6 ms·

> Overall CEOs work for the board This is ultimately why I support board-level employee representation and why I think it's a good idea for employees to collec

by htag 4y ago

> Overall CEOs work for the board This is ultimately why I support board-level employee representation and why I think it's a good idea for employees to collectively own a non-trival amount of corporate stock. Providing jobs to generate stability in society has become a critical role of business, and the public at large is coming to expect more from publicly traded corporations than just quarterly profits. Wall Street shouldn't be the only voice in corporate governance.

screamingninja 4y ago
> This is ultimately why I support... How do you support these ideas?
whitemary 4y ago
Board-level employee representation was won in Germany with nothing but a couple of world wars and a Russian revolution. So tell me, how exactly does one go about "supporting" it? Without the threat of the Soviet Union or even a semblance of an organized labor movement, there is nothing meaningful to support.
- rajamaka 4y ago
  Seizing the means of guillotine production.
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  German IT industry pales in comparison to what a single region in the US has in terms of employee compensation and total employment.
  - pm90 4y ago
    I feel like this isn’t a great comparison: Software is what US is strong in. A better comparison would be US automakers vs German ones.
    - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
      But we are talking about layoffs in software ... Also by revenue, US automakers are bigger than German ones.
chii 4y ago
> board-level employee representation I recall reading an article that for some companies in germany, the board-level employee representative have successfully negotiated during the GFC, to not have layoffs, but instead collectively took a pay cut and survive through the difficulties. The company got to retain the talents and save on the costs of retraining etc. Having a dissenting voice can lead to better ideas. However, if the intention is to prevent employees from being fired even when it is in the best interest of the shareholders, then this employee representation is only going to decrease the shareholder value, and ultimately the profitability of the company. > collectively own a non-trival amount of corporate stock. how do these stock get granted? Because if the employees themselves pay for the equity, then they're part owners. If they don't actually pay, then they'd be usurping control in a way that is not fair to those paying the equity.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- zeroonetwothree 4y ago
  Personally as an employee I’d rather have a layoff than a compensation cut. Even if I’m affected I’ll take my chances finding a different job at high compensation.
  - htag 4y ago
    As an employee you don't have a lot of say in that decision.
  - it_citizen 4y ago
    « Personally as a tech worker » I imagine? I am pretty sure most non tech people around me would take the pay cut over the risk of becoming unemployed for an uncertain amount of time, having to find a new job, maybe moving to a different place etc….
  - Salgat 4y ago
    Are we talking standard layoff of 1-2 weeks of salary pay per year worked at a company or are we talking about the insane packages only FAANGs give? Because that goes without saying.
WalterBright 4y ago
Employees are not owners. If they want to be owners, they need to buy stock. After all, if you pay a guy to mow your lawn a few times, does he now have a say in what you do with your house?
- cormacrelf 4y ago
  A guy who mows your lawn a few times is not an employee. You can argue for decades over what precise threshold makes you an employee, but in general employees are like groundskeepers who are with you long term. Yes, it is good to involve groundskeepers in big decisions that affect them and their work. If you want to sell the mower for cash, the groundskeeper says “well if you do that I can’t cut the lawn and everything will look terrible and you will then fire me for failing to keep the lawn looking nice” then you should listen. A lot of discussion of this only happens at the end of that cycle, when the CEOs start firing the groundskeepers for failing to keep the lawn etc., so it seems futile to add them to the conversation at the exact point when you know what they’re going to say (“you shouldn’t fire us, you should buy a new mower so we can do our job”). The trick is to do it earlier and incorporate the knowledge embedded in your workforce into your decision making. If you have a hundred people working for you who can see and experience the problems you have first hand, you should find a way for their brainpower not to go to waste. Giving employees regular input into big decisions is a good idea in the long term. Giving them stock is a way to motivate them to be less inward-looking and think about the company as a whole, and a convenient mechanism to formalise and fine-tune the power balance. If you have a bunch of stock (initially 100%), you can think of the voting power it entails as a resource that you can spend on people who are going to vote well with good information and the right kind of interest in making the company sustainable. Giving it to employees is a good way to spend that resource. They know more than regular shareholders and are empowered to change the course of the company from within. If you can’t bring yourself to give away any stock due to unstoppable greed and a belief that employees are dumb lawn mower operators who would never know what’s good for them, then basically… good luck. There is a reason so many law firms operate as a partnership to buy into, so many investment firms give out units of a trust, so many startups and megacorps alike give out equity (usually as options). Of those, it’s usually only law firms that are giving out voting power. All people are saying here is that we should not shy away from giving out voting power as well as the economic interest that this practice is usually restricted to.
cscurmudgeon 4y ago
All real world data shows that won't work well. Should we go by data or feels? Silicon Valley pays the highest and employs the most number of programmers and has done so with employees on boards. Other places and countries with board-level employee representation seem to do worse. What's the logical argument that board-level employee representation won't employee pay or total employment?
- amrocha 4y ago
  Correlation and causation, just because US has high salaries doesn't mean it's because of that etc etc
  - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
    If you are suggesting a huge change, then you should be the one to show it is a good change. I have read the parent comment twice, what is the argument or data supporting employees on boards will be good overall? What data point do you have? Do you have a causal data point? Would love to hear that! > Correlation and causation, just because US has high salaries doesn't mean it's because of that etc etc Read again. I didn't suggest that.

by htag 4y ago

screamingninja 4y ago

> This is ultimately why I support... How do you support these ideas?

whitemary 4y ago

Board-level employee representation was won in Germany with nothing but a couple of world wars and a Russian revolution. So tell me, how exactly does one go about "supporting" it? Without the threat of the Soviet Union or even a semblance of an organized labor movement, there is nothing meaningful to support.

rajamaka 4y ago
Seizing the means of guillotine production.
cscurmudgeon 4y ago
German IT industry pales in comparison to what a single region in the US has in terms of employee compensation and total employment.
- pm90 4y ago
  I feel like this isn’t a great comparison: Software is what US is strong in. A better comparison would be US automakers vs German ones.
  - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
    But we are talking about layoffs in software ... Also by revenue, US automakers are bigger than German ones.

chii 4y ago

> board-level employee representation I recall reading an article that for some companies in germany, the board-level employee representative have successfully negotiated during the GFC, to not have layoffs, but instead collectively took a pay cut and survive through the difficulties. The company got to retain the talents and save on the costs of retraining etc. Having a dissenting voice can lead to better ideas. However, if the intention is to prevent employees from being fired even when it is in the best interest of the shareholders, then this employee representation is only going to decrease the shareholder value, and ultimately the profitability of the company. > collectively own a non-trival amount of corporate stock. how do these stock get granted? Because if the employees themselves pay for the equity, then they're part owners. If they don't actually pay, then they'd be usurping control in a way that is not fair to those paying the equity.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
zeroonetwothree 4y ago
Personally as an employee I’d rather have a layoff than a compensation cut. Even if I’m affected I’ll take my chances finding a different job at high compensation.
- htag 4y ago
  As an employee you don't have a lot of say in that decision.
- it_citizen 4y ago
  « Personally as a tech worker » I imagine? I am pretty sure most non tech people around me would take the pay cut over the risk of becoming unemployed for an uncertain amount of time, having to find a new job, maybe moving to a different place etc….
- Salgat 4y ago
  Are we talking standard layoff of 1-2 weeks of salary pay per year worked at a company or are we talking about the insane packages only FAANGs give? Because that goes without saying.

WalterBright 4y ago

Employees are not owners. If they want to be owners, they need to buy stock. After all, if you pay a guy to mow your lawn a few times, does he now have a say in what you do with your house?

cormacrelf 4y ago
A guy who mows your lawn a few times is not an employee. You can argue for decades over what precise threshold makes you an employee, but in general employees are like groundskeepers who are with you long term. Yes, it is good to involve groundskeepers in big decisions that affect them and their work. If you want to sell the mower for cash, the groundskeeper says “well if you do that I can’t cut the lawn and everything will look terrible and you will then fire me for failing to keep the lawn looking nice” then you should listen. A lot of discussion of this only happens at the end of that cycle, when the CEOs start firing the groundskeepers for failing to keep the lawn etc., so it seems futile to add them to the conversation at the exact point when you know what they’re going to say (“you shouldn’t fire us, you should buy a new mower so we can do our job”). The trick is to do it earlier and incorporate the knowledge embedded in your workforce into your decision making. If you have a hundred people working for you who can see and experience the problems you have first hand, you should find a way for their brainpower not to go to waste. Giving employees regular input into big decisions is a good idea in the long term. Giving them stock is a way to motivate them to be less inward-looking and think about the company as a whole, and a convenient mechanism to formalise and fine-tune the power balance. If you have a bunch of stock (initially 100%), you can think of the voting power it entails as a resource that you can spend on people who are going to vote well with good information and the right kind of interest in making the company sustainable. Giving it to employees is a good way to spend that resource. They know more than regular shareholders and are empowered to change the course of the company from within. If you can’t bring yourself to give away any stock due to unstoppable greed and a belief that employees are dumb lawn mower operators who would never know what’s good for them, then basically… good luck. There is a reason so many law firms operate as a partnership to buy into, so many investment firms give out units of a trust, so many startups and megacorps alike give out equity (usually as options). Of those, it’s usually only law firms that are giving out voting power. All people are saying here is that we should not shy away from giving out voting power as well as the economic interest that this practice is usually restricted to.

cscurmudgeon 4y ago

All real world data shows that won't work well. Should we go by data or feels? Silicon Valley pays the highest and employs the most number of programmers and has done so with employees on boards. Other places and countries with board-level employee representation seem to do worse. What's the logical argument that board-level employee representation won't employee pay or total employment?

amrocha 4y ago
Correlation and causation, just because US has high salaries doesn't mean it's because of that etc etc
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  If you are suggesting a huge change, then you should be the one to show it is a good change. I have read the parent comment twice, what is the argument or data supporting employees on boards will be good overall? What data point do you have? Do you have a causal data point? Would love to hear that! > Correlation and causation, just because US has high salaries doesn't mean it's because of that etc etc Read again. I didn't suggest that.