Originally Posted by Leslie (Post 11845629)

Yup.

New Bernie Sanders ad leans on Simon and Garfunkel - POLITICO

Originally Posted by Boiler (Post 11845657)

I know quite a few people who work for Non Profits, and companies that make no profit.

Originally Posted by dakota44 (Post 11845674)

I did say that I also favor an increase in minimum wage.

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP (Post 11845630)

Remember that Reagan used "Born in the USA" in his campaign. I'm guessing that the only time that he heard it was on the campaign trail, and his staffers certainly didn't pay attention to the lyrics. (Republicans don't do irony, it seems.)

Originally Posted by dakota44 (Post 11845674)

I did say that I also favor an increase in minimum wage.

Originally Posted by dakota44 (Post 11845571)

I strongly support an increase in minimum wage but also lean heavily in favor of doing what Peru does, s well as many other countries.

In Peru:

There is a general system of participation in company profits.
Employees of companies which perform activities generating third category income are entitled to
participate in the profits of the company, provided the company has more than 20 employees, and
they are subject to the labor regime for private employees.
Employees share the profits of the company through the distribution by the company of a
percentage of its net income before taxes. This percentage varies according to the employer’s
business, as shown:
%
Mining .................................................. ................... . 8
Fishing .................................................. ................... 10
Industrial .................................................. ............... 10
Telecommunications ................................................ 10
Wholesalers, retailers and restaurants ...................... 8
Other activities........................................ .................. 5
The participation payable to each employee is based on the days actually worked during the year
and the employee’s compensation, as follows:
1. 50 percent of the cash participation is distributed in proportion to the number of days worked by
each employee.
2. 50 percent is distributed in proportion to the compensation earned by each employee.
The maximum cash participation that each employee may receive is the equivalent of 18 monthly
wages as of the year-end. If there is any amount in excess, it should be contributed to the National
Fund for Work Qualification and Employment Promotion (Fondo Nacional de Capacitacion
Laboral y de Promocion del Empleo).
Payment to employees should be made within 30 days following the filing of the annual income
tax return (first week of April of each year).

Originally Posted by Jsmth321 (Post 11845794)

Would be nice if companies shared profits with the employees who work to make those profits possible, but then the higher ups would have less and so will never happen. The wealthy don't generally like to share the wealth, seems the in thing is to hoard as much wealth as possible.

Anecdotal at best, but when the airline I was with yanked profit sharing, profits went down, service went down, employee morale went down, on-time performance went down, well everything went down.

Everything went down as well we employees didn't feel appreciated, and if the company wasn't willing to share the profits, we were not willing to do more then what was required under the contracts, so we worked to rule. Employees who feel appreciated are more likely to do more then is expected, which requires the company to need less employees as the airline found out...

Last 2 years, then profit sharing came back. Mind you this was a company who paid very poorly, 6.94/hr for airport ground staff, 13,200 a year for flight attendants, pilots were paid quite a lot below industry average as well.

CEO made only a 6 figure base salary of 400,000 something, but got a few million in stock options, something normal employees didn't get to have...


Point is, if employees feel appreciated, morale stays higher, companies see better performance which only benefits.

Happy employees are productive employees.



I see Trump received the endorsement of one of the Duck bearded people, not sure which one, the Duck people on that TV show.

Originally Posted by sir_eccles (Post 11845962)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/ny...smtyp=cur&_r=0

Interesting. I'd say he might steal more disgruntled fiscal conservatives than from the Gop race than liberals from the dem race.

Originally Posted by dakota44 (Post 11845973)

It would not exist in Peru either if it were not the law. It would need to be mandatory. I agree completely that when employees have a stake in the company via a healthy profit sharing program they are inclined to feel more valued and be more loyal and interested in doing their best work.

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 11845995)

The problem with an overly healthy profit sharing system is that companies need to retain capital for re-investment and long term growth. It might produce a warm fuzzy feeling in the short term, but in the longer term more aggressive and ambitious companies out perform the social companies and they fail. If it's I a closed system, as appears to be the case in in Peru, the playing field is level, but the country is unable to compete internationally.

Originally Posted by dakota44 (Post 11846021)

Compete internationally in what way? You notice that the top percentage of profit sharing is 10% of profits. That is not huge in the overall scheme of things and companies do just fine here in terms of retaining cash for growth and downturns. No system is flawless, for sure. It sure has not discouraged foreign companies from doing business here. There are American, Canadian and Australian mining companies here, among others. American and Canadian banks. American retail companies etc. The wireless and cable and internet companies are arms of foreign entities.

Originally Posted by Leslie (Post 11846071)

Oh ffs.

Originally Posted by Leslie (Post 11846071)

Oh ffs.