Originally Posted by
Excargodog
Talk to ANY CPA. Or take an accounting course. Or for that matter, just look at nonprofit organizations.
Kaiser-Permanente hospitals have $93 BILLION a year in revenue but NEVER make a profit. Yet their CEO pulls in $16 million a year - twice the salary of the Blue Cross CEO. There are PLENTY of ways to hide profit, including amortization schedules and equipment buys that will support share prices while decreasing book profit.
You keep fighting this suggestion. What downside do you see?
Kaiser-Permanente is both a PRIVATE organisation, and a non-profit. And revenue has never guaranteed profit, ever. So saying an organization should have a lot of REPORTED profit simply because it has a lot of revenue is not reality, especially with a private organization, or a non-profit.
In the case of a PUBLIC owned company, with public shareholders, they can use these gimmicks in the short run, but it would never work in the long run. And those gimmicks would reduce current year profit, but would only INCREASE future year profits by making the business stronger long term. The simple fact is the shareholders would never stand for continued underreporting of profits. It would harm their share value, and they don't like that. And public company executives get 80% or more of their annual compensation from stock grants and other stock performance incentives. So the executives themselves would repulse at the idea of sabotaging the company's reported profits.
I've explained this all before.
Would I like revenue sharing? Of course I would. We smurfs have been fighting to get our profit sharing BACK for YEARS. We have been so far met with an Iron Curtain of illogical resistance, especially when EVERY AIRLINE IN OUR PEERSET have it. And that peer set is company agreed upon.
Profit sharing aligns the financial interests of the employee with that of the company. In other words, we want the company to be successful/profitable and will make decisions and undergo actions that will help that mutual financial success. Yet, the company has said it's a "non-starter" and "non-negotiable" in every negotiations/MOU/LOA/contract extension undertaken in recent years. In other words, we can't even get them to TALK about an industry STANDARD contract provision for airlines at the JetBlue level of the industry. AND... profit sharing is only paid during years where the company is successful and profitable.
On the other hand, you want to get revenue sharing, something that is found nowhere in the industry, and something the company would have to pay when years are financially good, but also years that are financially catastrophic. And you want to attain this from the management I described above!?!?!
Yes, revenue sharing sounds great. And it's a perfectly fine ask. But if you think it's achievable, I think you are on drugs or should not hold a medical certificate.
And frankly I want profit sharing (it's a non-starter for me) and many other industry leading pay and QOL provisions. Those "other" items are more important to me than the distinction between profit sharing and revenue sharing.