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

Graham_Devon

Yes

danothy wrote: »

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

Why would you think that?

With any profit share based scheme, there are guards put in place in order to maintain the business.

So for instance John Lewis didnt pay out a profit share one of the years when Waitrose had trouble.

Theres nothing which says a profit share must mean a loss share - hence why none of the companies (to my knowledge) operating such schemes have loss shares in place. As none of successful schemes operate loss shares, theres really no need to keep going on about it.

danothy

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Why would you think that?

Because loss is negative profit.

Graham_Devon

Yes

danothy wrote: »

Because loss is negative profit.

Indeed.

But your point is absurd. Would you make the same point about bonuses? Suggest that the staff should pay the companies an equivalent bonus to last years amount out of their wages should the company make a loss that fiscal year?

You are in effect stating exactly that by implying profit sharing schemes would work that way. Sound rather silly now?

It's starting to go the same way as the telegraph did. Not really anything concrete, so start suggesting random stuff like companies already profit share by paying CGT.

The clue is in the title. "Profit" and "Scheme".

A profit share scheme only pays out should their be a profit.

cells

Most workers just do tasks very few create any profit for the company. Those that do are often highly paid to stop them leaving and joining a competitor or setting up their own companies

cells

cParker wrote: »

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.

The director is just another worker (with a lot of powers)

The shareholders are the owners and when things go !!!! their billions become worthless.

So worker can share in the profits by buying shares in tbe company (and will also share in the losses). A lot of directors bare paid millions of pounds worth in shares if they hit certain targets and they often cant sell rhe shares for a given nimber of years to incentivise them to do well for the company

cells

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.

The easiest and perhaps the most effective way to profit share would be to pay your workers in shares rather than money.

However I suspect most people would be against this as it is a sharing of the risk and the reward

remorseless

No

no, defo not! The pay of some CEOs maybe excessive and that's maybe because it has snowballed like that. Exec roles have a lot of work pressures, if someone wants to earn that money, could always climb the corporate ladder. It is a free world after all...

Thrugelmir

lessonlearned wrote: »

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.

What he'll earn is recognition within the Company. Given time doors of opportunity will open.

BobQ

No

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 question you asked was about the distribution of pay not profits. If you are asking a different question maybe should change the question.

To me pay is a fixed cost of a business determined by its management as part of business planning. Profit is what you actually gain from operating the business. Both can be distributed in different ways. So are you talking about how pay is distributed or how profit is distributed?

mayonnaise

No

BobQ wrote: »

The question you asked was about the distribution of pay not profits.

I already told him poll question is unrelated to the question in the thread.

Oh well.