Well, I'm happy to hear that you approve of profit sharing. That is consistent with a belief in the profit motive. Employees will be motivated to do above and beyond what is merely required to increase profits, from which they will benefit. Unfortunately, all too few of those who give ardent lip-service to the principle of the profit motive don't really believe in it when it comes to motivating their employees. I think you will find that profit sharing is the exception rather than the rule.
A case in point, though you might see it as anecdotal, is the position of the executives of the Walt Disney feature animation unit on the subject of either profit sharing or royalties. While even the minor actors doing voice-over work on such films as Aladdin, The Lion King and Pocahontas were given royalties, the animators and other artists, who put far more creative effort into producing those films, did not receive any royalties, nor did they share in the company's profits. Every so often, the company would make a big deal of calling all of us together (I worked on the three films mentioned) to ask us for input on ways to make things better at the feature animation unit. When my supervisor, the head of the layout department, suggested giving us royalties, the company spokesman chairing the meeting said hastily that, "We're working on that," and passed on to the next question from the assemble troops. On other occasions, the company spokesperson would say, "Well, this isn't the proper forum in which to discuss that matter," and again the subject was passed by. Suffice it to say that we never saw any compensation from Disney other than our wages. The discomfort exhibited by management when the question was brought up was such that I quipped that the most effective cathartic to use on a Disney executive was to mention either profit sharing or royalties.
Disney still managed to get high quality work out us, because creative people have a need to create, which serves as an independent motivating force. However, their negative attitude toward sharing their profits with their employees came across as excessively selfish and short-sighted. This exclusionary attitude when it comes to sharing profits with the rank and file, which, as I said earlier, I believe to be far more common than profit sharing, may provoke much of the emotional antagonism many feel toward corporations.
Another problem is the negative effect profits may have on one's employment. While such an idea is counterintuitive, I can tell you, from personal experience, it does happen. When Time-Warner merged with Turner Broadcasting in 1996, Hanna Barbera, owned by Turner, was merged with Warner's animation unit. This was all a friendly takeover, of which Hanna Barbera's profitability was a part. The problem was that now two animation staffs in one company created redundancy. Thus, since H&B was the junior partner, their animation staff was laid off. That meant that my wife, who had started as a cel painter, then moved into special effects and eventually became a key background painter, lost her job of 16 years. Had there been any system of royalties in place (which, as in the case of Disney, the voice-over actors had, but the artists did not) she could have had some continuing income. Instead, specifically because of H&B's profitability, she had a job one week and didn't the next. And that was it, a 40 hour notice of permanent layoff.
My point,then, is that, while I have nothing against corporations and other companies making a profit, I do feel they should pay their taxes (this is particularly important in the case of energy companies, which often benefited from government subsidies), and I also think they should share their profits with their employees.
