3 ms·

How about this: Employers who don't give proportional ownership of the company to workers are terrible employers and living off of your sweat.

Tichy 16y ago
I must admit that is a notion I don't understand. Why shouldn't it be possible to simply pay for a job and have it done by a professional? Like if I pay somebody to build me a house, am I supposed to give them ownership of the house afterwards?
- itgoon 16y ago
  If you build a house by having it done by a professional, you're going to be paying more to have it completed. There's usually contract clauses and insurance to ensure that you're not left with a half-finished house. When you hire that professional, you're not only paying for his experience, but all those other things, as well. There's a premium attached to those clauses and insurance. You could choose to forgo those assurances, and save some money, but you have a higher risk. Not to mention, a lot of better professionals would refuse, thus limiting the pool of candidates. The author of the article wants it all: the assurance of the higher-cost option without the premium.
  - Tichy 16y ago
    Of course - if you give equity for workers, it is simply a form of salary. If they don't get equity, they should get a higher salary than workers who get equity. I agree to that. I just don't see why equity should always be a part of the compensation.
    - itgoon 16y ago
      That's more of a startup oriented attitude. To continue the house analogy, if you wanted to avoid the premium associated with the higher contract, could enter into a similar agreement with the builder. He builds the house on the cheap, in exchange for a percentage of the final selling price. If the contract was sound, why wouldn't that be an equitable deal? There's probably a law against it, though (houses are funny that way). In the case of the original post, I would be willing to work there - as a very expensive contractor, with the degree of my loyalty explicit in the terms. He'd probably object to the part about him paying my attorney to review it, though.
      - billswift 16y ago
        It's not, or didn't use to be, all that unusual in houses. It's referred to as building "on spec", meaning "speculative"; where the architect, builder, or whoever builds the house on the chance that they can make a profit selling it after, rather than the more common way of building it to an up-front contract. It was most often used when a builder had materials or a little cash available to avoid laying off good workers when there wasn't a contract job available.

Tichy 16y ago

I must admit that is a notion I don't understand. Why shouldn't it be possible to simply pay for a job and have it done by a professional? Like if I pay somebody to build me a house, am I supposed to give them ownership of the house afterwards?

itgoon 16y ago
If you build a house by having it done by a professional, you're going to be paying more to have it completed. There's usually contract clauses and insurance to ensure that you're not left with a half-finished house. When you hire that professional, you're not only paying for his experience, but all those other things, as well. There's a premium attached to those clauses and insurance. You could choose to forgo those assurances, and save some money, but you have a higher risk. Not to mention, a lot of better professionals would refuse, thus limiting the pool of candidates. The author of the article wants it all: the assurance of the higher-cost option without the premium.
- Tichy 16y ago
  Of course - if you give equity for workers, it is simply a form of salary. If they don't get equity, they should get a higher salary than workers who get equity. I agree to that. I just don't see why equity should always be a part of the compensation.
  - itgoon 16y ago
    That's more of a startup oriented attitude. To continue the house analogy, if you wanted to avoid the premium associated with the higher contract, could enter into a similar agreement with the builder. He builds the house on the cheap, in exchange for a percentage of the final selling price. If the contract was sound, why wouldn't that be an equitable deal? There's probably a law against it, though (houses are funny that way). In the case of the original post, I would be willing to work there - as a very expensive contractor, with the degree of my loyalty explicit in the terms. He'd probably object to the part about him paying my attorney to review it, though.
    - billswift 16y ago
      It's not, or didn't use to be, all that unusual in houses. It's referred to as building "on spec", meaning "speculative"; where the architect, builder, or whoever builds the house on the chance that they can make a profit selling it after, rather than the more common way of building it to an up-front contract. It was most often used when a builder had materials or a little cash available to avoid laying off good workers when there wasn't a contract job available.