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

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

This article here has an informative graphic showing the JLP bonus since 1920.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/12/john-lewis-cuts-staff-bonus-to-lowest-level-for-12-years

It seems that the last time that the JLP bonus was zero was in about 1953.

Graham_Devon

Yes

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!

Not neccesarily, no.

He may well feel a more valued member of a business however.

Again though, while I don't disagree with you, this doesn't seem to be a reason for being against profit sharing.

antrobus

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Workers already get paid for creating profits......

The market price for labour, is the market price for labour.

Arguing about how that price is paid, does not change the price.

I suspect that many companies would prefer to be able to increase the variable profit-related element of that cost.

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

...Again though, while I don't disagree with you, this doesn't seem to be a reason for being against profit sharing.

No one is against profit sharing. Even our own dear government is in favour of it, having decreed that the first £3,600 of such a bonus can be paid tax free.

The point would be your failure to understand that profit-sharing involves a transfer of risk from the employer to the employee.

Graham_Devon

Yes

antrobus wrote: »

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

I'd agree.

But that right there is the style of culture that this profit sharing would attempt to avoid.

While some companies are perfectly happy in using whatever labour comes through their doors (Sports Direct) and are happy to fire them for sneezing, other companies value their employees higher, regardless of what they do.

A culture where employees are valued, even if they do just sweep the chippings off the floor would be beneficial over a company who treats workers as numbers, would it not?

If your argument against profit sharing is based simply on the fact that people are replaceable, so why bother, that's a fair argument.

Seems the poll is split right down the middle though. Bizzare thing is that those who have voted no seem to also be those who are happy to state the size of their own wealth on this forum. Maybe our own positions and how comfortable we are defines our take on this.

Clearly for lower paid workers it would be a good thing. But for those higher up the chain, maybe they feel their own pay would be sacrificed in order to pay the profit share....therefore, it's a bad thing?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

No

Graham_Devon wrote: »

. Bizzare thing is that those who have voted no seem to also be those who are happy to state the size of their own wealth on this forum.

Can't say I ever remember most of these people stating the size of their wealth.

Audiman7, BobQ, DTDfanBoy, Pennywise, Somerset, Stevie Palimo, Wheezy, chucknorris, hop3y, lazer, martinsurrey, mayonnaise, michaels, peter3hg, remorseless, tberry6686

Perhaps you could put up links to the posts where they all did, as if you're going to make sweeping generalisations then just a handful of examples won't cut it...

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

No

Graham_Devon wrote: »

for those higher up the chain, maybe they feel their own pay would be sacrificed in order to pay the profit share....therefore, it's a bad thing?

Or maybe they're just experienced and sensible enough to know the World doesn't work like that.

Thrugelmir

antrobus wrote: »

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

Same applies to many executives. Who you know matters more than how good you are.

TheBlueHorse

CLAPTON wrote: »

it would make sense if all current pay levels were replaced with half as guaranteed pay and the other half as profit related pay.

I told a teacher friend of mine, that was bemoaning his teachers salary, that his pay should be performance related. Based on the results he achieves.


He laughed in my face. Performance based? hahahahaha. So my pay depends on how well the children do?


Yes. Because your job is to teach them. and if they fail, it is your fault.


Apparently it isn't his fault if they fail.


Typical public sector. Wants professional pay but shirks any form of responsibility.


If one teacher (in comparable schools) gets 50% A-C and another gets 85% A-C why should they be paid the same?

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

...If your argument against profit sharing is based simply on the fact that people are replaceable, so why bother, that's a fair argument.....

I have made no argument against profit sharing.