It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Force Buisness at end of each year to give employees half the anual profits that would normally go t

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
You do realize that the bonuses are still taxed by the government, and they would get half or more of it, right?

Because the company I work for does give bonuses. And the government taxes the hell out of them.

While a nice thought, I'm blessed enough to work for a company that treats us fairly well, include paying health benefits, so I don't want them "forced" to do anything that might put them out of business.

At least any more than the government is trying right now.




posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
since when are the stockholders liable for the misdeeds of a corp that they might have invested in??
I don't believe they are
if a corp screws up usually no one in the company takes the fall except for maybe a peon or two who lose their jobs over it. How much money has Bank of America or and the other banks paid in fines and such?
How many people have been fined for the banking fiasco?
How many people have been arrested for the crimes committed??
Na they just paid a portion of the profits they made through the crimes and was helped to do that through bailouts and the fed.
If they were left wanting after it all they could just raise this fee or that fee to make up any shortfall!
The worse that could happen is that the corp goes bellyup and shuts down and all the investors lose out then. Only the employees will have more of an interest than most of those stockholders to keep the business afloat since while those stockholder could be betting against the corp and still when if it fails the employees will definately lose big time!



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

"oh..right...i see, you're only interested in as much financial reward as possible...got it. "

Why wouldn't want the maximum return for your money invested? Would you take a huge discount on your home when you're ready to sell it? When your ready to trade in your can and get a new one, do you just give it away for $10.00 or do you get maximum value for the trade in?

"You could always just invest half of what you would have invested...half the return on half the investment would be equal to the full investment then wouldn't it."

This is what they call pretzel logic.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

What kind of BS is this?

At what point did you wake up and think "Yeah, this is the answer. Force a business to hand over money to people".

Honestly. Where do you, or anyone else get this crap from? Is it off a website? A newsletter? Is this something discussed on the Piers Morgan show for all 39 of his viewers??



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   
You're dreaming. Watch how fast they can skirt a law like this. Hey, look guys, we're an Irish company now! Our U.S. subsidiary didn't make any money, but the Dublin H.Q. did very well. a reply to: Xeven




posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   
This sounds like something that was tried in a little place called Soviet Russia.

A company that is lucky enough to turn an actual profit uses the money to reinvest into its own company. Sure some fat cats get a bonus for their part in "helping" to turn said profit, and it would be nice to see a portion of that don't get me wrong, but I would never be able to support the government forcing any company to do so.

I will break it down for you, it would be the same thing as the government telling you that you had to share your wages with a lower paid coworker because he did the same work as you but is being paid less due to lack of time on the job. Would you willingly give up 1, 2, or 3 dollars an hour of your wages for your coworker?

Lord knows I wouldn't, I have worked hard to earn what is mine putting in many thankless hours to get where I am today.

Now onto investors they in essence are buying a small share of the company but for most small time investors it is really like giving a company a loan in the hope of a return down the road. It is not a guarantee. The deserve what they get it is what makes people willing to invest in the company in the first place.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   
All I am saying is workers should get more of a companies profits than the 1% does. This is one way of moving in that direction. Once Bill Gates types have all the money doing nothing, the Nations people will be unemployed and starving. I am not saying there should not be rich people I am saying that they should be a bit less rich so the poor and middle class can keep churning out economy.

It will die on its current path and giving the money to the government to hand out is not the answer.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Simple question: you have your life savings to invest.
Do you invest in Country A where they automatically take 5% of your really 10 growth
Or....
Do you invest in Country B which let's you have the full 10% growth and even has a better tax rate?

Hard choice huh?



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

No they shouldn't.

The worker gets compensated for performing a job. That is their wage.
They are not entitled to anything else.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

There are numerous companies out there that offer profit sharing incentives to their employees, my husband works for one, I used to work for one as well. Yes, it's actually called "profit sharing".

This is not a new idea. In fact, it's fairly common... at least up here in Canada it is.

It gives employees the incentive to work to the best of their abilities to help the company profit the best it can each year.

If the company makes a profit at the end of the fiscal, each employee gets a small percentage in the way of a bonus... But that profit sharing depends on the profit margin achieved at the end of the fiscal. There needs to be enough of a profit margin in order to be able to dole out profit sharing to the employees without risking continuity of business operations into the next fiscal year. Most companies (depending on the type of industry) need to see at least a 5-8% profit margin (clear after profit sharing bonuses, taxes, etc) in order to keep a strong cashflow going into the next fiscal.

But to force companies to do this is completely ludicrous.

It's something the owners choose to do, or not. And as a business owner, you have the power to decide how you want to run your business. That's called a "free society".

Forcing companies to operate a certain way is called "communism".

Do you really want to step onto that slippery slope ??

I should think not.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: falloutsover


the government telling you that you had to share your wages with a lower paid coworker because he did the same work as you but is being paid less due to lack of time on the job. Would you willingly give up 1, 2, or 3 dollars an hour of your wages for your coworker?


While I understand your angst about this idea - what if the person who trained YOU had done the same thing? Had paid his 'dues'?

Would you pay it forward?? To the next new guy??

Just asking. Not looking for a fight.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge


If the company makes a profit at the end of the fiscal, each employee gets a small percentage in the way of a bonus...


Yes, this is one of my favorite ideas.

May I ask: do those companies give the same bonus to the Secretary and Receptionist as they do to the Senior Sales Exec?

One of my family members works for a company that gives the same bonus to all of them! (That family member was NOT happy about that - but my thinking was that this Sec/Receptionist works as many hours, and does just as crucial a job --- why should he/she not get the same bonus?)



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

It's not a matter or choice based on the premises of the op, and no i wouldn't i feel you should he compensated based on term of employment and quality of work. When people are given something with out having earned it what is there motivation for doing good work?

I am fortunate to work for an employer that provides a gain share bonus for all employees at the end of the fiscal year that is based off of goals and milestones set forth at the beginning of the fiscal year. The company I work for is a multi billion dollar multi national company. I am on a first name bases with the highest boss at my local branch of the company ( our location employs aprox. 500 people) I have personally talked to the Ceo of our company as well. All in all I work for an amazing company that is looking to invest To my best guess 50-60 million in my plant alone I. The next year or two, adding numerous jobs to the local economy. If they were forced to shell out half of there yearly profits I highly doubt this would be possible let alone probable for them to do.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs




May I ask: do those companies give the same bonus to the Secretary and Receptionist as they do to the Senior Sales Exec?


It depends on the individual operations of that particular company, and the industry that they're in, and the type and range of employees that they have working for them.

I usually make a suggestion to company owners to set up a "tiered" percentage type of program. For example: Your plant employees (welders, cnc operators, assembly line workers) have a more direct impact on the profitability of a company than say, the person who sweeps the floors and cleans the bathrooms. That's not to say that each employee (no matter what their position) doesn't play an important role in the overall functions of the business, but some positions have a more direct impact on the profits at the end of the day.

A sales exec should receive a higher percentage, than an office clerk, just for the simple reason that the sales team is what brings in the actual revenues (sales).

Each and every employee receives a profit share percentage, but at different tier levels.

This type of system seems to work quite well from my experience, with all employees having a full understanding of why it works that way, and they're more than happy with the setup.

You can set up a profit sharing program in whatever way works best for you and your company (ie: what profit margins must be met first, etc).

But not every company has the ability to offer this type of thing... particularly certain types of service/retail industry businesses... the profit margins in some industries is just not enough to be able to offer this type of incentive program.

It's just a simple reality in the business world, unfortunately.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs




One of my family members works for a company that gives the same bonus to all of them! (That family member was NOT happy about that - but my thinking was that this Sec/Receptionist works as many hours, and does just as crucial a job --- why should he/she not get the same bonus?)


That's a really bad way for any company to offer out bonuses/profit sharing.

It creates resentment between employees.

Each employee plays a different role and, as I said before, each role has a different impact on profitability.

You can't give out the same bonus to the janitor as you do the cnc operator (who has to work at a specific pace to meet the day's quota). The janitor does not have these types of demands/reponsibilities hanging over their head.

It doesn't matter the amount of hours somebody works, what matters is whether or not they have a direct impact on profits, or whether they're role is just an administrative expense. Believe me, there's a huge difference between the two.

An administrative expense (ie: office clerk) does not make or break the amount of revenues coming into a company, but how many man hours it takes to manufacture an item, most certainly does.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
May I ask: do those companies give the same bonus to the Secretary and Receptionist as they do to the Senior Sales Exec?


As a senior sales executive if the receptionist is getting the same year end bonus as me there is a huge problem. The sales team is the prime mover when it comes to generating profits and we expect to be compensated for this production.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   
All I hear is "Force" and I'm out.

If your ideas are so good then they don't need to be forced.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

that is pretty much it in a nutshell. If they get other benefits thats good.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Oh if you dont like your work conditions...join a union.

if you hate unions, deal with it...

nuff said



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

Freedom...such a thing. Freedom for me, tyranny for you.

No offense, but that is a stupid concept that runs against the grain of everything that means freedom and liberty.

With the OP title our founding fathers are flipping over in the graves at the speed of sound.

I may not be rich, but I do not believe I am entitled to anyone else's money, corporate or otherwise. I am willing to work for money.







 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join