.