Topic: Don't you think it's moral to share profits or losses with business owners? - page 2. (Read 789 times)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

~

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.

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?

Don't you think so?

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.