this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2024
165 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19088 readers
3406 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A distraction from the election: The case for employee-owned companies

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-the-case-for-employee-owned-companies

"Ellerman has for years made an argument as startling as it is hard to refute: “the labor theory of property.” It’s that employees should own the firms they work for because of very simple logic: If they’re responsible for the consequences of their actions while on the job — committing a crime, say — how can it be that they’re not responsible for the positive things they do?"

@politics

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Personal anecdote. I run a small business with a business partner (co-owner) and we have no employees. We need an employee. I'm personally a huge fan of employee-owned companies.

But from a hiring perspective, it is mind bogglingly risky for us to hire someone and just automatically stake them. Like, what if it's the wrong person? How do we claw back control? Do we risk dilution sending the company in another direction?

It's just so much easier just to pay someone and not have to deal with the complexity. And therein lies the rub.

[–] sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago

I worked at a place that rolled out employee ownership after they were like 250 people. If you can't offer ownership right away, you can offer a decent profit share (requires some amount of financial transparency to help communicate the value to the employee).

[–] shakcked@lemm.ee 16 points 1 week ago

Staking should without a doubt be slowly vested not immediate at the start of hiring. The vesting period can be adjusted to the current owners risk level. As someone else mentioned below, the employee can be offered profit sharing until they are fully vested and own voting stake in the company.

[–] wolfpack86@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Vesting periods, increasing stake over time, and conditions that shares are sold back to the company upon exit. You'd need to figure out how the valuation is done.

Basically turns out into a bonus with deferred payment and a chance for growth of the bonus if they work hard to support company growth.

[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

The legal and administrative overhead to do all of that would incur significant additional costs. We shall see.

[–] Twista713@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

If they don't already exist, it sounds like a niche need for a third-party company that has some preset templates of different options? Add a lawyer and some legal aid and could be very helpful for the system.

[–] wolfpack86@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Originally started typing something to a completely different post. Whoops.

But yes, that becomes the challenge when deciding to stake employees versus a simple profit share.

Staking employees gives them longer term incentives, whereas profit sharing will be fundamentally a sales commission.

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It would definitely be easier in an economy where this was the only way of doing things.

I am not a lawyer.

Based on the underlying economic theory and ethical arguments for worker coops/employee-owned companies, what you could do in such a situation is make a separate legal entity for the worker coop, and then lease the assets of the current legal entity to the worker coop. You and your partner maintain exclusive ownership of the original legal entity

@politics