What's your point? The workers don't run the company - it's not a co-op. Since they don't run the company and don't get a share of the profits, why would they ever be expected to pay losses?
The point is specifically that because they don’t share in the losses[1] they shouldn’t share in the profits. This was a direct response to the parent comment: “Now that GM is very healthy and profitable the union workers want thier share.”
[1] I’m not making a statement about whether this is true or not. Just capturing the context.
> The point is specifically that because they don’t share in the losses[1]
Assuming it's true they had their wages reduced in the crisis, it's absolutely disingenious to claim that a return to higher wages post-crisis would be undeserved profiteering. They did share in the losses.
Did you stop reading when you got to something you wanted to argue against or did you just pick the wrong comment to reply to? I very clearly called out that I am not making a statement about whether the workers shared in the losses.
By sharing in losses I mean losing money in absolute terms, that's what happens to owners. Owners don't just make less money in bad times, they lose money. Workers may lose money relative to what they think they would make otherwise, but they still make money.
Accepting the risk of losses is why owners have a legitimate claim to the profits. Workers take a guaranteed paycheck which shelters them from losses in bad years and forfeits their claim to profits in good.
> Workers take a guaranteed paycheck which shelters them from losses in bad years
It's just great when workers accept pay-cuts in bad times, just for people like you claiming that this is just normal, no loss, and certainly no reason to restore their paycheck when good times are returning.
When I co-owned a company, we gave employees a share of the profits when we had a good year. Besides seeming like a decent thing to do, the employees were more aligned an incentivize to increase profits to increase potential profit-sharing checks. Also, it's easier to adjust bonuses downward as needed. On the other hand, employees would prefer not have their base-pay cut in down year.
Good point. But let's take it a step further. The workers might not "share" __directly__ in the financial losses, but certainly if the company is struggling they lack opportunity for career growth, and such. To say nothing of the fact that struggling conpanies seem to be fond of cutting corners on safety and other things that comprise the the quality of work life for the workers.
[1] I’m not making a statement about whether this is true or not. Just capturing the context.