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.

> 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.

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

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

Was that actually put to a shareholder vote though?

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

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

Oops. Thank you.

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.

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.

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

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.

People are lazy. You can always sell your grant as you get it, they can’t make holding stock mandatory, but a lot of people (including me) just hold the stock in a really undiversified portfolio.

> You can always sell your grant as you get it, they can’t make holding stock mandatory, [...]

They can. It's easy in private companies to limit what an employee can do with their stock, and in public companies they can insert a clause in the contract to that effect just fine. Or just have very long vesting periods.

(Of course, as a would-be employee I would take these restrictions into account when deciding where to work.)

You either own the stock or you don’t. If you paid federal income taxes on it, they have to let you sell it as you get it if you want, otherwise it isn’t real income. They can restrict when you sell it afterwards, but only in the cause of avoiding insider trading, and you can set up a plan to sell it blindly if you’d like.

It's not nearly as simple as that.

Look up eg a 'poison pill' for an example where you don't "either own or stock or you don't". (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder_rights_plan)

So they're too lazy to buy stock when they get paid, but not too lazy to sell stock when they get paid?

Huh? The opposite, they don’t sell the stock they are granted to buy other stock instead to diversify their portfolio.

This will tank price of shares.

Huh, why, how?

Of not traded shares that don't really have a price?

Well, there's still a bid and an ask quote on the market, even when no trading is happening?

This is not about publicly traded companies. It's about employee owned ones. Your point is still valid, but not in the way you think.

You cannot invest money you don't have?

If the company is public, one can simulate the scheme by buying their stock, I guess. Taxes may be different and phrased like that, it seems weirdly risky to buy more of the thing you’re most exposed to (if the company lays you off, the stock may be down too).

> if the company lays you off, the stock may be down too

Don't most layoffs make the stock go up?

Layoffs generally imply the company is contracting rather than expanding.

Depends on if you are cutting fat or cutting muscle.

The Iron Law of Bureaucracy implies it's usually the second one though. If the company isn't already dying then the insiders will fight against cuts until it is.

TLDR: Research says no

Some companies experience short-term improvements in price as their costs drop, but usually it has a longer-term impact on morale and productivity that takes longer to play out. Additionally, layoffs are typically performed on unhealthy companies (eg. not usually companies like Google and Meta that print cash and have huge margins), and unhealthy companies typically have other secular or structural issues beyond too-many-employees.