Pages:
Author

Topic: Don't you think it's moral to share profits or losses with business owners? - page 2. (Read 772 times)

hero member
Activity: 1428
Merit: 592
Workers' rights must not be hampered and must always be paid on time so that the business continues to run smoothly and does not invite chaos within the business itself. Because the workers who are paid by the company are the people who always drive the wheels of business to stay on the right track, except for people who blame the rules so they must be completely thrown out so as not to bankrupt the business. So for the matter of other people's rights, it must always be maintained even though the business owner also continues to hunt for as much profit as possible every month.

The responsibility of business owners is not only to see business growth but they also must not ignore workers' rights as a basis that needs to be considered.
Work is the lifeblood of the company and they have an important role in business growth, how can the company grow if workers are not properly cared for.
Take what is not your own right will not provide benefits because in it there are other people's rights that we need to pay.

You are trying to describe some ideal business model where all parties are happy with what they do, but in reality everything is not so ideal, employers do not always treat their subordinates properly, workers do only the most necessary work just to stay in their place and often profit is put above other moral values. And the business will share its profit only with the state in the form of taxes, the losses will remain with them.

Not all business owners have the same nature and there are many business owners who pay good attention to their subordinates.
The influence to achieve success also depends greatly on how business owners can humanize workers because by treating workers well and giving them their rights, the work will be done more responsibly.
When talking about taxes, it is our obligation as citizens and may not be able to do things as we wish, although sometimes the taxes imposed are not too reasonable.
legendary
Activity: 2086
Merit: 1058
For a business start-up, it's always beneficial for those that workers when they get a fixed salary at the end of the month, whether the company runs, loses, or profits; it's none of their business because they are there to work and get paid, and their duty is being carried out based on instructions.
 
But still, the same workers who don't want to share losses with the company due to how they plan their salary ahead of time will still come back to demand a salary increase each time they notice that the company is doing well and there is much profit in the business.
If they can be bold enough to ask for a salary increment, why can't they also bear for their salary to be cut down in times where the company is facing some financial challenges? These are the questions I ask most any time I come across such a case.
The problem is, most of the startups do not share their profits with the workers equally neither, so why would the worker share the loss equally. When the CEO makes 300x profit, the salary worker makes x return, so why would they be equal on losses as well. I agree that fixed salary is what is required and as long as we have fixed salary, people will work based on that amount.

If you make it dynamic, like based on how much the company makes, then people will not be willing to work hard since they do not know what they are going to get, unless they are hyped about it somehow. So fixed means, if they work good enough for their salary then they keep their job, if they do a bad job, someone else would take their job instead. This allows business owners to do better as well, because it means you know how much you are going to pay, since it's fixed amount, at the start of each month you know how much payroll will be paid and you can make a decision based on that.
sr. member
Activity: 1148
Merit: 432
When we want to achieve success, never take other people's rights because it can be an obstacle to the success we will achieve.
Business must be run fairly and not harm others, the issue of achieving the final result as a profit, people can run according to the actual rules.
Business owners or those who own companies employ people according to what they do and it is agreed upon regarding their duties and responsibilities.
Workers' rights must not be hampered and must always be paid on time so that the business continues to run smoothly and does not invite chaos within the business itself. Because the workers who are paid by the company are the people who always drive the wheels of business to stay on the right track, except for people who blame the rules so they must be completely thrown out so as not to bankrupt the business. So for the matter of other people's rights, it must always be maintained even though the business owner also continues to hunt for as much profit as possible every month.
That's right, when an entrepreneur tries to withhold their workers' salaries, the performance produced by the workers will certainly not be optimal and it is not uncommon for us to see workers who receive their wages not in accordance with their agreement will do things that are detrimental to their place of work and of course there is a reason behind it all, but if workers can get salaries according to the agreement they made, then the business will certainly continue to run well because the workers will always give their best because the wages they get are according to their wishes. When entrepreneurs chase profits from the businesses they run, of course they must always look after each other between workers and business actors and by looking after each other, the business will certainly be able to always run well and can develop from day to day.
hero member
Activity: 980
Merit: 947

When we want to achieve success, never take other people's rights because it can be an obstacle to the success we will achieve.
Business must be run fairly and not harm others, the issue of achieving the final result as a profit, people can run according to the actual rules.
Business owners or those who own companies employ people according to what they do and it is agreed upon regarding their duties and responsibilities.

Goods that are produced with quality will get the right market and goods that are only produced to meet market needs will be sold according to the level of need.
Quality and quantity will be according to the needs of each person and it must be seen as the market needs for the products developed.
You are trying to describe some ideal business model where all parties are happy with what they do, but in reality everything is not so ideal, employers do not always treat their subordinates properly, workers do only the most necessary work just to stay in their place and often profit is put above other moral values. And the business will share its profit only with the state in the form of taxes, the losses will remain with them.
hero member
Activity: 1050
Merit: 844
When we want to achieve success, never take other people's rights because it can be an obstacle to the success we will achieve.
Business must be run fairly and not harm others, the issue of achieving the final result as a profit, people can run according to the actual rules.
Business owners or those who own companies employ people according to what they do and it is agreed upon regarding their duties and responsibilities.
Workers' rights must not be hampered and must always be paid on time so that the business continues to run smoothly and does not invite chaos within the business itself. Because the workers who are paid by the company are the people who always drive the wheels of business to stay on the right track, except for people who blame the rules so they must be completely thrown out so as not to bankrupt the business. So for the matter of other people's rights, it must always be maintained even though the business owner also continues to hunt for as much profit as possible every month.
hero member
Activity: 1428
Merit: 592
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?

When we want to achieve success, never take other people's rights because it can be an obstacle to the success we will achieve.
Business must be run fairly and not harm others, the issue of achieving the final result as a profit, people can run according to the actual rules.
Business owners or those who own companies employ people according to what they do and it is agreed upon regarding their duties and responsibilities.

Goods that are produced with quality will get the right market and goods that are only produced to meet market needs will be sold according to the level of need.
Quality and quantity will be according to the needs of each person and it must be seen as the market needs for the products developed.
STT
legendary
Activity: 4088
Merit: 1452
I can state this from a personal perspective at least slightly, my family held a firm which split all its revenue with its employees because of low wages existing at that time.   This was during a general strike some hundred years ago, a decade or so after the start of the Federal Bank and the end of WW1 there was great strife ongoing.

Famously that ended in the 1930's depression and the stock crash of 1929.  But before that a big strike across the land occured, except the employees of our firm carried on working due to being part of an equal split with the owners of the firm.  In a way that worked out, the firm prospered with production through the strike and no worker objected due to the very fair terms given.   However it led to the end of the company because any excess money normally put into reinvestment for the future of the firm had gone towards wages.  It was mostly closed down within a decade because of that.
hero member
Activity: 1498
Merit: 711
Enjoy 500% bonus + 70 FS
I personally prefer that approach, to share profit and losses with the company I work for, because when I do my job, I do it with full passion, I put myself to work and I get so obsessed with my profession that it's not a problem for me to work overtime to master the final product design. Btw there are many people who don't care about what happens in the company where they work and all they want is to finish the job and go home.

Do you know why? They just concentrate on the function assigned to them, and they will not like a situation whereby they partake in companies politics, I have seen someone that losses it life because of companies engagement and when you die company will continue to exist, so that's the reason why you have to work in company with precaution, I know very well of companies matters, working overtime is individual agreement with company so not everyone that have such time to work over time.

Why I wouldn't agree to this term of sharing profit or loss between employees and employer is that employees can not accept that if such opportunity is been given to them. Because they believe in fixed price as to know how to mitigate their wages by the end of the month. It is the priority of the employer to bear the risk and not the employee to bear any risk. The employer can only lay off workers when the company is facing financial challenge.
Do you know that your employer can ruin your company if you don't take adequate mechanism to overseas what's going on in your company, because your work may take a risk that will make the company to loss surplus or huge amount of money, the thing is that if you're giving a task to your workers, make sure that you give then the one the risk will not caused a setback to your company, because the risk of your worker can caused a damage.
full member
Activity: 490
Merit: 209
Why I wouldn't agree to this term of sharing profit or loss between employees and employer is that employees can not accept that if such opportunity is been given to them. Because they believe in fixed price as to know how to mitigate their wages by the end of the month. It is the priority of the employer to bear the risk and not the employee to bear any risk. The employer can only lay off workers when the company is facing financial challenge.

I agree to the idea of sharing profits or loss between employees and employers because the employers alone can't grow a business. The employees work alongside the employers to search for new ideas,  scout for profitable business collaboration and some many other things just to ensure the growth of the company as the growth of the company means the increase of their income. So the idea of sharing profits with the employees can serve as both encouragement and appreciation. To encourage them to work more and to appreciate them for the work they have done. Sometimes we usually underate appreciation and you can not say how long it can boost the performance of your workers. And you have to be able to make better plans when it comes to share of profits and loses, those are the two business experiences you can get.
sr. member
Activity: 462
Merit: 355
The great city of God 🔥
Why I wouldn't agree to this term of sharing profit or loss between employees and employer is that employees can not accept that if such opportunity is been given to them. Because they believe in fixed price as to know how to mitigate their wages by the end of the month. It is the priority of the employer to bear the risk and not the employee to bear any risk. The employer can only lay off workers when the company is facing financial challenge.
But still, the same workers who don't want to share losses with the company due to how they plan their salary ahead of time will still come back to demand a salary increase each time they notice that the company is doing well and there is much profit in the business.
If they can be bold enough to ask for a salary increment, why can't they also bear for their salary to be cut down in times where the company is facing some financial challenges? These are the questions I ask most any time I come across such a case.
Why it wouldn't work that way is because it is not a pertinaship business. In business we have sole proprietorship and pertinership business.

Pertinership business: is a type of business that involve 2 or more people who shear ideas in common, bear risk of loss and gain together. In this pertinership business they make decisions together and finalize the outcome.

Sole proprietorship business: is a one man business that involve personal decision making. In this kind of business such person bears the risk of lose and gain alone.

So when taking about bearing risk of profit and lose, think of the type of business you are involved in, wether it's a pertinaship or sole proprietorship business.
hero member
Activity: 2352
Merit: 905
Metawin.com - Truly the best casino ever
I personally prefer that approach, to share profit and losses with the company I work for, because when I do my job, I do it with full passion, I put myself to work and I get so obsessed with my profession that it's not a problem for me to work overtime to master the final product design. Btw there are many people who don't care about what happens in the company where they work and all they want is to finish the job and go home.

I think that for most people and most jobs, a monthly salary is a better option than sharing profit with them. You can't share a business with unmotivated and untalented people or workers, that's why that system is not for everyone.
sr. member
Activity: 1288
Merit: 231
Hire Bitcointalk Camp. Manager @ r7promotions.com
Why I wouldn't agree to this term of sharing profit or loss between employees and employer is that employees can not accept that if such opportunity is been given to them. Because they believe in fixed price as to know how to mitigate their wages by the end of the month. It is the priority of the employer to bear the risk and not the employee to bear any risk. The employer can only lay off workers when the company is facing financial challenge.
For a business start-up, it's always beneficial for those that workers when they get a fixed salary at the end of the month, whether the company runs, loses, or profits; it's none of their business because they are there to work and get paid, and their duty is being carried out based on instructions.
 
But still, the same workers who don't want to share losses with the company due to how they plan their salary ahead of time will still come back to demand a salary increase each time they notice that the company is doing well and there is much profit in the business.
If they can be bold enough to ask for a salary increment, why can't they also bear for their salary to be cut down in times where the company is facing some financial challenges? These are the questions I ask most any time I come across such a case.
hero member
Activity: 2604
Merit: 816
🐺Spinarium.com🐺 - iGaming casino
Employee working on a company and get salary without thinks about the problem that the company face if that is not their job description. But if that employee field to manage the company, they will need to figure out the problem and solve it by finds a way while the owner thinks for the whole things. Employees should receive a bonus if the company gets profits but the reality is not as the employee just get their salary as it mention in their contract.

The losses will be the business owner while the employee can get employee reduction if the company can not handle the problem and needs to do something to save the company. It is not related to morale because when employee doing wrong in their work, the company can warn them not to do the same thing and the worst, the company can fired them up easily.

The company thinks that they can replace one employee to another because many people queue for that position. So the company will not thinks much about firing up their employee.
sr. member
Activity: 462
Merit: 355
The great city of God 🔥
Why I wouldn't agree to this term of sharing profit or loss between employees and employer is that employees can not accept that if such opportunity is been given to them. Because they believe in fixed price as to know how to mitigate their wages by the end of the month. It is the priority of the employer to bear the risk and not the employee to bear any risk. The employer can only lay off workers when the company is facing financial challenge.
legendary
Activity: 1820
Merit: 1207
In my opinion decent wages sufficient to earn a living do not only keep workers financially stable but also increase job satisfaction and productivity to the benefit of businesses themselves.
Do you have employees? employees doesn't care with the company where they work, all they want is to get paid. Unfortunately there's no "decent wages", it's all about perspective, someone who used to earn more than what you offer, will say it's not decent. But, someone who get paid less than what you offer will say it's decent. They will be happy in the first few months, but after a year or more, they will think their salary is small and they ask for more.

Employees choose stability over ups and downs, if they choose ups and downs, they choose to resign and find other ways.
hero member
Activity: 2702
Merit: 672
I don't request loans~
~
This would only work if the product of the employee's service is directly related to the output. If, say, the service was to simply mass produce something (either via machine or something), then I don't see any reason why it should happen as you say. If, however, it was a type of business like say releasing a book as a how, then yeah, shared profit. And afaik, that's how the real world works? If you want the latter to happen everywhere, highly doubt it'd work. Business owners own a business, not a charity lol. Same idea with an employee. You offer your services not because you want a share of the possible profit, you offer your services for a stable source of money instead. Whatever happens after you provide that is honestly up to the owner.

That, or the company is that big that they'd offer shares as rewards for permanent/long-term employees. Afaik this is a thing already? Someone correct me if I'm wrong though. Would only work with big companies though. Small companies wouldn't even plan about splitting the company shares, let alone offering them among employees.

As for the issue with public sectors, it's not the method that's the problem, it's the people giving out the money (or at the top in general) that is the problem.
sr. member
Activity: 1400
Merit: 268
Fully Regulated Crypto Casino
Workers have fixed costs regardless of the company's performance, rent, groceries, healthcare, a regular check is required. In my opinion decent wages sufficient to earn a living do not only keep workers financially stable but also increase job satisfaction and productivity to the benefit of businesses themselves.

There's also a risk that purely profit based pay models could create income instability and discourage skilled workers from industries in which profits can vary wildly. Besides, profit sharing usually supplements but doesn't replace base wages. This offers workers financial stability, while still providing performance incentives. A more balanced approach might offer workers both a steady wage and opportunities for earning more when business is good, lining up everyone's interests without creating financial insecurity.
hero member
Activity: 980
Merit: 947
The reason for this is because of the business that you decide to join beforehand. So if you join a business, and agree to get a fixed rate, then you are going to get a fixed rate, there are also jobs where you get paid based on your performance as well, like for example car salesman, makes money based on the profit he makes for the company, the company provides the cars to sell, and the salesman sells to make money.

So there are jobs for either case, and depending on what you do, you can do this. Here where I live, doctors are like that too and that became an issue, as you can see some jobs are not for performance or profitability, if a doctor makes money based on how much profit he brings to the hospital, he has incentives to do more tests on you, even would do useless surgery just to make money, and unethical doctors could cause even death. So all in all, some jobs can't be based on performance and the ones with fixed salary agreed to it beforehand.
Medicine is a separate conversation, there is a lot of room for speculation and corruption, at least I see it all the time. To avoid this, the whole system needs to be changed and it would be desirable to make medicine free for the population, but I doubt that this will happen, medicine has long been a very profitable business. And I think sharing your financial successes or losses is a very bad habit, if you lose, it turns out that you will complain that it does not look very good, and you should not share your successes, so as not to attract the attention of bad people.
legendary
Activity: 2688
Merit: 1192
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?

I don't think in a capitalist society that this is necessarily true. A business owner may either have started a business from the ground up or has invested large amounts of capital in order to buy it. Many regular people are more than content with frittering away their whole paycheck with a large portion spent on overconsumption and following a consumerist lifestyle. While there is a chance for a business to grow up on a cooperative and shared model, it is a very rare situation that it survives long enough to grow into a stable enough beast that makes it worthwhile. That means that the owners of most businesses are enduring all the risks, with a potential business that can turn loss making for any number of reasons, with employees who receive a fair wage (or they can switch jobs in a competitive market) that trade a piece of stability for a piece of the higher profits.
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1252
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Don't you think so?
Not all people will strive for a better work performance for a higher salary because some people are only working to survive. But does this make them useless for the company? No, they still serve their purposes and the amount being paid to them. However, if it is with raise to those who are exerting bigger efforts for your company then that's the right thing to do if you're a business owner. You need to balance consistency between employees' salary and the amount they are generating for your company, and this is why raise doesn't come in an instant. In the long run, what you should be concerned of is overall sustainability of their salary to the profit they are generating for the company.
I think a good company already put a system where it can recognizes the effort of the employees.
some company determine employees performance by target, some determines by other quality. but I've seen plenty of business that gives bonus for employees that did outstanding performance and minimal bonus to the underperforming employees.
such system is already being enforced by some of the companies, not all but some literally impose merit system to reward people who deserves.

on the other hand, rise of salary in unison regardless of performance usually happens in a company that still adopts old way of business.
Bonuses are ideal than to instantly give a raise that will be permanent on their titles since people have tendencies to be inconsistent with their efforts. It will be more of rewarding than to be a reinforcement for both employee and employer.
Pages:
Jump to: