Huawei enacted its Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) in 1987 at its establishment, and implemented it in 2003 two years after Shenzhen’s local authorities laid the rules for it.
There is no indications of the distribution in this source either. The only info is the following : of the shares 1.5% goes to the founder, 35% high performing , 40% médium performing, 10-20% low level employee. Those are subjective evaluation which says nothing about distribution of shares amongst a population of employees.
This is not an academic work. It’s a undergrad student paper with 6 sources and not peer-review.
I assume that you’re aware that citing a vaguely relevant link as an answer is participating to fake news propagation right?
Screw you and your shitty propaganda
Because every interactions I had with you ended up like this. I’m out of there.
I cited a paper that breaks down how Huawei structure works. If you’re going to be throwing shade on this paper, then cite precisely what you claim to be inaccurate there. Making vague unsubstantiated claims is what spreading misinformation actually looks like.
Your claim of misinformation is baseless. I gave you the information I was able to find that provides a decent idea of what the split looks like. If you want to find a more detailed split I full trust in your ability to use Google on your own.
What data are you claiming is being misrepresented?
You just made up a claim that isn’t sourced or based on anything. Your original comment is perfectly reasonable. We don’t know what the exact distribution of shares is. However, the article I found for you does give a bit of an insight into that. If you’re curious to find out more exact numbers then please do that instead of making unsubstantiated claims.
There is no indications of the distribution in this source either. The only info is the following : of the shares 1.5% goes to the founder, 35% high performing , 40% médium performing, 10-20% low level employee. Those are subjective evaluation which says nothing about distribution of shares amongst a population of employees.
This is not an academic work. It’s a undergrad student paper with 6 sources and not peer-review.
I assume that you’re aware that citing a vaguely relevant link as an answer is participating to fake news propagation right?
Screw you and your shitty propaganda
Because every interactions I had with you ended up like this. I’m out of there.
I cited a paper that breaks down how Huawei structure works. If you’re going to be throwing shade on this paper, then cite precisely what you claim to be inaccurate there. Making vague unsubstantiated claims is what spreading misinformation actually looks like.
Bye.
This paper don’t answer my question which is:
Give me a source answer this and I retract my claim of misinformation.
Your claim of misinformation is baseless. I gave you the information I was able to find that provides a decent idea of what the split looks like. If you want to find a more detailed split I full trust in your ability to use Google on your own.
but that’s the thing.
Baseless claim and misrepresenting data is misinformation.
You don’t answer my question and make claims. I don’t find anything online to contextualize that number hence my first comment :
What data are you claiming is being misrepresented?
You just made up a claim that isn’t sourced or based on anything. Your original comment is perfectly reasonable. We don’t know what the exact distribution of shares is. However, the article I found for you does give a bit of an insight into that. If you’re curious to find out more exact numbers then please do that instead of making unsubstantiated claims.
In your title. You added the “average” information which is not present in the article you linked.
That information at first glance suggest that each worker get $75k.
Reporting an average without other distribution parameters is a misleading practice.
edit: typo
Sounds like somebody needs to learn the difference between average and median.
Ho, now we’re getting personal. good. I’ve got a degree in statistics.
What you wrote is still misleading.