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

Graham_Devon

Yes

mayonnaise wrote: »

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

Oh well.

And I already answered you on page 1 stating it was a mistake.

Seemingly you cannot edit a poll title once it's published.

So you'll just have to overcome your issues, read my response and accept it's a simple mistake and get on with it like everyone else.

How about giving a reason as to why you think workers shouldn't get a profit share?

I'm really interested in why people would be against a company paying out a profit share? For those companies who do, it's around 1-2% of profits. So I'm really keen to understand why people would suggest, as they have done, that companies shouldn't do this?

The benefits in my mind are huge. The cost, at 2% (ish) of profits seems very low.

Zara for instance (who pay 2% of profits as a profit share) handed out >£700 to employees who fit their criteria (been with the ocmpany for over 2 years). Employee satisfaction with the company is much higher when comparing to any of the big four supermarkets.

How valuable is a content workforce?

Herzlos

cells wrote: »

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

This is, I think, the key point. Lots of staff don't create profit in any traceable way, though they are required in order to enable the profit (administration, cleaners, chefs, maintenance, logistics, back office work, etc) rather than directly via sales.

Without my team, my company wouldn't have a product to sell. But we're in no way related to sales, so there's no way to determine how much money we make the company. We do have a bonus scheme based on the companies profit, pro-rata'd across the company though, so we do share in the profit, it's just not directly related to performance.

Graham_Devon

Yes

cells wrote: »

Most workers just do tasks very few create any profit for the company.

Without those workers doing those tasks there wouldn't be any profit - and in some cases, no company either.

The person making sure the fire alarms are working may not be making a profit for the company. However, without them, the company would be falling foul of the law and could be shut down.

Not everyone is a profit creator. However, most employees (unless there is waste going on) is a profit enabler.

Pennywise

No

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Without those workers doing those tasks there wouldn't be any profit - and in some cases, no company either.

The person making sure the fire alarms are working may not be making a profit for the company. However, without them, the company would be falling foul of the law and could be shut down.

Not everyone is a profit creator. However, most employees (unless there is waste going on) is a profit enabler.

Yes, I see your point, but without the staff who are profit generators, there wouldn't be a business. The enablers can do what they do in a non profit organisation, a quango or a loss making firm - why should they get paid more just because they happen to be doing it in a firm that makes profits, generated by other profit generating staff? In my opinion, you need a link between the profit generators and the profit they generate, i.e. profit related bonuses etc. If you also incentive the enablers, their share needs to be a lot lower than the profit generators.

wotsthat

I've always found if the companies I work for do well then so do I.

Would I like a bigger share of the profits via a bonus - yes please but...

Would I like my total remuneration to be related to profit? No thanks - I've got bills to pay whether my shareholders make a profit or not. I'm already taking this risk via my investments; if I wanted this sort of risk for my main income I'd start my own business.

If the ratio of executive pay to employee pay is important to employees they should vote with their feet.

martinsurrey

No

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Without those workers doing those tasks there wouldn't be any profit - and in some cases, no company either.

The person making sure the fire alarms are working may not be making a profit for the company. However, without them, the company would be falling foul of the law and could be shut down.

Not everyone is a profit creator. However, most employees (unless there is waste going on) is a profit enabler.

If the company told the fire alarm man, "if the company's profits double in the next 12 months we'll pay you £40 extra", would the fire alarm be any more compliant with the law, would the company's performance increase because of that £40? If not, they don't do it in a profit maximising company. If you or I think differently, we can buy all the shares and instruct the directors of our company to do it, but it'll cost us a fortune!

CLAPTON

martinsurrey wrote: »

If the company told the fire alarm man, "if the company's profits double in the next 12 months we'll pay you £40 extra", would the fire alarm be any more compliant with the law, would the company's performance increase because of that £40? If not, they don't do it in a profit maximising company. If you or I think differently, we can buy all the shares and instruct the directors of our company to do it, but it'll cost us a fortune!

your missing the point

Graham isn't concerned about the company doing well or badly or how best to incentivise the staff to increase profits
but 'fairness'

so people are addressing different issues

Stevie_Palimo

No

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.

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

No if they get paid wages then that is sufficient, If they want dividends then they need to set up a business for themselves.

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Without those workers doing those tasks there wouldn't be any profit - and in some cases, no company either. .....

Yes, but very few of them are unique and irreplaceable.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

No

Workers already get 'rewarded for the profits they create' Graham, it's called 'a wage'.

In addition to this 'wage', many companies have bonus schemes, incentives, etc for good performance.

If the argument is that workers should get a bigger slice of the pie just for showing up to work regardless of skills, experience, ability and performance then I'd suggest that's delusional.

Workers are of course free to move jobs or even set up their own business any time they like if they think they are underpaid and that their skills are undervalued with their current employer.