Taxes.
A maximum wage?
- Thread starter Winner
- Start date
Taxes.
Ah, well in that case, surely a fairer and more even distribution of this talent would produce more exciting matches and leagues!
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
And yet switching to diet cola doesn't seem to correlate with weight loss...
I covered this in the other thread. Your body does not understand artificial sweeteners. And so reacts wrong to the lack of calories and puts on weight just as if the calories were there.
Or share the profits with the employees.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
We all work at a cooperative now?
No, that's what profit sharing is.
We all work at a cooperative now?
Plenty of non-cooperatives have profit sharing schemes.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I'm aware of that, but the very fact that these schemes are identified as something in themselves demonstrates that they are distinct from wages, as you note above. All wages being meaningfully equivalent to profit-sharing is something that could only realistically be the case in a cooperative.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Would it be such an odd idea to share the bonus the CEO's get as a percentage? If the CEO gets a 20% bonus on his yearly paycheck because of profits, so do the employees.
Haven't thought this through at all, so nuke from orbit if necessary.
Haven't thought this through at all, so nuke from orbit if necessary.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
It's certainly been done- two big examples that spring to mind would be John Lewis, a department store chain in the UK, and Arup, a major international engineering firm, both of which are run as trusts and which distribute bonuses in precisely this fashion.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
That doesn't sound like such a bad idea to me and would probably lead to happier and more efficient workers.
The company does better - the more you get paid. That would def. motivate me
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
The problem is that the success of large modern companies is determined by such a complex aggregate of factors, and the individual low- or mid-level employee so limited in what they can do to improve things, that it becomes a largely abstract proposition. (It varies by sector, of course, but it's a broadly accurate rule.) With as large an incentive as Ziggy suggests, it's feasible, but that would demand that the increase in profits made up for the increase in outgoings, which is a case-by-case thing, so there's no guarantee that even an adoption of such programs by a few major companies would lead to widespread adoption.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
It works for CEOs, doesn't it?
Mise
isle of lucy
Most medium-sized and larger companies already offer performance-based bonuses to employees at all levels. I know that my company (a mining company) does, so I'll explain how it works here. Your total compensation is Base Salary + Performance-related Bonus. The "performance-related" part depends on both your individual performance, and also the company's performance, as measured against targets set by the shareholders. The performance of the company against shareholder targets determines the total size of the company's bonus pot. So, if the company hits all targets, then the company dedicates a large amount of funds to the bonus pot; if the company hits none of the targets, then the bonus pot shrinks (it's very rare that the company would hit zero targets - there is always some money in the pot).
The pot then gets divided up into business units, based on the performance of each individual business unit. So I work in Pricing and Strategy, so if Pricing and Strategy hits all of its targets this year, we get a larger share of the pot; if one of our mining units performs exceptionally well, then that unit gets a bigger share of the pot. This way, the contribution of each individual unit towards the company's overall performance is recognised.
Then, within each business unit, the pot gets divided up again, based on individual employees' performances against their own targets. So if I do just the bare minimum required of my job, then I don't get a bonus, but if I hit targets that are intended to stretch your performance and help the business unit hit its overall performance targets, then I get a bonus that's proportional to how well I hit (or exceeded) the targets.
So what happens is, the shareholders set high-level targets for the business: targets for profit, cash-flow, balance sheets, etc. The CEO looks at these targets, and then, along with the heads of each business unit, decide on an overall strategy for meeting them (say, by improving mine efficiency, cutting costs, cutting waste, better marketing, more effective pricing strategy, etc). That strategy is used to guide the business unit targets; the targets for each business unit are used to guide the targets at the managerial level; the targets at managerial level are used to guide targets at the individual level. So what this all means is that, if every single individual meets his targets, then the managers will meet their targets, the business units will meet their targets, and the company as a whole will meet its targets. So in that way, each individual employee has a stake (albeit a very diluted one) in the ability of the company to meet its shareholder targets.
Now, as Traitorfish alluded to, the individuals at the very bottom of the organisation can't do anywhere near as much to increase profits (or screw things up, for that matter) as the CEO can. So the CEO ought to be much more interested in making profits go up than the guy at the bottom, who ought to be most interested in mining the raw minerals or driving the trucks (or photocopying memos and printing TPS reports). I mean, imagine if you work your ass off mining stuff all day, you put all your hours in and then some, but the world economy goes tits up and the company makes a huge loss this year. If you were paid mostly in bonuses, then you'd be totally screwed. So the guy at the bottom needs the vast majority of his total compensation to be paid as Base Salary. The CEO, on the other hand, is someone who needs to be focusing on profit more than anything else. So to motivate him to focus on profit you make the majority of his total compensation to be paid as Performance-related Bonuses.
Therefore, the guy at the bottom of our company has a chance of getting a maximum of 20% of his Base Salary as a Bonus. The guy above him has a max bonus of 30%; the guy at managerial level 40%, at director level 70%, and then above that I don't know because they don't publish it in the employee handbook. Indeed, I know from experience that the "maximum" isn't really a maximum. They have a lot of leeway, especially in good years.
Anyway the point is, the system we have in our company actually gives you a stake in the company's profits, but without jeopardising your own personal finances by being in thrall to things that you simply cannot affect. It would be unreasonable to pay your entire salary based on the company's profits, because what if the company fails to make a profit through no fault of your own? So you graduate it based on how much influence you actually have over the results.
The pot then gets divided up into business units, based on the performance of each individual business unit. So I work in Pricing and Strategy, so if Pricing and Strategy hits all of its targets this year, we get a larger share of the pot; if one of our mining units performs exceptionally well, then that unit gets a bigger share of the pot. This way, the contribution of each individual unit towards the company's overall performance is recognised.
Then, within each business unit, the pot gets divided up again, based on individual employees' performances against their own targets. So if I do just the bare minimum required of my job, then I don't get a bonus, but if I hit targets that are intended to stretch your performance and help the business unit hit its overall performance targets, then I get a bonus that's proportional to how well I hit (or exceeded) the targets.
So what happens is, the shareholders set high-level targets for the business: targets for profit, cash-flow, balance sheets, etc. The CEO looks at these targets, and then, along with the heads of each business unit, decide on an overall strategy for meeting them (say, by improving mine efficiency, cutting costs, cutting waste, better marketing, more effective pricing strategy, etc). That strategy is used to guide the business unit targets; the targets for each business unit are used to guide the targets at the managerial level; the targets at managerial level are used to guide targets at the individual level. So what this all means is that, if every single individual meets his targets, then the managers will meet their targets, the business units will meet their targets, and the company as a whole will meet its targets. So in that way, each individual employee has a stake (albeit a very diluted one) in the ability of the company to meet its shareholder targets.
Now, as Traitorfish alluded to, the individuals at the very bottom of the organisation can't do anywhere near as much to increase profits (or screw things up, for that matter) as the CEO can. So the CEO ought to be much more interested in making profits go up than the guy at the bottom, who ought to be most interested in mining the raw minerals or driving the trucks (or photocopying memos and printing TPS reports). I mean, imagine if you work your ass off mining stuff all day, you put all your hours in and then some, but the world economy goes tits up and the company makes a huge loss this year. If you were paid mostly in bonuses, then you'd be totally screwed. So the guy at the bottom needs the vast majority of his total compensation to be paid as Base Salary. The CEO, on the other hand, is someone who needs to be focusing on profit more than anything else. So to motivate him to focus on profit you make the majority of his total compensation to be paid as Performance-related Bonuses.
Therefore, the guy at the bottom of our company has a chance of getting a maximum of 20% of his Base Salary as a Bonus. The guy above him has a max bonus of 30%; the guy at managerial level 40%, at director level 70%, and then above that I don't know because they don't publish it in the employee handbook. Indeed, I know from experience that the "maximum" isn't really a maximum. They have a lot of leeway, especially in good years.
Anyway the point is, the system we have in our company actually gives you a stake in the company's profits, but without jeopardising your own personal finances by being in thrall to things that you simply cannot affect. It would be unreasonable to pay your entire salary based on the company's profits, because what if the company fails to make a profit through no fault of your own? So you graduate it based on how much influence you actually have over the results.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
Ehh.... no, you are way off here. Way off. The Premier League is good (not the best, La Liga is), but it's not that good. No league was ever even near that good.
I think what Winner is trying to say is that, though he cannot quite articulate a perfect solution, it's clear that the present situation is far beyond ridiculous, no matter how many people try and tell you it's as natural as the changing of the seasons or the tides of the sea.
Mise
isle of lucy
Ok, this is getting waaay off topic, but it is absolutely true that even the clubs at the very bottom of the EPL are of an international standard. I mean, let's take Fulham, since we're on it. Currently 16th in the EPL. Here's the squad:
No. Position Player
1 GK Mark Schwarzer - Australian international
2 DF Stephen Kelly - Irish international
3 DF John Arne Riise - Norwegian international
4 MF Steve Sidwell
5 DF Brede Hangeland - Norwegian international
6 DF Chris Baird - Northern Irish international
8 FW Andy Johnson - Played for England a few times
9 FW Orlando Sá - A few Portugal U21 caps
10 MF Pajtim Kasami - Swiss U21 squad
11 FW Bryan Ruiz - Costa Rica international
13 MF Danny Murphy (captain) - A few England caps
14 DF Philippe Senderos - Swiss international
15 MF Marcel Gecov - Czech U21
16 MF Damien Duff - Ireland international
17 MF Bjørn Helge Riise - Norway
18 DF Aaron Hughes (vice-captain) - Northern Ireland
20 MF Dickson Etuhu - Nigeria
22 GK Csaba Somogyi
23 MF Clint Dempsey - USA
25 FW Bobby Zamora
26 DF Zdeněk Grygera - Czech Republic
28 DF Matthew Briggs
29 MF Simon Davies - Wales
30 FW Moussa Dembélé - Belgium
32 DF Rafik Halliche - Algeria
38 GK Neil Etheridge - Philippines
So that's the vast majority of the Fulham team playing international football. They could easily make an entire squad solely with players in the first team of a national side. And they're currently the 5th crappest team in the league...
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
Yes, but you said they would beat the talent in most world cup squads... they would not. And frankly, a list of Seria A or La Liga low level teams would be comparable, easily. The Premier League is a top leage, don't get me wrong, but you seem to overestimate how good it is. when EPL teams srat turning out teams like Barcelona, get back to me then. the most utterly predominant team in the Premier league has managed two Champions Leagues in 25 years under the greatest manager in English football. Not exactly a great record.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
La Liga has 2 teams that are amazing and dominate the rest of the league. I'm not sure I would call that "the best" unless I was a fan of one of those 2 teams.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
And the Premiership doesn't??? Have you been watching it this year?
