3 ms·

This is only true if your company operates to maximize shareholder value. If your company exists to serve its employees as its first priority, then your stateme

This is only true if your company operates to maximize shareholder value. If your company exists to serve its employees as its first priority, then your statement is false.

krapp 9y ago
Companies can't exist to serve their employees as a first priority - because companies exist to make a profit. Even if the owners care more about their employees than about profit, that profit still has to come first. No profit... sooner or later, no company.
- matt4077 9y ago
  This is an insane discussion, but I can't resist: By definition, "profit" is the share of revenue that is not needed for the existence and work of the company. There's even a category of enterprises successfully working in such a framework. They're called–oh happy day–"non-profits".
  - hueving 9y ago
    Non profits don't give extra leftover revenue to employees, so it's still a bullshit statement.
    - kuschku 9y ago
      Some do, like most German grocery store chains, real estate corporations, etc. They are cooperatives, all employees and customers can vote on all decisions, and surplus profit is either reinvested or paid out to employees and customers.
- thereare5lights 9y ago
  Looks like nonprofits and coops don't exist then.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Companies can't exist to serve their employees as a first priority Yes, they can. > because companies exist to make a profit. They may or may not. Companies generally exist to serve their owners interests, which may or may not be profit. And the owners may be the employees, as in a labor coop. > No profit... sooner or later, no company. You know there are not-for-profit companies, right? (Not necessarily tax exempt nonprofits, which have additional behavioral.and other restrictions.)
waterhouse 9y ago
Normally the company, from its inception, exists to serve its employees—i.e. the founders. It might then not be in the best interests of those employees to hire more employees under terms that share large amounts of profit with them, if they could get close to the same talent while offering considerably less.

This is only true if your company operates to maximize shareholder value. If your company exists to serve its employees as its first priority, then your statement is false.

krapp 9y ago

Companies can't exist to serve their employees as a first priority - because companies exist to make a profit. Even if the owners care more about their employees than about profit, that profit still has to come first. No profit... sooner or later, no company.

matt4077 9y ago
This is an insane discussion, but I can't resist: By definition, "profit" is the share of revenue that is not needed for the existence and work of the company. There's even a category of enterprises successfully working in such a framework. They're called–oh happy day–"non-profits".
- hueving 9y ago
  Non profits don't give extra leftover revenue to employees, so it's still a bullshit statement.
  - kuschku 9y ago
    Some do, like most German grocery store chains, real estate corporations, etc. They are cooperatives, all employees and customers can vote on all decisions, and surplus profit is either reinvested or paid out to employees and customers.
thereare5lights 9y ago
Looks like nonprofits and coops don't exist then.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Companies can't exist to serve their employees as a first priority Yes, they can. > because companies exist to make a profit. They may or may not. Companies generally exist to serve their owners interests, which may or may not be profit. And the owners may be the employees, as in a labor coop. > No profit... sooner or later, no company. You know there are not-for-profit companies, right? (Not necessarily tax exempt nonprofits, which have additional behavioral.and other restrictions.)

waterhouse 9y ago

Normally the company, from its inception, exists to serve its employees—i.e. the founders. It might then not be in the best interests of those employees to hire more employees under terms that share large amounts of profit with them, if they could get close to the same talent while offering considerably less.