Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Why are there not laws about profit sharing for this very reason? | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:58 am EST 01/07/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Why are there not laws about profit sharing for this very reason? - EvFoDr 09:09 am EST 01/06/18 | |
|
|
|
| i appreciate your points but i have to point out that your example/comparison isn't at all the same thing as actors and producers/investors profiting. Actors and producers do entirely different things, unlike your example of you and the company you work for. Actors aren't actors in the show rather than the producers of the show because they don't want the risk of investing and losing out, or being in charge. They have their own set of risks, including financial. But it's not the point because they just are totally different things and one couldn't do the other, and both need each other. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Why are there not laws about profit sharing for this very reason? | |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 12:00 pm EST 01/07/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Why are there not laws about profit sharing for this very reason? - Chazwaza 02:58 am EST 01/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| Actually the examples are not that different. I do an entirely different thing, using an entirely different set of skills, than the President of my company. And one can do the other--I'm not saying every single person can, but it's possible. I just watched a Netflix series where the lead actor was also the director and producer. He created a project for himself, hired himself, presumably paid himself a wage that satisfied him. In my example, I am not saying I could automatically do my President's exact job, but it is clear to me (with a heavy dose of my rather optimistic worldview and strong belief in my internal locus of control) that I could be in charge of the money that flowed to me by doing something that created that flow rather than being someone else'e employee. I just don't want to. But that's all rather hair splitting. I just like to point out this angle for consideration when these things come up. Anytime there is a question about the fairness of compensation for unionized employees who get paid regardless of the show making a profit or not, and we know most don't, I think we have to remember that both sides have risks and rewards. Usually the producer is risking more, so his/her reward is greater. Happily, in the case of Hamilton, there has been an agreement about profit sharing for the actors. That sets a precedent that will likely buoy a future discussion, when a unicorn like Hamilton comes around again. But I don't think I favor a "law" across the board that automatically dictates profit sharing. |
|
| reply to this message |
Time to render: 0.007897 seconds.