5 ms·

What's your point? The workers don't run the company - it's not a co-op. Since they don't run the company and don't get a share of the profits, why would they e

What's your point? The workers don't run the company - it's not a co-op. Since they don't run the company and don't get a share of the profits, why would they ever be expected to pay losses?

dpark 7y ago
The point is specifically that because they don’t share in the losses[1] they shouldn’t share in the profits. This was a direct response to the parent comment: “Now that GM is very healthy and profitable the union workers want thier share.” [1] I’m not making a statement about whether this is true or not. Just capturing the context.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Tomte 7y ago
  > The point is specifically that because they don’t share in the losses[1] Assuming it's true they had their wages reduced in the crisis, it's absolutely disingenious to claim that a return to higher wages post-crisis would be undeserved profiteering. They did share in the losses.
  - dpark 7y ago
    Did you stop reading when you got to something you wanted to argue against or did you just pick the wrong comment to reply to? I very clearly called out that I am not making a statement about whether the workers shared in the losses.
  - _edo 7y ago
    By sharing in losses I mean losing money in absolute terms, that's what happens to owners. Owners don't just make less money in bad times, they lose money. Workers may lose money relative to what they think they would make otherwise, but they still make money. Accepting the risk of losses is why owners have a legitimate claim to the profits. Workers take a guaranteed paycheck which shelters them from losses in bad years and forfeits their claim to profits in good.
    - Tomte 7y ago
      > Workers take a guaranteed paycheck which shelters them from losses in bad years It's just great when workers accept pay-cuts in bad times, just for people like you claiming that this is just normal, no loss, and certainly no reason to restore their paycheck when good times are returning.
- chiefalchemist 7y ago
  Good point. But let's take it a step further. The workers might not "share" __directly__ in the financial losses, but certainly if the company is struggling they lack opportunity for career growth, and such. To say nothing of the fact that struggling conpanies seem to be fond of cutting corners on safety and other things that comprise the the quality of work life for the workers. As with ao many things: it's complicated.
- markstos 7y ago
  When I co-owned a company, we gave employees a share of the profits when we had a good year. Besides seeming like a decent thing to do, the employees were more aligned an incentivize to increase profits to increase potential profit-sharing checks. Also, it's easier to adjust bonuses downward as needed. On the other hand, employees would prefer not have their base-pay cut in down year. We had good employee retention.
  - chrischen 7y ago
    Don't autoworkers get stock? I remember vaguely in The Simpsons that the nuclear powerplant employees got stock, and Homer stupidly sold his stock.
coliveira 7y ago
Unionized workers had to take pay cuts during the downturn of the company, so they shared the losses.

What's your point? The workers don't run the company - it's not a co-op. Since they don't run the company and don't get a share of the profits, why would they ever be expected to pay losses?

dpark 7y ago

The point is specifically that because they don’t share in the losses[1] they shouldn’t share in the profits. This was a direct response to the parent comment: “Now that GM is very healthy and profitable the union workers want thier share.” [1] I’m not making a statement about whether this is true or not. Just capturing the context.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Tomte 7y ago
> The point is specifically that because they don’t share in the losses[1] Assuming it's true they had their wages reduced in the crisis, it's absolutely disingenious to claim that a return to higher wages post-crisis would be undeserved profiteering. They did share in the losses.
- dpark 7y ago
  Did you stop reading when you got to something you wanted to argue against or did you just pick the wrong comment to reply to? I very clearly called out that I am not making a statement about whether the workers shared in the losses.
- _edo 7y ago
  By sharing in losses I mean losing money in absolute terms, that's what happens to owners. Owners don't just make less money in bad times, they lose money. Workers may lose money relative to what they think they would make otherwise, but they still make money. Accepting the risk of losses is why owners have a legitimate claim to the profits. Workers take a guaranteed paycheck which shelters them from losses in bad years and forfeits their claim to profits in good.
  - Tomte 7y ago
    > Workers take a guaranteed paycheck which shelters them from losses in bad years It's just great when workers accept pay-cuts in bad times, just for people like you claiming that this is just normal, no loss, and certainly no reason to restore their paycheck when good times are returning.
chiefalchemist 7y ago
Good point. But let's take it a step further. The workers might not "share" __directly__ in the financial losses, but certainly if the company is struggling they lack opportunity for career growth, and such. To say nothing of the fact that struggling conpanies seem to be fond of cutting corners on safety and other things that comprise the the quality of work life for the workers. As with ao many things: it's complicated.
markstos 7y ago
When I co-owned a company, we gave employees a share of the profits when we had a good year. Besides seeming like a decent thing to do, the employees were more aligned an incentivize to increase profits to increase potential profit-sharing checks. Also, it's easier to adjust bonuses downward as needed. On the other hand, employees would prefer not have their base-pay cut in down year. We had good employee retention.
- chrischen 7y ago
  Don't autoworkers get stock? I remember vaguely in The Simpsons that the nuclear powerplant employees got stock, and Homer stupidly sold his stock.

coliveira 7y ago

Unionized workers had to take pay cuts during the downturn of the company, so they shared the losses.