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

The thing about a worker and the business owner is that the worker is being paid a certain percentage of his efforts by his employer and if the company loss or gain sometimes it affects the salary by an increase or decrease but then having to share the profits and gains with your employer,I don't really think there should be need for that.

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.

When I own a public company which I have plan on doing in the future, all my employees will own shares in my company. I'll use some part of their salary to buy them the shares or they'll receive payment for some months in the stock/shares of the company to motivate them to work with the company and not work for the company. Most employee are only there to work for the company and don't care about the wellbeing of the company. Employees don't know the work that business owners put in, they only want to come to work from 9-5 and get paid at the end of the month irrespective of their efforts bringing profits or lost to the company.  

Yes, it is very difficult to share profits between the company owner and his employees, and it has been arranged in such a way that employees only get a monthly salary, everything has been determined, employees need to save and stand alone in pioneering the business they want so that they do not depend on their permanent jobs whose income is regulated by the company.

This is not about having a business, being the employee, or the employer, but about giving a general opinion on how the OP feels this should be done in order to boost the performance of workers all around since it will not be as a partnership business where what you earn is based on how much the company is able to realize or make at the end of the month—that's if things are being done transparently and nobody is being kept in the dark. On the other hand, the employee will also know before the end of the month that earnings are not as usual.

If you want to get a share from business' profits, then become a share holder. You can acquire assets from the company, and this way you are owning a piece of it. If it's the company you are working for, you can use your wage they pay you to buy the assets. This is the only viable alternative, I suppose, because it's not of the company's interest to turn every employees they have into partners. In the end, the company's owner will have all the burden of the management work on his shoulders, but at same time will have to share all the profit equally among every employees who are just following orders, without having to worry about anything else.

She just put 2 million into a new business? Sounds like it would have been a better idea to start a small business and get some experience and feel things out, before making such a large investment. Nobody can tell what the future has stored for us, which is why it is important to make concrete decisions without flip flopping on them later in the future.

But some people get too overwhelmed and make rash decisions out of fear that something might change for the worse...

I have a cousin she worked for an internet startup in the 90s they paid her 401k in company stock. From 1995 to 1999 the stock mooned the 401k became 3 million dollars which was close to 30 years pay for her in 1999 dollars.

She quit. Cashed out the 401k paid the tax and had 2 million opened her own business  and went broke.

If she left her 401k alone and just worked she would now have a 15 million dollar 401k to retire to.

Employees are entitled to their salaries and if an employer wants to boost the productivity of workers, he can add some benefits to the pay according to their contribution to the company. Or some societies can be created for employees to help each other in financial matters. Because when the company's services are handled by people who love how they're being treated. The outcome of their business would be top notch and very quality.

However, such offers can vary based on the business's progress. Because when not done the right way growing companies can develop financial crisis.

In economics, the reward for entrepreneurs is profit or lose, while the reward of workers is their wages or salary, that is the format and hierarchy as i know it. The moment your employees starts to share profit and lose with you, that means that they have automatically become your business partners. That means that they have a say in how your business is run because if you don't make profit, they will be affected negatively. What if they have the necessary skills to do their work but lacks managerial skills to co run your establishment, then it won't make much sense.

Business owners should take full responsibility of their businesses and let workers to be entitled to their wages, while the profit and lose should be for the owners. A proactive employer can decide to share excess profits with the employees as an incentive to them to work harder to get the rewards again.

You raise a good point about responsibilities. The employees never agreed to manage the business on a large scale but the business owners knew the risks and implications of starting their business. If we apply this logic, should it mean that if the business is doing well the employees get the same amount of money the business owners get? Of course not. The business owners benefit directly from the profits while they only share a percentage to their employees. It is up to them to make sure that they do not reach a point where they can no longer pay their employees.
Business is not an easy job. It requires you to be knowledgeable about many things. Financial, marketing, management and many more. I have never met anyone who started a business and says that they have never encountered a challenge ever. But the thing with businesses is you should know how to bounce back.

Different responsibilities will give birth to opposing views between business owners and workers even though the end result is profit.
Business owners have a much more important role because they have to ensure that the business runs well while the employee's job is only to ensure that sales can run normally.
No one is ready for the same responsibility where the owner or worker will share the same profits and losses because usually workers think more about salaries.

It is not easy to develop a business because it may require ideal abilities in creating innovations that make customers interested in shopping with us.
These three things may need to be prepared so that the business being developed can run successfully.

If anyone will share his profit to business owners then he will get good opinion from them because they always face peak and deep in life and they know well about the market situation. You should share our ideas to the the rich person because they will guide us and we will be successful in future. Businessman opinion is very important in life because they are successful because of their strategies they used and they are doing the thing which poor people are not doing.You should share all our plans to rich people and we should learn from them because they can guide us well and our future will be bright because of their opinion. We can face big lose but don't lose hope in that days and continue struggle and you will be successful.

Can you also establish a business and share the same equal profits and loss with your employees, we should maybe begin to start putting ourselves into the same condition that applies on others before making any conclusion yet, those that doesn't have a well establish business may be the ones bringing such suggestion, because a standard and profitable business cannot thought of bringing up this kind of idea on the table.

There are different businesses practice going on and not only the fixed salary type of practice or haven't you have about commission based payments that your salaries is based on your work rate for the month.

Many small businesses are using it and it's been productive to them because it gets their workers to be serious with their job and referral more people to the business. They are some business that you shouldn't be using a fixed salary for.

A perfect example is real estate business that the salary of your workers should be commissioned based as this encourages them to bring more buyers by developing their own marketing strategies and you get to benefits too as the company owners.

Paying real estate workers salary will make them lazy and they mightn't even sell any property for you by the end of the months.

In most organizations, people are already paid based on their contribution to the company. The salaries are never the same and that should be in agreement with your suggestion. It is only in the public sector we see these wastages and unproductivity. However, that is not the case in some countries because they have a working system that is able to identify the talents and high contributors and reward them accordingly by placing them in position of authorities with added benefits. As for the other countries where it is business as usual, there is nothing that can be done about it since their system of government permits such unproductivity.

they are the capital owners who open businesses with a profit-sharing system, they are those who are not yet sure about the prospects of the business they are building. Because if the capital owner is sure that the business they are building has prospects and produces clear profits, then the capital owner will choose to recruit employees. Because the capital owner knows that when they use a profit-sharing system, the profits they get will be less than hiring other people. and usually capital owners who have been in business for a long time will choose a system like this

However, when you are a person who is new to the business world and becomes a capital owner, it would be better if you use a profit-sharing system, because by using this system you will be able to minimize the losses that occur. Because you only need to spend the initial capital and after that get profit, if you win the business runs well. but if the opposite happens, you can minimize the loss, because you only need to provide additional capital without having to think about how to pay wages to employees.

Business owners often give incentives to workers who make a big, positive impact on the company’s growth. And for those in higher positions, salaries are usually higher. I believe owners offer fair pay to their staff, in line with what’s required by law, at least here in my country.

Honestly, as workers, we all want higher salaries, but we also need to understand that business owners are doing their best with what they can give, especially since they have a lot of expenses to keep the business running. As they say, even if the pay isn’t huge, having a job is better than having none. Plus, if we want more income, we can look for additional ways to earn. It’s important not to just look at our own needs but also to consider the owner’s situation.

Yes I agree with you that workers mistake can ruin the company or management, but do you also know that the employers mismanagement can also ruin the company?yes. so we can't only see it from one side, the profit or loss is always two sided meaning the loss can come from the employee or from the employer. Now it is the obligation of the employer to manage the welfare of his company both his own aspect and that of the workers to make sure that there is a balance. But the fact still remain that no matter how a company is managed, they must surely run loss. Sometimes it could be a simple mistake of employee or employer that will Leed to the loss. But although it depends on the type of business before we can talk about shearing profit or loss which I have already made it clear from a quote above where I stated that profit or loss sharing depends on the type of business you can check here.

If the profit and loss of a business is divided among the workers after a certain period of time, it will be seen that the company is getting destroyed day by day. Because when the price of a company's product goes down, the workers will not get fair pay for their work. In this way, the family will not be able to run with the money that the workers will get. As a result workers in the company will show reluctance to work and leave the company.
On the other hand, if the company owner pays the workers weekly or monthly according to their dues, the workers will get paid on time. Due to which they will have interest in work and product production will increase.
Later, when the production of goods in the company increases, increasing the salary structure of the workers will increase the production capacity. All in all then company owners will be profitable as well as workers.

Because of which I think that if the profit of any company is divided among all, the company's product will not be produced but the company will be destroyed.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

Sharing profits is moral, but losses don't affect employees in the same way; they continue to receive their salaries regardless of how the business is doing. This is the risk that business owners face. This is why there are fewer business operators as it's a risky venture. Having a job is generally more relaxed, as individuals can easily switch from one company to another. In contrast, as a business owner, you must actively manage your company and remain committed to achieving success while building your empire.

Of course, as a business owner, you should know what you can provide as a regular rate for your employees. Now, you can't just raise the salary of one of your employees for no reason, it's up to you as long as it doesn't affect your business.

That's the simple thing to think about, don't increase the salary of your employees if it will affect your business, now, the business as an employer earns a lot if we want to give them additional benefits and bonuses that will not affect it yet in our business.

Nowadays, many startup companies, that lack financial support, follow this path. They publish vacancies and ask people to start working on a startup project for free but in exchange of getting shares of the company. I.E, if company succeeds, the employees will receive a share of profit instead of fixed salary but if company fails, then it's like, these employees wasted months for gaining nothing (they always gain experience in this case).

The benefit of having a salary scheme for employed is that the person doesn't care what happens in company, they are guaranteed to receive money in the end of the month. That translates as stability too and 99% of people prefer stability.

Profit or loss is a certainty in a business, the existence of a company with employees who work in large numbers of course they do that the goal is to meet the needs of the community, for employees who do have good performance sometimes they can get other benefits such as bonuses, but what is annoying is that there are always people or employees who seek favors from their superiors sometimes I call employees like this sycophants.
I think with a company that has grown big it is likely that they will prioritize quality over quantity, I often find companies that do make products in limited quantities but to seek other benefits they make products that are almost the same with different qualities, this shows a company that seeks profit and is indeed lucky with employees who have good superiors because they are likely to get bonuses due to their good performance.

More like a tool (a CCTV for instance). As it monitors all of our employees and if how they are performing. I remember there is also a good old "manager" that can watch our employees. As a company, it is always better to have a good quality of service or products more than just having a lot of quantity but lacks in quality because that won't make the customer satisfied. It is either they will complain or they won't comeback anymore. That company is generous or kind if they still gave a bonus to their underperforming employees. If that happens to other more stricter companies, those underperforming employees won't ever receive a bonus and will infact have another cut on their salaries. Worst is, they will now get terminated.

There were lots of businesses now and operated by different individuals with different mindsets, so their methods can also differ from the other. There are company who appreciate their workers or the task that their carry towards the company (which is a must) especially if the worker is sincere and puts enough value on their jobs because there is a good chance that they can get compensated more or they will get promoted for a higher position. Their compensation can also increase this way but not only one time but up until the time of their retirements. Workers are important but what is more important is, the mind behind the company. Even if they have a worker but their plans sucks, they still can fail.

in a government owned establishment and in most big firms that have a large numbers of workers, the mode of payment is usually Uniform and not based on individual effort or level of contribution on the set out task. In a real sense, it usually reduces productivity and some really meticulous workers get to work more while receiving same pay like other coulaeage that are working less. Systems like this is found in public schools, government companies and some really big establishment. If by the scheme of the organization, they dime it fit to pay based on individual performance, it's a good one and will boost productivity but the reality is that it's usually not obtainable in most firms.

If it's a start up, paying based on effort has a way of encouraging workers to put in more effort and another way of making it more effective depending on the kind of job in consideration is to reward staff based on set out tasks. So if you're able to carry out certain numbers of task per day, you're sure you've earned a certain amount and then you're motivated to work extra hard while the firm benefit at the other end. It's why some hard working people enjoy cpa marketing because it rewards you based on your productivity. Some banks also carry out thier marketing through that means such that the numbers of customers you bring affects the lay you get at the months end. The result depends on the efficacy of the plan as a well planned out pay per effort working scheme will help boost productivity greatly.

with the methods used in the business sector, the company should appreciate the workers who carry out tasks in their company, it is a must because progress depends on the employees who work in their fields, by giving more attention from the company, they will be more enthusiastic in carrying out their responsibilities.

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.

This is so true, there's no productivity in most of the employees when they've got no involvement in the business and they're in the setting that every pay day they'll receive an exact amount. They could careless to the job that they're working with while the business owner works his ass off 24/7 in getting those leads and sales. But with the involvement of the employees and doing this type of salary, they're inclined to become more productive to generate more sales, as it means more money and income to them.

Different perspective per employee and it's understandable if the majority likes to having that type of payment-scheme with a fixed amount of salary. I'll also do that when you just want to have a peace of mind that you'll get no pressure with the 9-5 work you do daily. We just want to live off with the amount of salary that we get without that much hassle at all but it means real business to those that are into sales-commission basis type.

Although this is also different from those employees that receive generous salaries with stock options for which I guess is the best option of them all.

Running a business by commission gets you this effortlessly, I remember when I started a small business of my own and the pay structure was strictly on commission based.

The more you sell the higher your salary by the end of the month and same for my workers that didn't take their work serious or were just unlucky. Something I noticed is that it favoured the harwoekers/smart workers and it pushes the sales higher.

It was a gadget business but after the area which I had my shop got renovated and the rent increase, as I couldn't afford the rent I had to stop and focused on some other things. When we share our profits and losses with our workers as business owners, it's more productive than giving them a fixed salary because you don't motivate them with that type of payment.

Frequently adjusting your employees pay rates individually based on their performance and how well the business does would be completely unmanageable for any decent sized business. There needs to be a base salary and you can give bonuses and pay raises every now and then for employees that excel. Making employees share the losses is not really ethical because you are exploiting their labor. If you cannot afford to pay their salaries, you can fire the least effective employees and cut some costs elsewhere.

Agree with u because the methods you mentioned are actually systems like these. This is how business is done. No matter how you work, you can find ways to earn in every sector. The owner of the shop also earns through sales and any employee of the shop who sells the product earns some profit.

In fact, the system of income is like this. On one side, it is seen that a component of the shop is coming by selling the products of the shop. On the other hand, the person who is selling is given a target at different times. If he can meet that target, then the shop owner gives him a bonus or commission a part from his salary. This is his extra income. I think every sector has systems to earn this way.

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.

In capitalism it's an unspoken agreement that losses aren't shared with workers but there's also no obligation to share profits.
So companies have kept having larger profits without wage increases for decades now. It's a crazy analogy to think about. When you dumb down capitalism it makes little to no sense.

Because even the money we hold in our hands holds no value if there's no labour to back it up. There's no gold reserves now, nothing tangible. Only our work making the gears of the economy turn. Money has value because we give value to it.

So in terms of the question if it's ethical of workers to share profits, under the current system, that's possible under coop ownership. However these companies usually get eaten alive by the large corporations that our economical system favours. Under neoliberalism, the only viable type of company is the megacorp conglomerate.

It is not a moral thing, but it will be very difficult for employees to get a salary based on the company's profit/loss, the reason is because employees need a fixed income according to the agreed contract, by having a fixed salary means they can plan their finances better, even when their company is losing money. And again, the company is a business organization, they need good financial planning for operations and development not only in 1 year, but also 5-10 years into the future, so companies need to avoid sharing their profits/losses with their employees - they need to save and invest their money for the company's operations and development in the future - and if they need it, they can also give rewards/bonuses to their employees to provide motivation and support. So don't think that it is unfair for employees to get a fixed salary while the company is very profitable, what if next year the company loses money? Are employees willing to bear all that? Moreover, employees only work based on orders, while executives work for the future of the company, so of course there is a difference here and they deserve a bigger share.

Employee can't demand anything from profits apart from bonus because they didn't bring capital, idea and working to build the company from scratch so it's not fair to demand profit from the owner who did all the job of making it successful.

And the business model you suggest is exists and instead of working as employees they also bring capital and work as a partner so the company run by many number of owners instead of one, so everyone work as an employee too and they share profits with each other which works in small scale only.

There are many companies that do an annual profit share as a yearly bonus. It encourages employees to work hard as they get a nice bonus, along with their normal salary. I don’t think employees should incur any losses though, that isn’t fair.

Yes, this is an option for some companies. Whatever damage you cause or if you don't reach your target, let's say you're in the marketing department and are responsible for bringing in ten new customers. If you don't meet that target, they'll calculate it and reduce it. Some companies do that. While if you surpass the status quo, they give you the profit on top of it. There's a way it's been done.

Generally, agreement is an agreement, whether the business is doing well or not. They are bound to pay, the business owner would have probably considered this before setting up the business and have an investment or backup money to pay employees.

Also, when it feels like the business doesn't have money anymore and employees are not generating enough, he can lay off some workers to find a way to sustain the business. But unless agreed upon, that your salary will be reduced if not profiting enough or increased when you bring in a certain amount of profit, then the standard payment agreed upon should be paid to employees without question.

I don't see anything wrong if the employers offer an option to pay in fixed amount or share of profit and loss.

But, almost all employers will want to pay in fixed amount because when the business getting bigger, in order to maximize profit is pay the workers as low as possible.

There are no business want to accept useless people, you're either confusing with employees who work in government/officials which is full of low performance employees or you're jealous with your colleagues.

This is an unfair thought though? Not all losses are caused by the employees. If they are performing badly then they should just get fired. But some businesses, they do not have enough profit but this doesn’t mean it was caused by the employees. The employees could be doing more than they could but if the business is really not profitable what can they do?

If the business can’t handle to pay employees anymore there is a simple solution to that. Just close the business so you don’t have to pay them anymore.

In most cases employer and employee do go into agreement also regarding to the terms and conditions of such organization, it could be that what so ever damage does by the employee will be deducted from his or her salary like it is common in my country some months employee will go home at the end without been paid because he mis-sell or got defrauded while selling for the boss. So for me I think it is moral as it will add seriousness and consistency in place of work.or duty.

I have work as a sales boy in a point of sales (POS) office where an short of money for your care will directly deducted from your monthly payment.

1.Morals have nothing to do with economics. Economics is all about efficiency, not morals.
2.Not all businesses can be profitable since Day 1. Many businesses have to survive, while losing money for the first year or two, before they become profitable. How do you imagine the employees of such businesses being underpaid? Who is going to work for less money?
3.The trade unions are going to be pissed off, if the business owners start sharing their losses with their employees. Strikes will occur and this will destroy every company, that has losses.
4.Labor is like every other good or service. If you use it, you will have to pay for it. We don't live in the feudal or slave-owning society and nobody is going to work for free(or for less money) just because his employer isn't making profits.

First, you need to understand that some business or companies does this already. If you are working in a company and you perhaps contributed to damaged products or goods, the manager of the company or business is going to deduct some money from your salary to cover the lose. Also, when there's excessive sales and profit, the employees receives some tips either before their salary or it's paid together with the salary.

I worked in a few place some years back, so at least I had that experience.

I am not saying that every company does these but some business and big company in my country does that.

I am still of the opinion that assessment of work of employees should determine wages increment or depreciation although the second one is very difficult to run and might lead to revolt, it is better to just fire that employee.

Often organizations have loss generating employees and that needs to weeded out rapidly or else the company will suffer. In privately owned companies this is common but in government sectors, this is often neglected and leads to poor quality of service.

However companies also need to run their sales, so they take whatever means necessary.

Are you guys talking about stock options? Some employers do offer that. Although most employees would probably rather go for a regular pay than stocks that go up and down in value.

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?