this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2022
29 points (100.0% liked)
World News
1036 readers
10 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There is no indications of the distribution in this source either. The only info is the following : of the shares 1.5% goes to the founder, 35% high performing , 40% médium performing, 10-20% low level employee. Those are subjective evaluation which says nothing about distribution of shares amongst a population of employees.
This is not an academic work. It's a undergrad student paper with 6 sources and not peer-review.
I assume that you're aware that citing a vaguely relevant link as an answer is participating to fake news propagation right?
Screw you and your shitty propaganda
Because every interactions I had with you ended up like this. I'm out of there.
I cited a paper that breaks down how Huawei structure works. If you're going to be throwing shade on this paper, then cite precisely what you claim to be inaccurate there. Making vague unsubstantiated claims is what spreading misinformation actually looks like.
Bye.
This paper don't answer my question which is:
Give me a source answer this and I retract my claim of misinformation.
Your claim of misinformation is baseless. I gave you the information I was able to find that provides a decent idea of what the split looks like. If you want to find a more detailed split I full trust in your ability to use Google on your own.
but that's the thing.
Baseless claim and misrepresenting data is misinformation.
You don't answer my question and make claims. I don't find anything online to contextualize that number hence my first comment :
What data are you claiming is being misrepresented?
You just made up a claim that isn't sourced or based on anything. Your original comment is perfectly reasonable. We don't know what the exact distribution of shares is. However, the article I found for you does give a bit of an insight into that. If you're curious to find out more exact numbers then please do that instead of making unsubstantiated claims.
In your title. You added the "average" information which is not present in the article you linked.
That information at first glance suggest that each worker get $75k.
Reporting an average without other distribution parameters is a misleading practice.
edit: typo
Sounds like somebody needs to learn the difference between average and median.
Ho, now we're getting personal. good. I've got a degree in statistics.
What you wrote is still misleading.
It's only misleading if you don't understand the difference between the average and the median, which somebody with a degree in statistics certainly should. You basically made up some nonsense and stuck to your guns for two days now. Bravo, that's some real dedication to trolling.
Again with the personals.
You decided to include that information in the title for a reason.
When I pointed out that it was misleading you answered with a source that has not relevance to my comment.
I think that your behavior is deliberate and that you're spreading misleading information.
You seem to take a lot of things personally. I'm just stating simple facts here. I included correct information in the title, there is absolutely nothing misleading about it. I think your behavior here is deliberate trolling and I have a strong suspicion that you didn't know the difference between average and median until now.
My first comment pointed out that an average like "$75k each" without distribution parameters is useless. You responded with a non-relevant paper.
What you're doing is spreading missinformation.
by the way :
I responded with a relevant paper that you literally quoted rough distributions from. The fact that refusing to understand the difference between average and median is the hill you chose to die on is absolutely hilarious.
The paper doesn't provide the shares distribution amongst the worker. It provides shares distribution amongst categories of worker.
Please read my last comment in his entirety.
Which obviously provides a rough idea of the distribution.
Oh I did, it's hilarious.
Glad you're having fun, I have fun too.
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
To summarize what you took the time to copy/paste :
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 misleading^1^
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.
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.
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.
Your assumption is completely baseless, but there's clearly no point continuing this.
Have a nice day.