What is fairness between shareholder and worker?

[Terrywoodenpic]

______________________________

You did not say that you thought it was a good idea. You said that you would support making it a requirement that every employer provide a portion of stock to employees, in addition to wages.

There is a big difference between choosing to do something and having it imposed upon you. What works well for one company may not work well for others.

I would be happy to discuss theories of what may work better for improvements to any system. But, when a person takes a position that because something seems to be a good idea, and because it can be shown to have short term benefits, that means it ought to be imposed upon other people, I have to strongly disagree.

There are plenty of businesses that offer profit sharing to their employees. It can be a great incentive. However, forcing such an idea is forcing a principle that completely disregards a person's (or company's) right to make decisions regarding their own private property.

If the owners of a company do not have a recognized right to the profit from the investment of their money, there is a strong arguement that can be made that employees also do not have a right to the investment of their labor, and therefore, do not have an inherent right to their wages. Do you support forced labor? (I don't think so. Me neither.)

I believe your argument for such requirements being imposed upon companies is taking things in a bad direction.

When you support ideas that infringe upon the rights (property or otherwise) of other people, simply because you are not part of that group, it is important to understand that the very same principle can legally be applied to you in the future.

You are making a lot of assumptions..
I did join a company share scheme. as do many Europeans.
the company I mentioned is certainly not in the "short Term" it was founded in 1864 and became a partnership in 1920 a cousin of mine was managing director in the 1980's.

Private wholly owned companies have rights, that perhaps Public companies should not have. The Directors of Public companies are simply privileged employees. Though they act as if the company was their private fiefdom. Only large corporate share holders wield any control at all.
I did not say shares should be given to employees but paid as part of their salary/wage. These are usually held in a collective employees share holder fund.
Shares not part of that fund, can be bought and sold by anyone.

I believe that employees do have rights quite apart from their wage, most are already enshrined in law. Even more so in Germany than here. There they have the right to appoint members to the Main board. few companies in the UK do that.

 

[4consideration]

You are making a lot of assumptions..
I did join a company share scheme. as do many Europeans.
the company I mentioned is certainly not in the "short Term" it was founded in 1864 and became a partnership in 1920 a cousin of mine was managing director in the 1980's.

Private wholly owned companies have rights, that perhaps Public companies should not have. The Directors of Public companies are simply privileged employees. Though they act as if the company was their private fiefdom. Only large corporate share holders wield any control at all.
I did not say shares should be given to employees but paid as part of their salary/wage. These are usually held in a collective employees share holder fund.
Shares not part of that fund, can be bought and sold by anyone.

I believe that employees do have rights quite apart from their wage, most are already enshrined in law. Even more so in Germany than here. There they have the right to appoint members to the Main board. few companies in the UK do that.

_________________________________

I think you are missing my point. I am not making assumptions. I am responding to a specific issue -- that of imposing a structure of payment upon companies to include shares.

I understand that you are now pointing out that you are talking about something that you think to be a good idea. I was not ever disputing that there may be a good idea contained in what you are talking about, if freely chosen.

However, what I was responding to was your desire to place these requirements upon employers:

I would like to see every employer required to pay a proportion of wages in shares. (say 1%)

After a few years it would be clearly in the workers interest for the company to do well.

I would also make it a rule that a workers shares could only be sold to fellow workers.
Eventualy workers would hold enough share votes to elect board members.


What you would be imposing upon large businesses would also be imposed upon small businesses. Small businesses would fall into the catagory of every employer.

In principle, your idea of making such a thing a requirement is an infringement on personal property rights -- to say that a company must provide a share to employees as part of the payment for employment.

You may wish to draw the line in saying that it okay to infringe on someone else's property rights if they have a certain level of money, or if it is a large group of shareholders. I do not support that. Especially since my supporting infringing on someone's rights would set a presence for someone infringing on my rights, in the same way, even if the scale is much smaller.

If you hired someone to clean your house, once a week, each week and continued that for several years, would you consider it fair for you to be required to guarantee that person an ongoing share of your personal income whether or not you wish to continue the relationship -- or, even after they have stopped doing the work?

If you hire an individual to do work for you, you become their employer in that situation.

Would you consider it a right for that person to have an interest, against your will, in your ongoing income simply because you chose to be a customer of the labor of that person for a certain period of time?

There is nothing to say that you could not choose to do such a thing. If so, I might really like to come and work for you. I would most likely consider you a really fine fellow for doing it. But, I cannot see making such a thing a requirement for everybody.

I would not even support imposing those requirements on large businesses, as a necessity, but would certainly support them having the freedom to choose to do things that way.

A crucial aspect of free market capitalism (which I support as the best way I know of for the most people to have the best standard of living) is the freedom to move about the market and choose to participate (or not) according to what seems best for you, as long as you don't do certain harmful actions, like steal, commit fraud, etc.

When you remove the freedom portion, you severely damage the ability of the markets to self-adjust. That is the point I was trying to make.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

_________________________________

I think you are missing my point. I am not making assumptions. I am responding to a specific issue -- that of imposing a structure of payment upon companies to include shares.

I understand that you are now pointing out that you are talking about something that you think to be a good idea. I was not ever disputing that there may be a good idea contained in what you are talking about, if freely chosen.

However, what I was responding to was your desire to place these requirements upon employers:

I would like to see every employer required to pay a proportion of wages in shares. (say 1%)

After a few years it would be clearly in the workers interest for the company to do well.

I would also make it a rule that a workers shares could only be sold to fellow workers.
Eventualy workers would hold enough share votes to elect board members.


What you would be imposing upon large businesses would also be imposed upon small businesses. Small businesses would fall into the catagory of every employer.

In principle, your idea of making such a thing a requirement is an infringement on personal property rights -- to say that a company must provide a share to employees as part of the payment for employment.

You may wish to draw the line in saying that it okay to infringe on someone else's property rights if they have a certain level of money, or if it is a large group of shareholders. I do not support that. Especially since my supporting infringing on someone's rights would set a presence for someone infringing on my rights, in the same way, even if the scale is much smaller.

If you hired someone to clean your house, once a week, each week and continued that for several years, would you consider it fair for you to be required to guarantee that person an ongoing share of your personal income whether or not you wish to continue the relationship -- or, even after they have stopped doing the work?

If you hire an individual to do work for you, you become their employer in that situation.

Would you consider it a right for that person to have an interest, against your will, in your ongoing income simply because you chose to be a customer of the labor of that person for a certain period of time?

There is nothing to say that you could not choose to do such a thing. If so, I might really like to come and work for you. I would most likely consider you a really fine fellow for doing it. But, I cannot see making such a thing a requirement for everybody.

I would not even support imposing those requirements on large businesses, as a necessity, but would certainly support them having the freedom to choose to do things that way.

A crucial aspect of free market capitalism (which I support as the best way I know of for the most people to have the best standard of living) is the freedom to move about the market and choose to participate (or not) according to what seems best for you, as long as you don't do certain harmful actions, like steal, commit fraud, etc.

When you remove the freedom portion, you severely damage the ability of the markets to self-adjust. That is the point I was trying to make.

There is always a balance to be struck between freedom and Regulation.
No country in Europe believes in unfettered freedom for any one or any thing.

Regulations already vary between Large, medium, and small businesses. Small private concerns with few employees and low turnover are the least financially regulated.
(In terms of employment, I was always prepared to vote with my feet. I was never sacked. Nor did I ever join a Union.)

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

In todays speech David Cameron said he is introducing a bill to make it easier to set up Co-operative businesses. And his is a Tory Right wing prime minister.

Evening standard today

Prime Minister David Cameron will set out his vision for "moral capitalism" in a major speech on the economy today.
He is expected to suggest the need for greater transparency to help stem the worst excesses in business as well measures that will make it easier for co-operatives to be created.
The address builds on ideas Mr Cameron set out three years ago in a speech to the world economic forum in Davos, Switzerland, when he said governments must "stand up to business when the things that people value are at risk".
It comes as against a backdrop of continued unrest over city regulation and bonuses.
The City of London Corporation won its High Court bid to evict anti-capitalist protesters from outside St Paul's Cathedral.

Lawyers for Occupy London argued the case raised an issue of "extreme public importance" but Mr Justice Lindblom granted orders for possession and injunctions against the group.
Meanwhile, Wall Street banking giant Goldman Sachs, which employs around 5,300 staff in the UK who are all eligible for performance-related bonuses, announced a bill for pay and bonuses in 2011 of £7.95 billion.
It posted a 47% drop in net earnings to £2.8 billion for the year to December 31.
Instilling an ethical streak in big business has become a key battleground for all three main parties in Westminster.
Ed Miliband used his Labour Party conference speech last year to pledge he would tackle "predatory" companies that made unfair excessive profits.
Last week he accused the Coalition of following his lead on "responsible" capitalism and claimed it was proof he was heading in the direction voters wanted.
Earlier this week Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg unveiled his plans to create a "John Lewis economy" by radically increasing employee share ownership.
The Deputy Prime Minister said that employee-owned firms tended to perform better, which would help boost growth, and insisted the move would also help usher in a new era of "responsible" capitalism.
Fellow Lib Dem Vince Cable is attempting to crack down on fat-cat salaries, urging bank bosses to show restraint in upcoming pay deals.