Don't you think it's morally good for employees to share profits or losses with business owners, than getting paid fixed salaries/wages, whether businesses are profitable or not?
I mean, how OK is it to pay employees for producing nothing or bad products. And why don't owners increase employees pay when things are going very well for their businesses?
Oh, this eternal conflict of interests between the business owner and the worker. The 1st wants to pay less and get more productivity from the worker, and the 2nd - everything is exactly the opposite.
Depending on the conscientiousness of the worker (to perform work duties), the "morality" will differ. It will be beneficial for a diligent employee to share profits and losses with the business, since the well-being of the company, and therefore his personal benefit (salary), will depend on his actions. In general, this exists in world practice and is expressed in the fact that companies, in addition to wages, issue employees shares in their company, which will grow in price (and therefore the employee's income), if this employee does his job well (but this is not certain
). It is beneficial for a lazy worker to "sit" on a fixed salary, since even doing a job badly, he will receive a salary every month. Of course, such employees are not beneficial to the business. It is also not uncommon for a business to "become impudent" and demand that employees perform such a volume of work that exceeds the salary. In this case, such conditions are disadvantageous to workers.
A solution can be found in the following scheme: fixed salary + % of company profit. If the employee is diligent, he will receive a salary increase, and the business will receive increased productivity. If the employee is lazy, he will not receive bonuses, but the company will not pay "undeserved" money. The problem in this scheme is the "fair" choice of bonus %, which would satisfy both sides of the business.