[jrflowers]

I like this caricature of the spoiled entitled employee because it completely ignores the concept of shareholders having a say in governance. If stocks were only a proxy for money and nothing else the example would be spot-on.

[stavros]

> If stocks were only a proxy for money and nothing else the example would be spot-on

They are, in the modern startup world that HN is mostly in. That's why commenters here don't remember there are voting shares.

[coderatlarge]

What are some corporate votes that you feel wider employee ownership would have improved?

[stavros]

Laying off 10% of the workforce because the company isn't growing fast enough and then giving the CEO a bigger bonus.

[coderatlarge]

Was that actually put to a shareholder vote though?

[psd1]

Lindy Fiorentina fucking up HP. Boeing all over. I'd hope to see employee-owners counteract short-termism

[myroon5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_Fiorina ?

[psd1]

Oops. Thank you.

[coderatlarge]

As I’m saying to Stavros above, I think many of these decisions don’t get put to a shareholder vote. The voting mechanism is generally extremely coarse afaik.

[psd1]

Right, the outcome is not guaranteed. But the possibility of a confidence vote might surface in a psycho CEO's brain from time to time.

[Gormo]

Can you elaborate on how shareholders having a say in governance relates to worker compensation? Why shouldn't shareholders have control over governance?

[greycol]

They shouldn't have complete control over governence because, especially in larger businesses, the shareholders are less invested in what a business does than the stakeholders.

A classic example would be an employee forced to work in an unhealthy manner. If the cost of replacing the employee when they're worn out is less than the extra profit made by causing the employee to work in that manner it might be the right form of governance for shareholders. Even if it would not be profitable if the health costs weren't externalised.