4 ms·

Or just different CEO's? How about fundamentally different CEO's?

• hannasanarion 7y ago
  The point is that it would be a lot harder for "Engineers to Lose Control of the Comapany" if engineers had a vote more powerful than the bankers, billionaires, and equity funds who own all the stock.
  • lumost 7y ago
    Do companies with high employee ownership typically outperform those that do not?
    • salawat 7y ago
      What's your definition of performing? The P/E may be great, but 386 souls lost, billions in lawsuits and expenses due to groundings, and a scandal the likes of which we haven't seen in decades does not strike me as performing well. Maybe it doesn't warrant as extreme a measure of nationalizing the company and disrupting it's operations, but clearly, there should have been more capability for pushback against unrealistic sales objectives by the people actually responsible for designing and building the dang thing.
    • hannasanarion 7y ago
      How do you define "performing"? Profits for shareholders? Employee satisfaction? Safety record? Market share? It is clear that companies that prioritize profits and market domination do so at the expense of their employees, customers, and safety.
      • lumost 7y ago
        I was thinking that companies with high employee ownership may outperform those with low employee ownership financially over a longer time horizon. In the Boeing example they clearly underperformed on most financial metrics as well as for their customers and employees.
  • jl2718 7y ago
    Perfectly legal for articles of incorporation. No need for strongarm politics; you can start that company today, or invest in companies that do. It might actually make the company more valuable to greedy bankers, billionaires, and fund managers. I hope you do, and I hope you make a lot of money so that others follow your example.