4 ms·
I’ve worked for an employee-owned US business. It was indistinguishable from a normal corporation that periodically grants stock to employees, except other for
by vundercind 3y ago
I’ve worked for an employee-owned US business.
It was indistinguishable from a normal corporation that periodically grants stock to employees, except other forms of retirement contribution were sub-par, and vesting periods for everything were LOL WTF long.
Working conditions and such were worse than many places in ways that definitely wouldn’t have been the case if it were a traditional ownership structure with a union rather than employee-owned.
They did love to put that up front when selling a job there, though. As if it actually meant something.
- bobthepanda 3y agobig ships are generally terrible places, as a rule. places that are less bad are exceptions. but most of the time you're picking your poison, yet that doesn't mean alternative models aren't worth exploring.
- dbingham 3y agoWhich one? As with all things, there is a lot of variation. There will always be good places and bad. The question is whether they are better on average.
- rakoo 3y agoAs an employee-owned business, you had a say in this. How did the discussion go ? What were the arguments for and against those decisions ?
- vundercind 3y agoThis is not necessarily true depending on how the business is structured. Employee ownership doesn’t necessarily come with any actual control.
- rakoo 3y agoIn that case I question the use of "employee-owned". It might be technically true, but if it comes with no actual control there is no point in using that term. The original point is about companies where workers have actual control. That's what's important, that's what's interesting.