He’s acting against the interest of the company. The shareholders ought to fire him, but they can’t because he has a magic majority rule in the company that allows him to control it with a minority of the shares.
They tried in 2016. They should try again.
Well, in the long run, yes, a company will run better when employees are enabled to do their best. But in the short term, that doesn’t always translate to increased profits this quarter, which is why it’s not always what happens.
Maybe so. I think it’s more a matter of company owners having to educate themselves instead of playing God towards their employees.
It’s becomes very evident when you look into psychological interactions in companies. It seems soo unnecessary - until you look at the results. Companies that actively work to prevent demotivating behaviour also produce better results at the bottom of their financial statements.
Just similar to how violent behaviour resulted in people not working due to broken arms, demotivating behaviour stops employees from doing the job well. You can see it in the contemporary term “Silent quitting” which is a result of poor management. People do minimum work because they are only motivated to as they’re told and don’t get a say in how they do it.
Firmly no. To your last sentence. Unions don’t just exist to push the price of labour. Unions exist because one man alone can easily be replaced with another poor shit worker.
Unions exist because serious workers actually like doing their job well.
Firmly no. To your last sentence. Unions don’t just exist to push the price of labour. Unions exist because one man alone can easily be replaced with another poor shit worker.
Nah. There’s a cut off point somewhere between “making a profit” and “making a large scale company”. The personally owned and personally controlled companies that are happy with turning a profit using whatever means they think are necessary will never be able to buy out the companies that are controlled by an elected board who knows that it is necessary to invest in their staff. Quite the contrary. The professional businesses buy out the smaller ones.
Despite Musk being extremely wealthy, he’s still acting like he’s running a family business in the most unprofessional manner. Tesla had a good run disrupting the industry being first with long range batteries, but the larger car manufacturers have caught up and they have the infrastructure to back it up and staff that will do their job. Unlike Tesla currently.
X - doubt
He’s acting against the interest of the company. The shareholders ought to fire him, but they can’t because he has a magic majority rule in the company that allows him to control it with a minority of the shares. They tried in 2016. They should try again.
Preventing employees from negotiating helps companies
He just assumes workers will give in because they always have previously
Wrong. Enabling employees to do their best is what helps companies.
Demotivating them by having uncertainty and nonnegotiable terms is bad for the company.
One man can not know what is required for a hundred men to work efficiently
It’s megalomania for him to think that he knows best, and even if he did, for him to think that he could communicate what is best.
Musk has 110000 employees worldwide, but he still pretends to know exactly what each and everyone should be doing. No chance in hell.
Well, in the long run, yes, a company will run better when employees are enabled to do their best. But in the short term, that doesn’t always translate to increased profits this quarter, which is why it’s not always what happens.
You are too idealistic for an actual conversation
If what you said was true then there would be no need for unions
Maybe so. I think it’s more a matter of company owners having to educate themselves instead of playing God towards their employees.
It’s becomes very evident when you look into psychological interactions in companies. It seems soo unnecessary - until you look at the results. Companies that actively work to prevent demotivating behaviour also produce better results at the bottom of their financial statements.
Just similar to how violent behaviour resulted in people not working due to broken arms, demotivating behaviour stops employees from doing the job well. You can see it in the contemporary term “Silent quitting” which is a result of poor management. People do minimum work because they are only motivated to as they’re told and don’t get a say in how they do it.
Firmly no. To your last sentence. Unions don’t just exist to push the price of labour. Unions exist because one man alone can easily be replaced with another poor shit worker.
Unions exist because serious workers actually like doing their job well.
Which companies do because….
It benefits them
Only in the short term. It’s not sustainable against competitors who does otherwise.
If you make more money than your competitors in the short term then you can buy them out
Nah. There’s a cut off point somewhere between “making a profit” and “making a large scale company”. The personally owned and personally controlled companies that are happy with turning a profit using whatever means they think are necessary will never be able to buy out the companies that are controlled by an elected board who knows that it is necessary to invest in their staff. Quite the contrary. The professional businesses buy out the smaller ones.
Despite Musk being extremely wealthy, he’s still acting like he’s running a family business in the most unprofessional manner. Tesla had a good run disrupting the industry being first with long range batteries, but the larger car manufacturers have caught up and they have the infrastructure to back it up and staff that will do their job. Unlike Tesla currently.