Employee ownership is a very old concept. All studies have shown that they are risk averse and have poor growth. I’d love for this to work, but you can’t fantasize your way to results.
Why does everything have to be growth, growth, growth, growth? What's wrong with being stable and providing a decent livelihood?
Aardman Animation Is Giving the Company to Their Employees
51–60 of 128 posts
Re: Aardman Animation Is Giving the Company to Their Employees
#52This reminds me of Bob's Red Mill and their Employee Stock Ownership Program (ESOP): https://www.bobsredmill.com/bobs-way-meet#ESOP
I just recently learned about ESOPs: a few weeks ago I visited Graybar's [0] website, and learned that this large electric/etc distributor has been employee-owned since the 1920's. Louis Kelso was "the inventor and pioneer of the employee stock ownership plan (ESOP)" [1]. Kelso wrote *The Capitalist Manifesto" [2] about employee-ownership in 1958. I think most businesses would run better if their employees were more…
- The economic activity of the 30,000 cooperatives in the U.S. contributes an estimated $154 billion to the nation’s total income. The co-ops have helped to create over 2.1 million jobs, with an impact on wages and salaries of almost $75 billion (Deller et al 2009).
- Cooperative businesses have lower failure rates than traditional corporations/small businesses: after the first year (10% failure versus 60-80%) and after 5 years in business (90% still operating versus 3-5% of traditional businesses) (World Council of Credit Unions study in Williams 2007). Evidence also shows that cooperatives both successfully address the effects of crises and survive crises better (Borzaga and Calera 2012).
- Since most cooperatives are owned and controlled by local residents, it is more likely to promote community growth than an investor-oriented firm. Since cooperative business objectives are needs oriented, cooperatives are more likely to stay in the community (Zeuli, Freshwater et al 2003).
- Cooperative businesses stabilize communities because they are community-based business anchors; and distribute, recycle, and multiply local expertise and capital within a community. They enable their owners to generate income, and jobs; accumulate assets; provide affordable, quality goods and services; develop human & social capital (Gordon Nembhard 2002, 2004b, 2008a; Fairbairn et al 1991; Logue and Yates 2005).
- Cooperative start-up costs can be low because: are eligible to apply for loans and grants from a number of federal and state agencies designed to support co-op development; are often provided relatively low cost loans from non-governmental financial institutions like cooperative banks because they are chartered or established to do so (Zeuli, Freshwater et al 2003).
- WAGES in Oakland CA finds that after owning the house cleaning co-op the worker-owners’ median income increased to over $40,000 (before the co-op the Latina owners had a median income of $24,000). Ownership in the co-op has put their income higher than the national average of $38,000 for Latinos/as (http://www.wagescooperatives.org/economic-empowerment)
- Food co-ops spend more revenues locally, buy more products locally, buy more organic produce, recycle more plastic, and create more jobs than conventional grocers. For every $1,000 spent at a food co-op, $1,606 goes to the local economy; for every $1 million in sales, 9.3 jobs are created (Yes! Magazine 2013).
Re: Aardman Animation Is Giving the Company to Their Employees
#53Sorry for the naive question, but how does this work? So let's say the employees now are part of this trust which owns 75% of the shares. What is the benefit? The trust owns the shares legally correct? Is it some sort of profit sharing scheme? I assume you don't hold on to the shares when you leave the company (as they are with the trust)? Does every new hire dilute the ownership? How does this actually impact the da…
In this case I think the primary reason is to protect the company. Aardman is probably a fairly hot company right now. Probably prime for a purchase by one of the big studios. But then it would most likely just get broken up and turned into a mill for churning out look-a-like content. Or possibly even just a logo stamped on contracted out content. I believe the founders have been fairly clear in the past about not be…
If it's not hard, the studios don't need to buy Aardman. The IP they have is negligible, and no one watches a movie because it's made by Aardman (99% of the people would not know who they are anyway).
If it is hard, the studios would need to keep the employees who manage to do this hard thing, and it would be in the purchaser's best interest to manage it as if it were a butterfly.
Re: Aardman Animation Is Giving the Company to Their Employees
#54Sorry for the naive question, but how does this work? So let's say the employees now are part of this trust which owns 75% of the shares. What is the benefit? The trust owns the shares legally correct? Is it some sort of profit sharing scheme? I assume you don't hold on to the shares when you leave the company (as they are with the trust)? Does every new hire dilute the ownership? How does this actually impact the da…
I worked with some consultants who did this sort of thing for companies, and their main spiel was... Sometimes a company’s owners have no one to pass their ownership down to (not having kids or their kids not wanting to take on the family business, etc). So they either sell the business off or do layoffs and liquidate and move on. There have been instances where companies that employed a good amount of people in a to…
What about the monetary value of the company, do the employees buy it (probably too expensive, cheaper for the employees to shut it down and form a new company with the same people) or is it usual for the founders to give away the companies? Do they just keep a good percentage of the shares to receive dividends?
Re: Aardman Animation Is Giving the Company to Their Employees
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we're just going to attribute anything that happened during capitalism as a result of the "free market" then I get to say that communism invented satellites, discovered stem cells, and cured maternally transmitted HIV. Electric cars and solar panels won't save us. You're not fooling anyone with that. Solar panels are not nearly efficient enough to replace anything major any time soon, and electric passenger cars w…
Do you have a source that natural gas is the largest carbon emissionss contributer? Genuinely curious, because over here in Germany gas companies (Gazprom.. ;)) market themselves as the opposite and the same argument is used for cars running on natural gas. I know that's just PR, but I thought it produces less emissions because it burns more efficiently than other fossil fuels.
Re: Aardman Animation Is Giving the Company to Their Employees
#56Re: Aardman Animation Is Giving the Company to Their Employees
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this case I think the primary reason is to protect the company. Aardman is probably a fairly hot company right now. Probably prime for a purchase by one of the big studios. But then it would most likely just get broken up and turned into a mill for churning out look-a-like content. Or possibly even just a logo stamped on contracted out content. I believe the founders have been fairly clear in the past about not be…
Either it's hard to create the content, or it is not. If it's not hard, the studios don't need to buy Aardman. The IP they have is negligible, and no one watches a movie because it's made by Aardman (99% of the people would not know who they are anyway). If it is hard, the studios would need to keep the employees who manage to do this hard thing, and it would be in the purchaser's best interest to manage it as if it…
Re: Aardman Animation Is Giving the Company to Their Employees
#58[shit!]https://imgur.com/a/RddlgcR
Re: Aardman Animation Is Giving the Company to Their Employees
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this case I think the primary reason is to protect the company. Aardman is probably a fairly hot company right now. Probably prime for a purchase by one of the big studios. But then it would most likely just get broken up and turned into a mill for churning out look-a-like content. Or possibly even just a logo stamped on contracted out content. I believe the founders have been fairly clear in the past about not be…
Either it's hard to create the content, or it is not. If it's not hard, the studios don't need to buy Aardman. The IP they have is negligible, and no one watches a movie because it's made by Aardman (99% of the people would not know who they are anyway). If it is hard, the studios would need to keep the employees who manage to do this hard thing, and it would be in the purchaser's best interest to manage it as if it…
Speak for yourself, I know I certainly do.
Re: Aardman Animation Is Giving the Company to Their Employees
#60Sorry to be offtopic, but how can you link a website that imposes literally thousands of marketing and "unclassified" cookies on you? And they only have the option to "Accept all cookies".. FUCK OFF with this bullshit! [shit!] https://imgur.com/a/RddlgcR
Web 2018, everyone. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯