3 ms·

Employees share responsibility for the success of a company so they should also have stake in the company. This whole idea that a company exists exclusively fo

Employees share responsibility for the success of a company so they should also have stake in the company. This whole idea that a company exists exclusively for the owners doesn’t make sense to me. There is a bigger picture to make a society work for all citizens. Warning about “ socialism “ also doesn’t make sense. We don’t have to choose between the way the US is at the moment and the Soviet Union or Venezuela. There is a lot of room between these extremes.

mdorazio 8y ago
There are plenty of employee-owned companies to join if that's your opinion. Trying to shoehorn that ownership into companies that often got to where they are by not being employee-owned seems really entitled.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  There was a time when nobility was complaining about peasants who wanted to have a say in how the country is run.
  - mdorazio 8y ago
    There's a little bit of a difference between the social structure of governance in a place you have to live and an opt-in corporate structure for people who can choose where they want to work.
philwelch 8y ago
This is why every tech company worth its salt has some sort of RSU or stock option compensation.
tenpies 8y ago
> Employees share responsibility for the success of a company so they should also have stake in the company. Exactly, so what is stopping them from using their salary to buy shares? If you believe you are doing such a good job that the company will sustain or do better, it would almost be silly not to. You have domain expertise by virtue of working there. You may even have a solid insider feel for the pulse of the organization.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Nothing is stopping them from buying shares. What’s your point?
ThrowawayR2 8y ago
> Employees share responsibility for the success of a company so they should also have stake in the company. At a restaurant, a chef is not allowed to have a bite of your meal because s/he is the one who prepared it. That meal is owned by you in its entirety because that is what you paid for. If a group of employees want a say in the how a business is run, they are free to purchase ownership, whether directly or through shares.
- peteradio 8y ago
  Chef gets to set the menu.

mdorazio 8y ago

There are plenty of employee-owned companies to join if that's your opinion. Trying to shoehorn that ownership into companies that often got to where they are by not being employee-owned seems really entitled.

maxxxxx 8y ago
There was a time when nobility was complaining about peasants who wanted to have a say in how the country is run.
- mdorazio 8y ago
  There's a little bit of a difference between the social structure of governance in a place you have to live and an opt-in corporate structure for people who can choose where they want to work.

philwelch 8y ago

This is why every tech company worth its salt has some sort of RSU or stock option compensation.

tenpies 8y ago

> Employees share responsibility for the success of a company so they should also have stake in the company. Exactly, so what is stopping them from using their salary to buy shares? If you believe you are doing such a good job that the company will sustain or do better, it would almost be silly not to. You have domain expertise by virtue of working there. You may even have a solid insider feel for the pulse of the organization.

maxxxxx 8y ago
Nothing is stopping them from buying shares. What’s your point?

ThrowawayR2 8y ago

> Employees share responsibility for the success of a company so they should also have stake in the company. At a restaurant, a chef is not allowed to have a bite of your meal because s/he is the one who prepared it. That meal is owned by you in its entirety because that is what you paid for. If a group of employees want a say in the how a business is run, they are free to purchase ownership, whether directly or through shares.

peteradio 8y ago
Chef gets to set the menu.