3 ms·

> managers and C suite are employees already They are mandated by the board, and ultimately by the shareholders (who, yes, can be employees in principle but mo

> managers and C suite are employees already They are mandated by the board, and ultimately by the shareholders (who, yes, can be employees in principle but most of the time are not). > What is the actual way you should reward work? Pretty much the same way it works usually, in that respect. This structure actually exists already, employees-owned companies are a thing that is common in some countries, and it is not particularly problematic. These companies do not pay everyone the same salary, but they tend to be less unequal. Also, I am not really advocating for or against this, just that this would be how you steer towards de-alienating the workers in a market economy based on the theory in the Capital. Though yes, that is short of a communist utopia but still a step in the right direction from that point of view.

robertlagrant 4y ago
> This structure actually exists already, employees-owned companies are a thing that is common in some countries I'm not sure about common, but yes it does happen. I'm asking how does the commenter expect this to work in practice? What's the difference between my manager telling me my new wage and my comrade telling me my new wage?
- mordae 4y ago
  It's not how it happens. You usually democratically determine the process by which you arrive to individual compensation. I've seen an organization to use mix of measuring actual billable output and blending it with time spent on internal company workings, tooling, management and so on. There is usually a way to redistribute couple % ad-hoc, e.g. when someone has financial difficulties or a baby or something. There is always a financials dashboard for everyone to see and complete openness and even discussion about compensation. But yeah, I have only see a handful of companies like that. Some were not even worker-owned, but had owners who said "OK, here is a fixed share of revenue that goes to us before you distribute the rest among yourselves" and then let the workers do the rest.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    But what did the workers doing the rest actually look like? To me, almost all companies are like that: owners own a chunk of the company and authorise salary budgets, the board decides top executive pay and employees such as executives and managers decide how to distribute the pay budget.

robertlagrant 4y ago

> This structure actually exists already, employees-owned companies are a thing that is common in some countries I'm not sure about common, but yes it does happen. I'm asking how does the commenter expect this to work in practice? What's the difference between my manager telling me my new wage and my comrade telling me my new wage?

mordae 4y ago
It's not how it happens. You usually democratically determine the process by which you arrive to individual compensation. I've seen an organization to use mix of measuring actual billable output and blending it with time spent on internal company workings, tooling, management and so on. There is usually a way to redistribute couple % ad-hoc, e.g. when someone has financial difficulties or a baby or something. There is always a financials dashboard for everyone to see and complete openness and even discussion about compensation. But yeah, I have only see a handful of companies like that. Some were not even worker-owned, but had owners who said "OK, here is a fixed share of revenue that goes to us before you distribute the rest among yourselves" and then let the workers do the rest.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  But what did the workers doing the rest actually look like? To me, almost all companies are like that: owners own a chunk of the company and authorise salary budgets, the board decides top executive pay and employees such as executives and managers decide how to distribute the pay budget.