4 ms·

Employees are supposed to receive a salary in exchange for their work. The decision on how to distribute profits is, theoretically, made by shareholders. Mayb

Employees are supposed to receive a salary in exchange for their work. The decision on how to distribute profits is, theoretically, made by shareholders. Maybe they decided to give some to employees in order to improve morale or something. If so, that's OK. If somehow the shareholders were left out of this decision, via some authoritative action from the executives or something, it's wrong.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
EliRivers 10y ago
"The decision on how to distribute profits is, theoretically, made by shareholders" I disagree strongly. When shareholders purchase their shares, the rights they get with it are clear. Very, very commonly, they do not include the right to set renumeration. Not theoretically. Not practically. Not at all. Non-voting stock very deliberately gives shareholders no power. "If somehow the shareholders were left out of this decision, via some authoritative action from the executives or something, it's wrong." I disagree very strongly. It is the job of the executives to make these decisions. Their first duty is not to shareholders, despite the pernicious myth that there's some kind of legal obligation to do the best for shareholders. Shareholders do not need to be consulted.
- grondilu 10y ago
  They are not supposed to make decisions regarding personal management, but if those decisions consist in throwing money at employees, they may certainly be pissed off. Shareholders literally own the company. They have influence on everything, at least indirectly. They vote the board of directors, so if they are not happy with the way employees are thrown money at, they will sack the directors and elect a board that will not do the same thing.
  - EliRivers 10y ago
    "They are not supposed to make decisions regarding personal management, but if those decisions consist in throwing money at employees, they will certainly be pissed off." Not only are shareholders not supposed to make such decisions, they also actually don't make those decisions. Literally owning the company doesn't actually mean they can do what they like it, and that's how it should be. It's not as if they're liable for anything the company does wrong, so even calling it "ownership" is a leap. Secondly, I am a shareholder and I applaud this. I'm not pissed off. I take a long term view and I find the attitude of shareholder value above all to be backwards and damaging. I also know that the best shareholders could do is put up their own nominations for directorship positions. It would damage the company and should be done, frankly, only if the company was already a slow motion car crash. Sometimes you see activists doing this as a prelude to getting as much money as they can out of a healthy company. Here's a company doing its job, looking after its employees and investing in its future.
    - grondilu 10y ago
      > Secondly, I am a shareholder and I applaud this. I'm a shareholder as well. I'm willing to believe this decision was made for good reasons so I give the executives the benefit of the doubt, but to me it is slightly worrying. You applaud this, fine. We disagree, still fine. There is no right or wrong here, in the end it's only the votes that count. Because, if what the executives do pisses enough shareholders, they will be voted out and unlike you I believe this is all right.
c0nducktr 10y ago
Won't somebody think of the capitalists?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

EliRivers 10y ago

"The decision on how to distribute profits is, theoretically, made by shareholders" I disagree strongly. When shareholders purchase their shares, the rights they get with it are clear. Very, very commonly, they do not include the right to set renumeration. Not theoretically. Not practically. Not at all. Non-voting stock very deliberately gives shareholders no power. "If somehow the shareholders were left out of this decision, via some authoritative action from the executives or something, it's wrong." I disagree very strongly. It is the job of the executives to make these decisions. Their first duty is not to shareholders, despite the pernicious myth that there's some kind of legal obligation to do the best for shareholders. Shareholders do not need to be consulted.

grondilu 10y ago
They are not supposed to make decisions regarding personal management, but if those decisions consist in throwing money at employees, they may certainly be pissed off. Shareholders literally own the company. They have influence on everything, at least indirectly. They vote the board of directors, so if they are not happy with the way employees are thrown money at, they will sack the directors and elect a board that will not do the same thing.
- EliRivers 10y ago
  "They are not supposed to make decisions regarding personal management, but if those decisions consist in throwing money at employees, they will certainly be pissed off." Not only are shareholders not supposed to make such decisions, they also actually don't make those decisions. Literally owning the company doesn't actually mean they can do what they like it, and that's how it should be. It's not as if they're liable for anything the company does wrong, so even calling it "ownership" is a leap. Secondly, I am a shareholder and I applaud this. I'm not pissed off. I take a long term view and I find the attitude of shareholder value above all to be backwards and damaging. I also know that the best shareholders could do is put up their own nominations for directorship positions. It would damage the company and should be done, frankly, only if the company was already a slow motion car crash. Sometimes you see activists doing this as a prelude to getting as much money as they can out of a healthy company. Here's a company doing its job, looking after its employees and investing in its future.
  - grondilu 10y ago
    > Secondly, I am a shareholder and I applaud this. I'm a shareholder as well. I'm willing to believe this decision was made for good reasons so I give the executives the benefit of the doubt, but to me it is slightly worrying. You applaud this, fine. We disagree, still fine. There is no right or wrong here, in the end it's only the votes that count. Because, if what the executives do pisses enough shareholders, they will be voted out and unlike you I believe this is all right.

c0nducktr 10y ago

Won't somebody think of the capitalists?