New minimum wage £9

[Cyclone]

Large companies should be forced to share their profits with their workers, at least when they have been employed for over 2 years; company ethics should be enshrined in law.

 

They do share them, in fact they share even if they don't make a profit. The sharing is in the form of a contractual arrangement called a salary or wage. The person does some work, they get paid. Nobody is forced into the arrangement.

 

If the employee wishes to put up some capital at risk, and enjoy a larger share of the potential profits they're also free to do that. It's called buying some shares.

[RonJeremy]

They do share them, in fact they share even if they don't make a profit. The sharing is in the form of a contractual arrangement called a salary or wage. The person does some work, they get paid. Nobody is forced into the arrangement.

 

If the employee wishes to put up some capital at risk, and enjoy a larger share of the potential profits they're also free to do that. It's called buying some shares.

 

Thank you - that was much more succinctly put than my post.

[TJC1]

They do share them, in fact they share even if they don't make a profit. The sharing is in the form of a contractual arrangement called a salary or wage. The person does some work, they get paid. Nobody is forced into the arrangement.

 

If the employee wishes to put up some capital at risk, and enjoy a larger share of the potential profits they're also free to do that. It's called buying some shares.

 

It's clear he means profit sharing over and above a standard salary.

[Cyclone]

Yes he does. But he gives no explanation as to why it's the right thing to do.

 

If people wish to share in the profit, they need to share in the risk as well, which means putting in capital.

If they simply want to exchange labour for pay, then an employment contract is the appropriate way to do it.

[TJC1]

Yes he does. But he gives no explanation as to why it's the right thing to do.

 

If people wish to share in the profit, they need to share in the risk as well, which means putting in capital.

If they simply want to exchange labour for pay, then an employment contract is the appropriate way to do it.

 

I'm not saying I agree with him. I don't agree with you too. Why does an employee have to share in the risk? The profit sharing is a reward for the employees output. Otherwise the employee would be a director wouldn't they?

 

What's the difference between one employer and another if all the employee gets is the same deal?

[RonJeremy]

I'm not saying I agree with him. I don't agree with you too. Why does an employee have to share in the risk? The profit sharing is a reward for the employees output. Otherwise the employee would be a director wouldn't they?

 

What's the difference between one employer and another if all the employee gets is the same deal?

 

Directors don't necessarily share the risk - they don't have to have capital in it. I am the director of a company that I have zero shares in.

[TJC1]

Directors don't necessarily share the risk - they don't have to have capital in it. I am the director of a company that I have zero shares in.

 

Why does an employee have to share risk to receive a percentage of profits or other incentives?

[RonJeremy]

Why does an employee have to share risk to receive a percentage of profits or other incentives?

 

They don't. But neither do directors. You implied nay said that if an employee shared the (financial) risk they'd be a director.

[Cyclone]

Why does an employee have to share risk to receive a percentage of profits or other incentives?

 

Because the profits belong, morally and legally, to those who own the business, which is to say those who are actually risking something to finance the business.

 

The person who is employed is there in exchange for a salary, they've agreed to be there on that basis.

 

Edit - Directors can be employed and often are. As an extra incentive they may own part of the business. Hell, employee's can own part of the business. Many companies operate share purchase schemes, and they may well have profit related bonus schemes. But it's a choice and/or a negotiation when forming an employment contract that both sides have to agree to. There's no moral argument that employee's must be given a share of profits beyond the agreed salary.

[TJC1]

Because the profits belong, morally and legally, to those who own the business, which is to say those who are actually risking something to finance the business.

 

The person who is employed is there in exchange for a salary, they've agreed to be there on that basis.

 

Edit - Directors can be employed and often are. As an extra incentive they may own part of the business. Hell, employee's can own part of the business. Many companies operate share purchase schemes, and they may well have profit related bonus schemes. But it's a choice and/or a negotiation when forming an employment contract that both sides have to agree to. There's no moral argument that employee's must be given a share of profits beyond the agreed salary.

 

Thats not answered the question.

 

Why do employees have to take a risk to draw profit from a business they work for?

John Lewis employees take no risk. If the company makes less profit, they get less bonus.

 

"The person who is employed is there in exchange for a salary, they've agreed to be there on that basis."

 

its a standard salary. Its not an incentive. Not relevant.

 

"Because the profits belong, morally and legally, to those who own the business"

 

Well, I've stated I don't agree with making profit sharing enshrined in law . Morally, I think many Businesses believe in sharing profits (John Lewis?) because of all the points mentioned.

 

---------- Post added 14-08-2015 at 16:01 ----------

 

They don't.

 

Thanks, thats the answer I was looking for.