3 ms·

>First, in most companies it's very hard to say who exactly managed to increase the profit. It isn't that we need to decide exactly who contributed proportiona

>First, in most companies it's very hard to say who exactly managed to increase the profit. It isn't that we need to decide exactly who contributed proportionally and how much of the profits we get. We're really just reaching for something that increases wages faster than raises. And really it highlights the issue that not only is it hard to get fair profit-sharing, it's also hard to get market-competitive raises. But of course a company is going to say it's hard to decide who gets how much, because they have an incentive to pay their employees as little as possible, regardless if it's through base wages, raises, or profit sharing. There always seems to be an excuse.

ticmasta 6y ago
>> something that increases wages faster than raises. not sure if you misspoke or I don't get your point >> fair profit-sharing "Fair" is just a trigger that one side uses to put the other on the defensive. Companies by their very nature a designed to share profits with their owners, i.e. legal shareholders. If you want profit sharing guaranteed join an employee-owned cooperative or alternative structured org.
- vsareto 6y ago
  >not sure if you misspoke or I don't get your point If I can't get raises that keep up with inflation or competitive market rates, I'm going to try and argue that I should seek other options for making more money. One of those options would be profit-sharing. Another option is job hopping, which tech enjoys as a luxury.