"The company's management and General Works Council have jointly agreed to pay all eligible employees a special lump sum bonus of up to 7,300 euros, a figure that is even higher than the current maximum payment cap of 6,465 euros."
This General Works Council seems to be something like a separate "union within the company", in addition to whatever union represents various workers within the organization. On top of that, Mercedes Benz has a corporate Supervisory Board with 1/2 of the members representing the employees.
Interesting how this structure has a headline like this one, vs the ">10k workers laid off from giant corporation with record profits for the past two years" headlines that seem to be popping up here daily.
>On top of that, Mercedes Benz has a corporate Supervisory Board with 1/2 of the members representing the employees.
Absolutely love that, and stuff like that would never be allowed to form here in the US. Labor having an equal seat at the table should be seen as a good thing for the purposes of long-term sustainability, not a bad thing. Can it have drawbacks? Sure. However, the flipside is that currently in most places, such as the US, Capital has all the seats at the table, or sometimes Labor will given a symbolic place at the proverbial kid's table, with no real ability to enact change or make their voices heard. I applaud what Mercedes-Benz is doing here.
Worker Councils are to be elected in German companies beyond a certain (small) size (at least five employees who can vote and three employees who can be elected). This doesn’t mean that all German companies have them. The workers have to organize the vote themselves and if they don’t do it then there‘s no Works Council. Tactics similar to union busting are also a thing in Germany to prevent Worker Councils from forming.
However, large (old) companies will nearly always have such a Council in Germany.
What can they do? Basically, they do have a voice concerning anything that touches the day to day working situation. Monitor whether the employees adheres to norms and rules. Employers also have to inform the Council members about anything relevant going on concerning the workers.
Especially when it comes to hiring, firing and restructuring the Council can also veto and force the employer to sue and get the court to override the veto. In general you don’t really want to have the Council on your bad side as an employer, even though the power isn’t limitless and how much power there is in practice depends on the specific Council and how it fulfills its duties.
Unions aren’t needed for any of this but they will always want to help install a Workers Council.
I recently started at a public health insurance and we had someone from the Council sit in during my interview. When I was on the other side and took part in an interview we also had someone from the Council there to look over our shoulders, also when we documented our evaluation of the candidate.
Having a supervisory board w/ 1/2 of members representing (non-management) employees is mandatory by law for any corporation over 50 (?) employees in Germany.
The "General Works Council" is just that board, I believe. So this is quite a normal setup for a large German company.
Interestingly, I'm currently reading a book on the history of austerity and the author shows how worker councils were a thing in the UK during and immediately after WW1; however, austerity was put in place to systematically prioritize capital and the minority capital class over working class people. Lest that sound slightly conspiratorial the author cites specific memos and comments from the Treasury at the time that make that point explicit. They simply insisted that working class would have to "sacrifice" so that the system of capital could be restored. The interests of capital was always prioritized; it was all that mattered. People were expected to be more productive, consume less, and earn less.
Those record profits are past looking and don't predict how future years will play out. Many tech companies over-hired and need to trim.
For comparison, Google just announced layoffs of 12k today. By Sept 2022, Google had 187k employees. This is up 68k from 119k in Sept 2019's or growth of 57% from pre-pandemic. The 12k layoffs today represent less than 17.6% of their growth in new employees since before the pandemic.
Contrast with Mercedes Benz which had 152k employees in 2019 and 173k employees today, a growth of only 13.8% since pre-pandemic.
> This General Works Council seems to be something like a separate "union within the company",
No, its work council or workers' council that is integrated to the company's top management per regulations. Germany and various countries have them, and its a Eu recommendation. It seems to work quite well judging from the last 2 decades.
A worket council is by no means a union, it is an elected council of employees representing employees interest all the way to the board. Usually so, members of the workers council are members of whatever union is representing the industry, in Mercedes case IGM (Industrial union of metal and electronic workers). Those members tend not to be union functionaries, but the head of Mercedes workers council for sure is an important figure within IGM.
I do have my issues with all rhe politics and self serving that can happen with those councils, the overall idea is pretty solid so.
For one situation gone wrong, google VWs Brazil scandals involving various private jet trips for high ranking worker councils members to visit their mistresses in Brazil.
The works council is a legally regulated means of participation of the staff in a company. Establishing a works council there are a few hurdles just like in ionizing. But different from unionizing there is no membership fee and the works council is regularly elected by all associates.
Works council has a say in hiring. And firing decisions. And also on other business decision in the company. At times this is good and progressive, sometimes not so much (usually huge fans of combustion engines).
Elected Works council members can be union members but also independent.
Iirc the mode worked so well that Daimler tried to export it to an American plant but it was shut down there because “this is not how we run things here”
Ah and then with VW there is the story how the works council let itself be bribed
>"Interesting how this structure has a headline like this one, vs the ">10k workers >laid off from giant corporation with record profits for the past two years" >headlines that seem to be popping up here daily."
i often see people going or want to go to giant IT companies, as you refer, forgetting the "safety" of working for big German or even European companies. In some German companies you get a job for life, a contract without end and the "working council" works very hard to find solutions for all workers and for the company. This is one of the reasons why i would hardly work for an American Company in US.
I guess I don't understand the pushback against layoffs. You layoff based on future projections, not past performance. It would be sinister to layoff someone to prevent some kind of timed bonus but I've seen no reports of that. As far as I can tell its just about reduced investments and reduced project scopes.
It sucks and people deserve severance and unemployment but at the same time why is a reduction in workforce supposed to be immoral? Have severance packages been surprisingly light or something?
I'm not sure the comparison between companies in different countries, in different industries/segments is really useful though. It sounds like you're implying the structure prevented layoffs. But in reality I feel it had little to do with profitability. Kind of like blaming a president for the overal stock market going up or down.
A works council is a requirement for every company over 50 employees in The Netherlands. It's pretty common that they're involved in deciding on bonuses like this. However, they often don't have that much power in the actual decision.
> General Works Council seems to be something like a separate "union within the company"
It’s less adversarial. In America, industrial unions sprung from a time when unions fought capitalism and management were criminals. That stain persists.
Tech companies’ stock awards are close to the German model. Add a Board seat elected by the ESOP and you have a tight approximation.
The optics on this one have been fascinating to watch on social media.
I've seen a lot of people in my own network who work at U.S. tech companies share this as an example of what companies should be doing. A lot of contrasting takes about how U.S. companies are laying people off while MB is handing out higher than expected bonuses.
Meanwhile, I know for a fact that a lot of the people sharing this are getting paid significantly more than these employees and also have bonus plans that pay out several multiples higher than the highest MB payout (7300EUR) even in a bad year.
Maybe this is an example of managing expectations. Mercedes-Benz paying four-figure bonuses to employees is noteworthy largely because they're paying more than expected. Meanwhile, I see people who earn significantly more being unhappy because their compensation was less than some number they expected.
Interesting lesson in how expectations are relative, not absolute.
I work for a small-mid sized German software engineering company (~200 employees). Last year the company raised all wages by 7,500.- EUR (additionally to the usual raises). This was not a one-time payment, but a permanent increase in pay and it was the same absolute amount for all employees (including office management and other non-engineering departments). The reasoning behind this decision was that the inflation was hitting employees with lower income harder than employees with higher income positions.
Whenever I'm seeing posts like this, I wonder if "up to x Euros" isn't the other way around and smaller incomes are on the lower end of the bonus range.
Something missing from this conversation is that Mercedes is one of the few 'legacy' carmakers that are managing the transition to EVs and automated driving well.
They have flagship EVs - EQE, EQB, EQS that are well reviewed.
Seems this story only applies in Germany, but their US tech workers also get a bonus at the same time that is partially based on company performance. My bonus last year was very nice because they've been doing so well (in the ballpark of $50k as a senior dev), and it looks like it'll be similarly nice this year too.
Coming from Stuttgart, Germany, it is well-known that if you get any position within the local automotive industry, it counts as making it. Doesn‘t matter what level, even if you work on the assembly line.
So I interpret this post as follows: HN discovers that building German cars is a very good business.
Is there a good third-party URL for some independent reporting about this? A corporate press release is not usually a good source for this kind of thing. This is a bit of an exception to HN's "original source" guideline.
Not that Mercedes is a good example, but is there a name for company philosophy of being employee/team-centric versus investor centric? E.g. all profits shared among employees instead of shareholders for example. I'd like to work for a company like that.
"co-op" or "co-operative" is what I see them being called in Canada. A few small "craft" industry in my town is structured like that, where every employee is an owner with a stake based on their position, tenure, etc, and all profits are distributed back out each quarter/year. They're also common in agriculture, where a feed mill will be owned by all the farmers that use its services and/or store their grain there.
Crazy thing is that moves like this also benefit shareholders, albeit indirectly. A company that employees want to work for because they know they'll benefit first means that more and more of the top job seekers will try to work there, which means (indirectly) that the company will have the best of the best employees. As an investor, I would think that in the long term, that's the best use of the company's money and the best path to long-term growth.
I don't want a quarterly, biannual, or annual dividend if that means that that excess capital will be re-invested into better employees (or keeping current top employees) who produce better products which can better position the company in the long run.
For a long time I naively thought that was the whole point of investment: long term sustainability and allocation of capital that allowed companies to best compete.
The most radical are Co-Ops. The workers own the company. They're called Worker-Owners. Where management is a skill, not a rank. The problem with this model is three-fold:
• Outside investment can undermine the Co-Op's autonomy (many don't allow it)
• Raising capital is hard; usually you're bootstrapping (worker-owners must divert some of their income)
• Sometimes worker-owners get caught up in the democratic process of collective decision-making and get frustrated
On the other hand:
• A real Co-Op is real community. They exist to support the humans through work. You're all in this together. You can be "kicked out" by vote, but when you do, you give up your share and all that share money accumulating is yours.
• You are "The Man" in the worst and best way you can imagine If something is wrong with the company, you can change it.
• No more perverse mgmt incentives.
The biggest Co-Op is the Mondragon. They are very successful, too.
Welcome to socialism. This is what actual socialists want. Everyone to have ownership in the company and participate in it's success. Where the decisions are made democratically by workers.
In the modern world, you will see this in co-ops today.
It's funny in that the structure is inherently what Economic Fascism is, separating the economics from the nationalism/racism typically associated (from Nazi Germany). The economic bits seem to hold over though.
Nothing is really stopping similar organization from happening in the formation of Corporation in the US and elsewhere. But it has to be part of the foundation of said company, especially if it's publicly traded, as it's very hard to do after the fact. I'm not convinced it should be restructured via force from the Government, and not even as a bailout, as I'm not a fan of those govt actions either.
[+] [-] digdugdirk|3 years ago|reply
This General Works Council seems to be something like a separate "union within the company", in addition to whatever union represents various workers within the organization. On top of that, Mercedes Benz has a corporate Supervisory Board with 1/2 of the members representing the employees.
Interesting how this structure has a headline like this one, vs the ">10k workers laid off from giant corporation with record profits for the past two years" headlines that seem to be popping up here daily.
[+] [-] NickC25|3 years ago|reply
Absolutely love that, and stuff like that would never be allowed to form here in the US. Labor having an equal seat at the table should be seen as a good thing for the purposes of long-term sustainability, not a bad thing. Can it have drawbacks? Sure. However, the flipside is that currently in most places, such as the US, Capital has all the seats at the table, or sometimes Labor will given a symbolic place at the proverbial kid's table, with no real ability to enact change or make their voices heard. I applaud what Mercedes-Benz is doing here.
[+] [-] arrrg|3 years ago|reply
However, large (old) companies will nearly always have such a Council in Germany.
What can they do? Basically, they do have a voice concerning anything that touches the day to day working situation. Monitor whether the employees adheres to norms and rules. Employers also have to inform the Council members about anything relevant going on concerning the workers.
Especially when it comes to hiring, firing and restructuring the Council can also veto and force the employer to sue and get the court to override the veto. In general you don’t really want to have the Council on your bad side as an employer, even though the power isn’t limitless and how much power there is in practice depends on the specific Council and how it fulfills its duties.
Unions aren’t needed for any of this but they will always want to help install a Workers Council.
I recently started at a public health insurance and we had someone from the Council sit in during my interview. When I was on the other side and took part in an interview we also had someone from the Council there to look over our shoulders, also when we documented our evaluation of the candidate.
[+] [-] amalgamated_inc|3 years ago|reply
The "General Works Council" is just that board, I believe. So this is quite a normal setup for a large German company.
[+] [-] beezlebroxxxxxx|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acchow|3 years ago|reply
For comparison, Google just announced layoffs of 12k today. By Sept 2022, Google had 187k employees. This is up 68k from 119k in Sept 2019's or growth of 57% from pre-pandemic. The 12k layoffs today represent less than 17.6% of their growth in new employees since before the pandemic.
Contrast with Mercedes Benz which had 152k employees in 2019 and 173k employees today, a growth of only 13.8% since pre-pandemic.
[+] [-] unity1001|3 years ago|reply
No, its work council or workers' council that is integrated to the company's top management per regulations. Germany and various countries have them, and its a Eu recommendation. It seems to work quite well judging from the last 2 decades.
[+] [-] hef19898|3 years ago|reply
I do have my issues with all rhe politics and self serving that can happen with those councils, the overall idea is pretty solid so.
For one situation gone wrong, google VWs Brazil scandals involving various private jet trips for high ranking worker councils members to visit their mistresses in Brazil.
[+] [-] alex_sf|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wirrbel|3 years ago|reply
Works council has a say in hiring. And firing decisions. And also on other business decision in the company. At times this is good and progressive, sometimes not so much (usually huge fans of combustion engines).
Elected Works council members can be union members but also independent.
Iirc the mode worked so well that Daimler tried to export it to an American plant but it was shut down there because “this is not how we run things here”
Ah and then with VW there is the story how the works council let itself be bribed
[+] [-] lmedinas|3 years ago|reply
>"Interesting how this structure has a headline like this one, vs the ">10k workers >laid off from giant corporation with record profits for the past two years" >headlines that seem to be popping up here daily."
i often see people going or want to go to giant IT companies, as you refer, forgetting the "safety" of working for big German or even European companies. In some German companies you get a job for life, a contract without end and the "working council" works very hard to find solutions for all workers and for the company. This is one of the reasons why i would hardly work for an American Company in US.
[+] [-] jayd16|3 years ago|reply
It sucks and people deserve severance and unemployment but at the same time why is a reduction in workforce supposed to be immoral? Have severance packages been surprisingly light or something?
[+] [-] giantg2|3 years ago|reply
I'm not sure the comparison between companies in different countries, in different industries/segments is really useful though. It sounds like you're implying the structure prevented layoffs. But in reality I feel it had little to do with profitability. Kind of like blaming a president for the overal stock market going up or down.
[+] [-] donkeyd|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ricardobayes|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moffkalast|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|3 years ago|reply
It’s less adversarial. In America, industrial unions sprung from a time when unions fought capitalism and management were criminals. That stain persists.
Tech companies’ stock awards are close to the German model. Add a Board seat elected by the ESOP and you have a tight approximation.
[+] [-] PragmaticPulp|3 years ago|reply
I've seen a lot of people in my own network who work at U.S. tech companies share this as an example of what companies should be doing. A lot of contrasting takes about how U.S. companies are laying people off while MB is handing out higher than expected bonuses.
Meanwhile, I know for a fact that a lot of the people sharing this are getting paid significantly more than these employees and also have bonus plans that pay out several multiples higher than the highest MB payout (7300EUR) even in a bad year.
Maybe this is an example of managing expectations. Mercedes-Benz paying four-figure bonuses to employees is noteworthy largely because they're paying more than expected. Meanwhile, I see people who earn significantly more being unhappy because their compensation was less than some number they expected.
Interesting lesson in how expectations are relative, not absolute.
[+] [-] vlowrian|3 years ago|reply
Whenever I'm seeing posts like this, I wonder if "up to x Euros" isn't the other way around and smaller incomes are on the lower end of the bonus range.
Link (content written by our PR department, in German): https://www.presseportal.de/pm/164280/5271230
[+] [-] umeshunni|3 years ago|reply
They have flagship EVs - EQE, EQB, EQS that are well reviewed.
They are the first car company to get approved for L3 self-driving in the US: https://insideevs.com/news/630075/mercedes-first-to-offer-le...
and they are building out their own network of charging stations: https://insideevs.com/news/629594/mercedes-ev-charging-netwo...
[+] [-] delecti|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timdaub|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|3 years ago|reply
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[+] [-] josefresco|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KMag|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gnrlst|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yabones|3 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative
[+] [-] NickC25|3 years ago|reply
I don't want a quarterly, biannual, or annual dividend if that means that that excess capital will be re-invested into better employees (or keeping current top employees) who produce better products which can better position the company in the long run.
For a long time I naively thought that was the whole point of investment: long term sustainability and allocation of capital that allowed companies to best compete.
[+] [-] nickbauman|3 years ago|reply
• Outside investment can undermine the Co-Op's autonomy (many don't allow it) • Raising capital is hard; usually you're bootstrapping (worker-owners must divert some of their income) • Sometimes worker-owners get caught up in the democratic process of collective decision-making and get frustrated
On the other hand:
• A real Co-Op is real community. They exist to support the humans through work. You're all in this together. You can be "kicked out" by vote, but when you do, you give up your share and all that share money accumulating is yours. • You are "The Man" in the worst and best way you can imagine If something is wrong with the company, you can change it. • No more perverse mgmt incentives.
The biggest Co-Op is the Mondragon. They are very successful, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
[+] [-] culi|3 years ago|reply
https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us/best-for-the-world-2022-w...
[+] [-] dan1234|3 years ago|reply
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership
[+] [-] CharlesW|3 years ago|reply
There are tech co-ops, which are worker-owned: https://tech-coops.xyz/
[+] [-] RcouF1uZ4gsC|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justin66|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] londons_explore|3 years ago|reply
They tend not to be a great structure for fostering a massive growth, massive risk, massive profits type company.
[+] [-] hcal|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhamzeh|3 years ago|reply
(And I guess family owned businesses where all the workers are members of the same family?)
[+] [-] mempko|3 years ago|reply
In the modern world, you will see this in co-ops today.
[+] [-] lm28469|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lakomen|3 years ago|reply
Workers there are paid more than average, however compared to US salaries that's not much.
So it's always perspective.
[+] [-] xyst|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bluedino|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] froggertoaster|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jedberg|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stuaxo|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kristaps|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kerpotgh|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] squokko|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] readonthegoapp|3 years ago|reply
sounds fishy.
[+] [-] tracker1|3 years ago|reply
Nothing is really stopping similar organization from happening in the formation of Corporation in the US and elsewhere. But it has to be part of the foundation of said company, especially if it's publicly traded, as it's very hard to do after the fact. I'm not convinced it should be restructured via force from the Government, and not even as a bailout, as I'm not a fan of those govt actions either.