The constant struggle between corporates and their employees when it comes to wage increments and incentives has always been a matter of concern. Employees working at companies want to be able to advance and grow in their professional career for all the hard work that they put in, but sometimes, the corporate side of things don’t work out as planned. This constant back and forth between the parties can lead to a rise of hostility and tension which is not a favorable position for any company to be in, which is why the need to reach a middle ground is prevalent.
EPS was one of the solutions that companies started implemented to be able to grant incentives to the employees working with them. These incentives were based on the ratio of stocks and employees, thereby giving employees a template of how much they can expect to get as bonuses or incentives. Many major companies all over the world have implemented this system since it gives employees an estimate that they can look forward to, and prevent them from putting forward excessive demands that the company cannot fulfill.
Jeremy Goldstein, a prominent corporate lawyer from New York, had recently penned an article about EPS and its implementation in corporate structures. Having worked with a wide range of corporate clients through the course of his career, he understands the hurdles that parties face, and also the measures that can be taken to remedy the situation.
In the article, he outlined how EPS has become the preferred option for many companies, and how it has led to the increase of shareholders who are choosing to go in for companies who are applying EPS to their employee policy. This has led to profitability and benefits for the company, the shareholders, as well as the employees.
He also pointed out that there are a few drawbacks that can come in the way of EPS functioning effectively and the people at these companies benefiting from that. EPS for one only account for the number of incentives that people will receive, not what parameters a person will receive these increments on. It also has no guidelines about who gains the incentives and on what grounds, which leads to the added disadvantage that some employees may not get these incentives because of corruption that tends to happen at the workplace. Employers may choose to only give these incentives to those employees who they favor, and not necessarily to the ones that truly deserve it. This can lead to some unforeseeable hardships on the part of the employees, leading to more disruptions and tensions between the parties.
Jeremy Goldstein further outlined that the best way to ensure that all parties are satisfied is by coming to a standard resolution. Learn more: http://jlgassociates.com/