4 ms·
In that case it would be good if "labor" had some skin in the game. Company goes bust - loose a portion of savings/house.
by Cmon2019 7y ago
In that case it would be good if "labor" had some skin in the game. Company goes bust - loose a portion of savings/house.
- brighter2morrow 7y agoIf the company goes bust then the workers still lose their jobs, so they do have incentives to be restrained.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tyrust 7y agoLabor does have skin in the game by investing their working time in the company. Also, particularly in tech, stock grants would be lost in such an event.
- offshore1243 7y agoEntrepreneurs who typically end up with the most shares and control over a company have more skin in the game. They usually work for nothing from the outset with no guaranteed compensation.
- mathieuh 7y agoAs an employee I go to work to sell my labour. I am incentivised to get the best deal possible for my labour. I am not there to worry about big picture things, that’s what someone else is selling their labour for. Anything that rational people can do to improve the price they get for their labour, they will. Unless you own some capital in the company, why would you care overly about the success of the company? It seems like you feel that everyone involved in a company should be equally bought into whatever “vision” they have, whereas in my case at least I simply don’t care.
- dodobirdlord 7y agoIf the company wants workers to have some skin in the game it could transition to a compensation strategy that is very stock-heavy with long vesting schedules.