Employees are entitled to a fair share of the companies's profit. Do you agree?

I am not saying that the profits should be divided exactly equally, but much much more fairly. Imagine the millions of profits Mc Donalds make for example, and then the employees are payed very little, despite the fact that Mc Donalds cannot make the millions of profits without the employees. That is appallingly unfair.
The employees merit a fair share of the profits which without them cannot be generated.

  • Yes
    42% (14)25% (17)31% (31)Vote
  • Hell Yes
    18% (6)22% (15)21% (21)Vote
  • No
    40% (13)53% (36)48% (49)Vote
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|0
7|36

Most Helpful Girl

  • They should. Without employees they're nothing.

    0|1
    1|0
    • Exactly. It is very simple.

    • Yes but still they considered them like trash and when they ask for an augmentation they fired them

Most Helpful Guy

  • Slavery never ended. They just changed the name to employee.

    0|1
    1|1

What Girls Said 6

  • People are paid the way they are for a reason. If you raise the minimum wage, then everything else goes up in price too. Nothing really changes.

    1|2
    0|0
    • So you'd rather insult a 16 yo instead of actually reading what I have to say?

      This is how the economy works, you raise minimum wage, and prices go up. You're not very intelligent are you? You shouldn't expect millionaires/billionaires to give up their money. It's their money, you shouldn't expect them to pay.

    • I refuse to communicate with an unintelligent, self entitled potential troll.

      http://i.imgur.com/CoWZ05t.gif

  • Their pay is part of the profits soooo...

    Do you mean benefits like stock in the company or?

    0|0
    0|0
    • I mean what I said. The profits should be more fairly divided. Not the owners take 90% of the profits and with the other 10% they pay the employees. It should be more fairly divided, because without the employees the owner can do no such profits.

    • Show All
    • Ehhhh I still don't feel comfortable with that. Have you ever read about what happened with Yugoslavia and the way they ran their factories?

    • No never. Perhaps you can tell me.

  • Entitled? No.

    But I do think that profit sharing is a good business model that leads to happier, healthier and more productive employees.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Unfortunately, with how capitalism works, that won't ever happen.

    0|0
    0|0
    • It will never happen if people never do anything about it.

    • Show All
    • Then, it is clear we must abolish capitalism. Full communism now.

      (I'm being tongue-in-cheek; I agree with you, really.)

    • @angell I think a mix of both is best. ;)

  • Under the correct circumstances. Yes

    0|0
    0|0
  • That's really not how economics work, love.

    0|0
    0|0

What Guys Said 35

  • No. The founder/ owner of the company decides the pay for the workers - so long as it's adequate for the field and abides by wage laws. It's the employees choice to work there or not. This isn't the 19th century, nobody's keeping you at a certain place.

    2|2
    0|0
    • Yeah of course, the owner decides how much to pay employees. If there weren't any laws, we would even see the minimum wage go down, and workers basically turning into slaves. That is why I am proposing that it should be law that the profits should be fairly divided. Not necessarily equal, but much much more fairly. You must understand that the owner can't make any business without society, therefore he owns society or rather society has a legitimate claim to the a fair share of the money he generates.

    • That would be true in a situation where people are obliged to work together. But in this case he profits onky from gis customers, not from the entirety of society.

    • But how much customers can one man satisfy?

  • Your getting payed a wage to do your job and that is all your entitled to get. If the company has profit sharing then that tells me the employees have an incentive to work and see to it the company makes money. Also bonuses can come into play if the company makes a profit. I doubt many people will be too quick to throw back a paycheck it the company looses money

    1|0
    0|0
    • Of course I will not throw back the paycheck if the company looses money. It's not my problem. And if it goes on loosing money then automatically we do not get payed but people loose jobs and eventually the company closes if it goes on like that. I have no problem with that. That is a natural consequence. If a company goes bad than we end up getting nothing. But while we are there as employees making the company profit, we as employees are entitled for a fair share of that profit. It is very simple.

    • Show All
    • What's a fair share? I doubt if the employees were asked that question you would find two that would agree on what their idea of a fair cut would be

    • That why I said a profit share program to me is an awesome idea. It gives the employees a reason to hump it with the intention of making the company money / profits. If the company does good they do too. If the company doest well they get no profit share check and either way they have them selves to pat on the back for their outcome

  • You were hired to do a job. You agreed to do this job for either an hourly rate or salary.

    If you want a piece of the profit work for a company that is traded on a stock exchange and buy a piece of that company.

    Profit sharing is a perk some companies offer employees as an incentive to be more productive. Expecting the company to share their profit with you just because you work there is not the way the world works.

    1|1
    0|0
    • Yeah I know the world does not work like that. The world works badly. It is unjust and unfair. Those with visions use people to fill their pockets. And they find it easy to do so, they find it easy to throw one employee out if he protests and get another one, because people are not united for themselves and let greedy swines exploit them. Yes you are right, I know how the world works. I am saying that it is not good. Not good to the disadvantage of millions of employees, but to the advantage of greedy indifferent gentleman and some women too I suppose.

    • Show All
    • Bravo to you sir! That's exactly the point I made as well. It is a big misconception that almost all people who are rich or wealthy are born into it.

      Most of these people who are entrepreneurs busted their asses and made heavy sacrifices as well as took on heavy risks (like you putting your house down as collateral for a business loan, that's not a risk many people would do).

      It makes me sick when I hear about people of my age group and younger, feeling entitlement to ownership of a company that the sacrificed nothing into besides some balanced and structured hours for a GUARANTEED pay wage.

      The man or woman who started that business, had no guarantee to make money, so that man or woman deserves to have the massive bulk of the profits when the company is successful.

      Capitalism is all about being rewarded for risk.

    • Could you have done it without the employees? You couldn't could you. I know that there are risks and complications, and I don't care about your specific case. I am talking for all businesses. As long as they need employees for the business to work then the employees are entitled for a fair share of the company's profit, not the pathetic wage they are given. We are given I should say. If you don't like the new order just get out of business Don't worry we will find sensible people. But fortunately for you and your kind (probably better kind too because they run businesses more efficiently) people are not united against ruthless greed, and as a consequence they are exploited.

  • If employees want a share in the company's profits, they should use their wages to buy shares in the company.

    1|2
    0|0
    • No dear sir, they dont need too at all since the profits being generated would not be possible without them. Do you understand!

    • Show All
    • I see, and I agree.

  • In a idyllic world we would all reap what we sow.

    Unfortunately the world is far more complicated for this basic interpretation of business.

    For example, the bigger the stake you have in something, the more you care, the more you have to gain or to lose. BUT, that stake will always be too big an amount for it to be equally divided amongst the employees. SO,
    Instead people are incentivised with bonuses which rewards the employee and benefits the business targets. The more you pay staff the smaller the overall profits, the less attractive abusiness is to the big stake holders. No stake holders, no business.

    Unfortunately the desire for ever greater profits year on year ultimately leads to a squeeze on employees. Either wages and bonuses stay stagnant or are reduced. Working hours are cut, job losses are made or skeleton crews are used.

    At what point does a business reach full saturation of its market and thus profits can't be increased? What happens then? In the end and eventually every business will hit this wall, at which point they must with innovate and invest if they have the capital or they will scale back or they will cease trading.

    Simples.

    0|0
    0|0
  • employees aren't really entitled to profit sharing; however, it is a good incentive to empower employees and make them really take ownership of their work.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Why do you say that employees are not entitled to profit sharing. ( I am assuming you know that without employees no business can make profits)

    • Show All
    • ok whatever dude. people aren't entitled to profits of their employer. simple as that. i'm sure if they were then so social justice groups would've addressed this like 100 years ago

      but whatever man

    • Yeah, that's what we have enough of - justice.

  • No, they are entitled to whatever they are contracted to receive.
    If they want more than that, become shareholders.

    1|2
    0|0
    • No no no, they dont need to become nothing. They are entitled for a fair share of the profit being generated which without them would not be possible.. Why doesn't the owner or owners work alone if they want all the profits alone? Well they are unable to generate millions alone regardless of how good they might be.

    • ... then that employee should buy stock in the company. Oh wait, you want the business owners to GIVE these employees stock in the company for FREE!

      Utterly insane.

  • No, the employees aren't what makes, in your example, McDonalds such a juggernaut. The higher ups, CEO, COO, Board of Director etc. are the ones who manage the brand, expand franchises, come up with the food, and all the other things that come with managing a multi-billion company. They have jobs that are more impactful on yearly revenue, daily sales, and public opinion than any employee does.

    So are employees entitled to a portion of the profits, no they aren't. They are not entitled to the money everyone at McD's pulls in, they are deserving only of their paycheck. Some employees deserve more than minimum wage, and there is a system built in that allows them to make more. No one is entitled to anything, people have a right to have it, or they do not have a right. McD's workers have a right to be paid their portion of the net profit, that right is exercised in the form of their paychecks.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Nope, they get paid for their job. There are big and small businesses, certain ones do this or stock options but McDonalds? They should really be looking for better job opportunities if they are unhappy with pay. Also gives motivation for employers to create their own businesses.

    0|0
    0|0
  • "The employees merit a fair share of the profits which without them cannot be generated. "

    Wrong, profits cannot be generated without the massive capital investment of the owner of the business.
    The value of your work hours is a joke compared to the millions it takes the owners to run the business.
    That is also why your wage is a joke compared to theirs, because your investment is simply not comparable to their investment.

    1|0
    0|0
  • Employees trade the relative security of money in exchange for work instead of taking the risk of paying for their own company and making it successful. They don't have any claim on the underlying business.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Sounds like socialism to me.
    Employees are paid the amount that the business can afford.
    The owners who control the business do a lot more than some guy flipping burgers. Therefore, they deserve a higher salary. If the guy flipping burgers becomes a manager then he contributes more and should earn more.

    0|0
    0|0
    • But regardless of management ability the company cannot make a dime if in case of mcdonalds you don't have the guys and girls flipping burgers, so why aren't they in for a much bigger share of the company's profit?

    • Because the guy that flips burgers is easily replaceable while the manager is not.

  • The owners assume all the risk! In business the idea is to be rewarded for taking financial risks.

    1|1
    0|0
    • That is true, but still without the employees no business can work, so I dont know why I have to keep saying this. Its amazing that even employees want to resist my change, even if they are the ones who will benefit. It goes to show how hard certain mentalities are to break, and it goes to show that the greedy do right then exploiting the situation. Unfortunately others like me have to suffer like the rest unless I make my own exploitation company. Unbelievable.

    • I'm a capitalist at heart, entrepreneurs should be rewarded for the risk they undertook, and should keep most of their money their business makes. Of course paying fair wages to employees as well, but your idea sounds way too socialsit for me. Socialism FAILS EVERYWHERE!

  • If they want a share of the profits, they should buy stocks.

    2|3
    0|0
  • want profit sharing? become a partner at a law firm.

    1|2
    0|0
  • If the company is on the stockmarket, buy shares and you get part of the profits.

    0|0
    0|0
  • nah im not a communist.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Neither am I. I am not saying businesses should be state owned for one thing.

    • well you want what exactly? more money. where is it going to come from? most companies work on a very thing profit margin. the stock holders have just as much right to that money as the employees.

  • Nope, people would hardly open businesses if that's how it would work.

    2|2
    0|0
    • Precisely! What the fuck would be the incentive to own a business, then? I would be better off working for somebody else than owning my own business.

    • Show All
    • It is not how life works. It is how life is working. In the sense that it could, yes it could work differently. I mean if I was complaining 100 years ago when workers were even more exploited, probably would have gave me the same answer.
      This huge unbalance of wealth is a product of greed. It is something men made. It does not have to be that way, no. And if wealth is more evenly distributed the world as a whole would improve.

    • That's how life works and we have to deal with it. People who work hard and study hard can reap the benefits and actually get a good paying job whereas people who dont work or mess about dont get any benefits in life.

  • yes, they should. they help make the products, without them there are no sales.

    0|1
    0|0
  • What I think is that the company should have some say in what they pay their people. The people decide themselves to join the company so they should accept their terms

    0|0
    0|0
  • Owners take more risks and have a lot to lose. They deserve most of the profit.

    1|1
    0|0
    • Well then why don't they just run the business single handed? They have risks and they have another problem. Without employees they cannot make a lot of profits. How things are they make profits because people let them exploit them, because they are afraid of uniting. They are ignorant and they fear all kinds of things. But all they have to do is to unite in one big movement and pass a legislation in parliament so that they protect there interest and they do not allow swines to exploit them.

    • Show All
    • Can you run a business without unskilled workers?

    • Of course you can

  • No. Companies like GE and NPOs would create huge economic disparity. You want to actually avoid over and underpaying. Profiteering is the invisible hand of economic equality, strangely enough.

    0|0
    0|0
  • If you're talking employees that are vital to the company and earn a share, maybe.
    If talking jobs a monkey could do, no.

    0|0
    0|0
  • If they are doing super well as a company for sure, without the employees they wouldn't of achieved whatever it was, bonuses are always nice.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Even if the profits are not super, still there would be no profits without them.

  • In an ideal world that would be the case. Being wage slaves means the bosses can control us.

    0|0
    2|1
  • how about we pay the profits according to responsibilities within the company?

    0|1
    0|0
  • The dats of socialism are long gone

    1|1
    0|0
    • I am not saying that businesses should be state owned if you are referring to communism. I said more fairly divided. It is simply fair. I hope you are not an ordinary employee taking this stance!

    • Most of the employers these days set up their businesses via debt instruments rather than equity or savings.
      There are organisations which give out stock options to their niche employees who actually make a difference to the company's financials. Don't think every individual out there deserves it.
      Thats how our society has come to accept capitalism off late.

  • They do more work than CEOs that's for certain.

    0|0
    0|0
  • No that's ridiculous. Business doesn't work that way and never will.

    0|0
    0|0
  • No, otherwise they'd have to pay back some money in case of debts or losses

    1|0
    0|0
  • More from Guys
    5
Loading...