• ree
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 years ago

    Which obviously provides a rough idea of the distribution. how so ?

    Oh I did, it’s hilarious.

    Glad you’re having fun, I have fun too.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 years ago

      You have fun because you’re a troll who isn’t actually interested in facts. If you actually cared about whether Huawei is a real cooperative that has a fair distribution of shares then you would’ve spent time researching that instead of making an ass out of yourself in this thread. Since you claim the paper I linked is somehow inadequate, I’ll link another paper that does a detailed analysis of Huawei, not just in terms of share structure but also in terms of who actually owns it in practical terms

      https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=684088071004065000108104097080001109026012051033042091108125103074072029068074103121101122062000122051045126008098020072077071005049095084082028090122114021120108019019005046078001007013011118124066089108114093113029126081072090120093102087125085123065&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE

      Another paper breaks down exactly how shares work under ESOP https://www.centeronbusinessandpoverty.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESOP-and-Effect-on-Productivity.pdf

      • ree
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        To summarize what you took the time to copy/paste :

        • employees own the company
        • one shares = one vote
        • shares purchase has rules

        What I’m interested in, and that I cannot find online is: “how are those shares distributed amongst employee”. I know, I sound like a broken record at this point, but so do you by missing my point entirely.

        That question translate to : does 1 employees own 51% of the shares, does each employees own 0.0007% of shares or something in between.

        Your title assumed an even distribution ( one employee has 0.0007% of the total shares) . Without more information that is completely misleading1

        Do you understand my reasoning? Or am I trolling you too hard? I would be happy to go over some terms/sentences if they are not clear. Unfortunately I’m not an native english speaker and I sometime I communicate imperfectly.

        1. yes the first document you linked refute the 1 persons own 51% of the shares. Nonetheless, that doesn’t invalidate a scenario where an organized minority owns 75% of the shares removing control of the company from the hands of the workers
        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 years ago

          I understand the point you keep trying to make, but it’s pretty clear from the last chart I linked in the last comment that the distribution is fairly even. My title didn’t assume an even distribution, it assumes a fair distribution.

          The two studies I linked very clearly indicate that the share distribution is a factor in employee engagement and motivation. If the share distribution was highly skewed then the shares wouldn’t play a factor in employee engagement.

          The second study in particular compares Huawei with ZTE that has a traditional corporate structure. If your assertion was correct then we wouldn’t see the difference between the two.

          • ree
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 years ago

            I’m not gonna continue that cyclical dialogue any longer.

            There is no factual number of shares distribution amongst employee. My assumption is that as any large corporation a few makes bank and many get the crumbs and it’s as good as any.

            I’m sure employees are more motivated once they own stock but that’s a process you also find in other companies structure and it’s probably a well documented incentive. However, HR is not a topic I’ve interested in.

            Have a nice day.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              3 years ago

              Your assumption is completely baseless, but there’s clearly no point continuing this.

              Have a nice day.