Topic: Don't you think it's moral to share profits or losses with business owners? - page 2. (Read 231 times)

Why not? it's a choice of the employee based on the contract before signing it. I've heard that there are companies that do this like Tesla that give incentive stocks on top of their salaries. To be honest, if some company out there will hire me with the option of being paid a fixed salary + a stock option, I'll choose that. But this varies and depends on the situation on which company is offering. I think if you're the type of guy that wants some fixed amount for your labor, you better not accept any kind of this deal. So, as long as there's a salary that's fixed and the stocks are just like a bonus or the employee is still able to survive with the salary that's given to him, I don't see anything bad with that. What's bad is if the offer is full stocks or shares of the company, a risk taker might take that but commoners like me and you won't probably take that without assurance.

The thing this method of payment of a business actually having a dynamic state of wages or salary base on the income of the business is what actually pushes away some employees, most of these employees actually wants static wages or salary with the company also promising them ad on incentives when they go extra miles for the company. This to me is the current trend because even business owners prefer to actually have their employees outside business profits and would obviously like to take the risk alone.

To me this still remains the best way possible to solve the employee and the employer problem, because should a company employee decide to leave in terms of crisis after enjoying benefits of the days of profits it will bring them problems but with the rules been a fixed salary no one holds one ransom in the period of departure.

While business owners certainly could share more, they have often taken far more risk and corresponding stress in ramping up a business - often being there from day one running solo. They deserve a bigger share of the pie because they often have to negotiate far more complicated business decisions and handle many different tasks than a regular employee. A regular employee can often clock out and switch off at the end of the day, but an owner will often live and breath the business all day long.

Yes, in fact there are corporate typologies where capitalist partners and partners who only provide work coexist, so there is nothing immoral there; but they are in clear decline because of the arguments you said.

Workers usually don't participate in the company's management so they should only be responsible for the specific performance in their job. If the company earns more or less one year, nothing prevents them from reaching an agreement with their employees on their salary conditions if certain circumstances arise; but most workers will prefer a guaranteed salary, no matter what.

It will be evil for employees to share in the losses a company makes when they do not share in the profits. Some employees are not earning enough for them to share in the loss of the company, and I do not think it is proper for that risk to be borne by employees instead of the Chief executives and owners of the business.

You are in the position to give value to the service you offer or product you sell, if you undervalue yourself, that is the value it will be given. If you set yourself on a high standard, that is the value you will be given.

This means the workers become either shareholders or partners of the business. Some businesses offer such remuneration packages to workers. But it is not all workers will be comfortable with such an arrangement especially if they don't have an alternative source of revenue.

There are provisions for rewarding the best-performing staff, especially in the private sector. Many staff are promoted, given awards or receive salary increases. I also think that in developed nations there might also be some avenues to reward productive government workers. In my country, the civil service is unproductive because rewards are given based on the year of service and the general increase in the minimum wage. I think the civil service will be more productive if more productive workers are specially rewarded.

Im not so sure about that.  The way I see it, not all employees chip in the same to a company's success.  Some jobs are more important than others, and some people  are simply more productive and get more stuff done.  If you gave everyone an equal cut of profits, that wouldnt really match how much they truly pitched in.  

Also we cant ignore that companies gotta keep their investors and shareholders happy.  Those people invest their money into the business expecting to get something back.  If a company hands out too much of their profits to employees, shareholders might get the short end of the stick.  What would be their incentive to invest money in the first place?

The owner of a business employ workers based on the income generating from the company weekly or monthly so if an owner of a company or a business hire people more than what they can pay in that business the payment of the workers will affect the business that is why it is hardly before you see someone who runs a company or a business to increase the salary to the workers and another thing is that It's not good for a workout to share a profit that is being generated from a company that alone will bring the company set back so any person that is being caught for sharing the profit of a company's or business money I say worker or employee that person will be sacked from working in that company or business because not alone will make the business to collapse.

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?
Let's consider the wider negative or positive effect this can have on the economy of a society. If you get undersevedly paid for producing or solving little to nothing, the business may become unprofitable and underdeveloped, and the paid money could end up adding to the demand burden of a product or service that isn't sufficiently produced in a society due people like you not producing enough of it, yet receiving underseved payments. Or maybe the product producers aren't able to produce enough due to inadequate/lack of skilled contributions from people who are getting undeserved payments.  Likewise producing bad products and yet receiving undeserved payments meant for producers who do better jobs. And you may end up using the payments to buy things from people who produce good quality products, while the good quality product producers may end up paying for bad quality stuff people like you produce, with more money rather than less. The bad product could end up affecting other producers ability to produce good quality things.    People getting or not getting paid what they don't or they deserve contribute to the listed issues above and more.

There are as well producers who don't get paid enough for the quality and quantity of their contributions to society. This could slow down productivity since they wouldn't have enough money to expand their businesses, buy or replace their equipments. The consequences of this to society could come inform of inflation or circulation of poor quality things produced by less qualified producers.


In a fair and effective business environment, those who produce or solve problems better get more, while the worse get less. By the way, this could make the public sectors get what they deserve rather than the current method of wage increase whether deserved or not. And the collective wealth of society would be used more prudently according to quality/quantity of problems solved rather than undeserved funding of less productive public sectors or businesses.
Don't you think so?