The Thin Line
Friends,
With regards to recent events in Minnesota, Oregon, and elsewhere, for now I would just like to remind everyone that we all lose when we justify violence.
Next, as a nod to MLK Jr. and his work on employment and quality living wages, I wanted to share and reflect on a longstanding debate about greed. This exchange exposes the term’s relativity, and how easily Divide and Conquer can be used.
After an article about bonuses, I took a hard Leftist, pro worker stance out of the gate. Writing of the ignorance in celebrating a CEO giving 98% of the company 15% of its value, just because most CEO’s give nothing. It was the New York Post, so I received many responses in kind. As an educator, I understand rebuking the best risks looking ungrateful and greedy to the group. I also recognize good can come from making positive examples of leaders. But being the best in a group does not guarantee it is being done well. The hard coach in me, the bad cop, who talked me into leaving professional sports, saw a CEO’s well-intended effort falling short. This part of me is not here to pull punches. He has no time for Jr. Ball, political correctness, or kissing participation trophies. He is here to tell it like it is.
By the end of the exchange, I was not swayed. And I do not think the other side was swayed either. People have had this debate in various societies and in one form or another for centuries. But the most important part of the exchange is not persuading those entrenched in opposite camps but having as many as possible join and keep moving forward.
Louisiana boss hands workers $240M in bonuses after selling his company for $1.7B
New York Post, Ariel Zilber
Curtis: Americans are clueless. Guy walked away with 1.7 billion and only gave away 240 million to 98% of his company. I know some are worse, but when it is seen as heroic when someone gives 15% of a company’s worth to 98% of its workers, it is clear many are brainwashed.
Reader 1: jealous much? apparently the owner of the co. found what they contributed enough. ceo’s of failing co get big paychecks all the time. so why are questioning this?
Get Curtis Griffin’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Curtis: The jealousy accusation is tired. Why would I be jealous of someone who is so bad at being kind? I would give 98% at least 50% ($850 million is 850 times more than plenty for me). And if I think the guy who gave 15% is a cheap doink, imagine names I come up with for those who give nothing.
Reader 2: what eludes reasoning, is that somehow employees have an expectation that they should participate in the rewards or risks of ownership. Would every employee step in to donate their time, to save the owner from the bankruptcy of his business? The answer is very likely negative. And if they did, it is just as likely to be a very limited offer of free labor by a small number of employees. Gifts are gratuitous. They’re unexpected, given without reason and uncalled for. To criticize anyone by claiming that such an unselfish action is insufficient shows a total lack of gratitude.
Curtis: Certainly not “every” employee donates time, nonetheless, many often do. Many defending this CEO went the extra mile for their company. So, I get why they would have been grateful had their employers done the same. And only a fool cannot understand the life changing power of even 15% of $1.7 billion. Still, given the success of the company, what some call a “gift,” I consider a reward the employees earned. By “giving” at least three times more he would impact a far greater range of family, friends, communities, and economies.
Reader 3: I’m an old-fashioned guy. I expect nothing more than I bargained for. I never consider anything received in excess of that, as anything other than a kind-hearted gift. To do otherwise, is deceitful. If I’m expecting something, then I don’t consider that expectation to be a gift, but an exchange of fair value. Only if I am getting more than what I give, it is a gift received. This story was published in greater detail very recently by the WSJ. The owner who negotiated this deal and brought it to the stage it was sold for, is entitled to every penny called for by that deal. As part of this deal, he agreed to a continuing compensation agreement for his employees, to transition the business to the buyer. As such his gratuitous intentions were supported by tax implications beneficial to him as well. It appears that those employee payments will be taxable to the employee who receives them, and as such, the selling owner will not be treated as having made federally taxable gifts to the employees. Further, the new owner will be entitled to a tax deduction for the employee payments. It was “charitable” for the owner to arrange this, but as a savvy person, he helped his former employees with tax subsidized “gifts.”
Curtis: Hmm … that is a lot of words, old fashioned to be sure. Look, I get that you do not think employees deserve more. The rich use words like “charitable” because that is how it is best phrased it to maintain their wealth. Its brainwashing.
Reader 2: there’s always someone who thinks they’re more valuable than they are simply because they check in at 8am and leave at 5pm. Whatever you agree to be paid, is exactly what you’re worth. Sorry that you don’t like that reality.
Cutis: Hmm … I would pay HIS EMPLOYEES more because THEY proved to be worth it (though had I or anyone else been such an employee we should be paid as well). And employees are not just machines that show up 8 to 5, their focus and effort matter too. Sorry you think owners are the only one’s worth market value.
Reader 2: People and things are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them. Anything that is received in excess of that, is simple charity and generosity. This concept has nothing to do with people being machines, but it has everything to do with meritocracy. Some people don’t understand the concept. They think they are somehow “owed” something by others. Why? Well, just because.
Curis: lol … if the owner gets market value, so should employees. Not sure we are going to get to reasoning between us. Good luck.
Reader 2: I don’t need to explain my reasoning, as it is well established in the business world that employees are getting market value with every paycheck they receive. For those that believe otherwise, they are living in their own world. Good day.
Curtis: The fact that it is well established was my first point. Good day.
Reader 3: Although you indeed have a point. What this guy did is way too rare an occurrence. No matter how many customers this guy brought in none of them would have stayed if those on the factory floor weren’t there to build or supply and ship his product. That is all to forgotten by the greedy investors and wall street crowd. They produce nothing but some capital and want all the proceeds.
