3 ms·
> employed over 8,500 people [...] making millionaires of 70 of her team members. That's less than 1%. So much for “profit-sharing and company co-ownership”. I
by Timwi 3y ago
> employed over 8,500 people [...] making millionaires of 70 of her team members.
That's less than 1%. So much for “profit-sharing and company co-ownership”. I don't think the author knows what those words mean...
- com 3y agoEmployed over time, and reading between the lines, lots of part-time and probably temporary workers given how they were hiring and the pressures on those women's time. Normally even co-ownership structures have earn-in periods, so this isn't a huge surprise. In a time where only capital-rich folks could invest in businesses (still the norm outside our contemporary VC tech bubble where vesting and cliffs etc are commonplace terms in employment negotiations) this was pretty radical.
- ejb999 3y agoHow many millionaire-employees have you created?
- vidarh 3y agoHad the author presented her as, say, a socialist who started a workers cooperative, that criticism would be justified. But the author did not. It's perfectly valid to talk about "profit-sharing and company co-ownership" even if she didn't share the ownership evenly.