7 ms·
He also essentially gave his business to his employees. He was known in the community (I live in the area) as being a very generous person and all around mensch
by UncleOxidant 3y ago
He also essentially gave his business to his employees. He was known in the community (I live in the area) as being a very generous person and all around mensch.
- ekTHEN 3y agocan you explain what exactly you mean by "mensch" or which character traits are being associated with it? as a non-native english speaker i have never seen it used and just know it as the german word for "human"
- bdcravens 3y agofrom Oxford: "a person of integrity and honor"
- s0rce 3y agoIt's a Yiddish word מענטש, means honorable or admirable person
- jjtheblunt 3y agoIt's a German word meaning man and in the Yiddish use has the connotation of honorable man?
- hellcow 3y agoYes. It's a compliment in Yiddish.
- bqmjjx0kac 3y agoIt's kind of like saying someone is "the man" in English.
- debatem1 3y agoWorth noting that "the man" may instead mean police/government/etc, usually with negative connotations. So context may make this less appropriate as a synonym than "righteous dude" as mentioned above.
- quesera 3y agoThat's "the Man". :) Capitalization is very important here! Also, e.g. if you are helping your uncle Jack off a horse, etc.
- woodruffw 3y agoI think it's closer to "stand-up" or "decent" than honorable, but yes. (The neutral version would be מאַן, which literally means man or husband.)
- jjtheblunt 3y agowhat's that phonetically?
- fortran77 3y agoUmm... מאָן means poppyseed in Yiddish (and Purim is around the corner, which means המן־טאַשן with מאָן filling!)
- woodruffw 3y agoI wrote מאַן, not מאָן :-). (For those wondering: “man” in Yiddish looks a lot like “mohn”, which is the same as German mohn.)
- jacquesm 3y agoI think it goes well beyond honorable, it also means likeable, friendly and easygoing.
- jjtheblunt 3y agoamerican slang : righteous dude :)
- geephroh 3y agoUsername checks out. Your comment really does tie the thread together.
- js2 3y agoIt does not connote those extra attributes. It means someone with integrity and honor, who always does the right thing. A mensch is someone you can count on. It is a very high compliment to give someone. But I've definitely known some disagreeable mensches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensch Jewish, not of German ancestry, but I've had a lot Yiddish spoken around me.
- samatman 3y agoThe German word for man is der Mann. Der Mensch is a human/person. And yes, in Yiddish it has strong positive connotations, which have carried over into the (American, at least) loanword.
- jjtheblunt 3y agoyeah person is more accurate. I wonder what the etymology of Mensch is, Lohnwort from Latin, long evolved, like Muenze? Umlaut applied to a derivative of Mann with an i involved, also long enough evolved the spelling simplified? I no longer have my German language dictionary(-ies) or Duden books nor access to such where I am, sadly.
- shever73 3y agoThere’s a brief etymology in Etymonline: https://www.etymonline.com/word/mensch https://www.etymonline.com/word/mensch
- nerdponx 3y agoObviously a close cognate, but not really the same word.
- throw4847285 3y agoWatch the movie "The Apartment" (1960) for a crash course in mensches.
- lIl-IIIl 3y agoWhat does it mean for a company to be employee owned? What is the benefit to the employee?
- jjtheblunt 3y agoextra compensation floats with profits and plausibly creates a positive feedback ?
- HWR_14 3y agoIt avoids the issue of dividing profits between employees and shareholders, which means the employees keep it.
- EasyMark 3y agoand dividends!
- ensignavenger 3y agoAbility to vote on how the business operates and things like compensation and benefits. Different employee owned businesses are governed differently, but in general, the employees have more control.
- astura 3y agoI elaborated in a sibling comment, but this is just not necessarily true. Both employee owned companies I've worked for were effectively dictatorships where employees got exactly zero say in anything. Employee-owned just means that employees are the shareholders.
- mixmastamyk 3y agoShareholders have some rights to affect policy.
- quickthrowman 3y agoI work for a 100% ESOP and the only things we are able to vote on are mergers, ownership structure changes, liquidation, and dissolution. There are no other voting rights or board member nominations/votes.
- atourgates 3y agoNot gave. Sold. I don't mean to cast aspersions at Bob or his company, but articles frequently suggest that Bob gave his company away and that's simply inaccurate. That's not what happens in an ESOP. What does happen is that (as an account specializing in ESOPs explained it to me) owners sell their companies to employees at "the most boring accounting valuation available." This does mean that the owners are often leaving significant money on the table. A competitor or investment group might be willing to offer a multiple of that "boring accounting valuation" in order to realize future growth, or recognize the value of eliminating a competitor or keep another company from getting a competitor. But it's typically far from nothing. The reason I suspect that Bob's ESOP transaction happened in stages over a 10-year period (from 2010 to 2020) was that companies don't typically have the cash-on-hand to buy out an owner all in one go, even at that lower "boring accounting" valuation. Don't get me wrong. I think ESOPs are a great tool and should be used more often. I've had the chance to work with several ESOPs, and companies going from family-ownership to ESOP ownership. Employees really do behave differently when they "own" the company and have a direct stake in its future, and ESOPs provide stability and "employee first" thinking that corporate ownership and investment groups simply won't. Bob absolutely did the right thing and should be commended for it. But it's helpful to accurately understand what actually happens in an ESOP transaction as well.
- steve_adams_86 3y agoI won't argue that gifting the company would be innately bad. However, I don't think selling it to the workers is bad either. I don't agree with the "founders take all" model where risk and initial investment trump all future efforts and contributions. At the same time, there are merits to creating, managing, and sustaining a company which deserves some reward. Selling the company to workers over 10 years at a price they can feasibly afford while still earning good salaries and maintaining good finances seems kind of perfect to me. I don't know the specifics; perhaps the company had to go into debt and the acquisition was a precarious thing. Regardless, it seems to me that a scenario where the sale is fair to both parties in this way seems ideal. The founder/owner is compensated reasonably and the workers gain agency and control over the capitalization of their own labour. That's only to say I don't think it would need to be a gift to the workers to still be a virtuous or good thing to do. If it was a gift, great, that's nice that the owner can afford this and the workers get an incredible windfall they can all share in. It doesn't seem innately good because it's a gift, though.