It was maybe a bit of both based on the corporate bylaws, but it was and is an employee owned company. What I described (bonuses over reinvestment) is a decision shareholders (employees) get to make.
>What I described (bonuses over reinvestment) is a decision shareholders (employees) get to make.
Sure, My only point is there's nothing about being employee-owned that requires or even encourages allowing employees to vote on how money is spent, or anything at all for that matter. A privately owned company is just as likely to consider input from employees as an employee-owned company is.
Both employee owned companies I worked for the board made those sorts of decisions without any say from employees.
> Both employee owned companies I worked for the board made those sorts of decisions without any say from employees.
If there was 100% (or majority) employee ownership, would the employees not have the ability to use the general meeting process to eject board members they didn’t like? Aren’t employees voting for nominees to the board, allowing them to use a write-in process to bypass a hostile board?
>would the employees not have the ability to use the general meeting process to eject board members they didn’t like?
Lol, no.
Trust me, it would have happened if it were possible at one, the board was public enemy #1 among rank-and-file employees.
>Aren’t employees voting for nominees to the board, allowing them to use a write-in process to bypass a hostile board?
Lol, no. The board itself selects board members.
I'm not exaggerating, we literally had zero input on anything.
I.R.C. § 409(e) requires voting rights for the employee shareholders in an ESOP on certain matters, so your “anything at all” is not true.