# Should employees have access to company books? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 14, 2011, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-employees-have-access-to-company-books/574704 "2011-03-14T21:49:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-employees-have-access-to-company-books/574704/21 "2011-03-15T02:20:50Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > Such as what? > > On the other hand, you should see how unemployment favors the employees in Wisconsin. I had an employee start working with us as a second job. After a few months her original job shifted her hours around. She showed us her new hours and they were set up in such a way that working for us was no longer feasible any more. IIRC, she was going to be working her first job 8-4 M-F. She couldn’t work after 4 or weekends and couldn’t work before 8 because she had to get her kids to school. So we let her go and hired a replacement to take her shift. She filed for unemployment and won. I disputed it as an “availability to work” issue. The judge ruled that “to be unavailable to work, you must be unavailable for _any_ work, since she is holding down another job she is clearly available to work” Judgment to the employee. How is that fair to me? There was absolutely no way for her to work for me anymore and I have to pay her unemployment. Joey, I assume to job she “abandoned” you for was higher paying. Also, I assume she took the job soi she could be home for her kids. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-employees-have-access-to-company-books/574704/22 "2011-03-15T02:26:50Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > Joey, I assume to job she “abandoned” you for was higher paying. Also, I assume she took the job soi she could be home for her kids. Huh? What does any of that have to do with anything? All I’m saying is that we had an employee, she suddenly was no longer able to work for us, but WE had to pay her unemployment. IMHO that’s BS. If you come up to me and tell me that you can no longer work for me, I shouldn’t have to continue paying you. Wait, I’m not sure if it makes a difference or not, but just to clarify, when she was working for us, she was still working for the other place. She was working two jobs. After a while the first job gave her different hours the interfered with her ability to work for us. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-employees-have-access-to-company-books/574704/23 "2011-03-15T02:40:32Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > In the NFL lockout thread, people are discussing whether employees should have access to company books, especially in a collective bargaining context. I believe employees ABSOLUTELY should have access, so they have a sense of how profitable their boss is, and if they are getting a fair shake. If you decide to actually make an argument for this position, then I will make an argument against it. ---
**Author:** ![CaveMike](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cavemike/32/16379_2.png) [@CaveMike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaveMike)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-employees-have-access-to-company-books/574704/24 "2011-03-15T03:09:31Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > So we let her go and hired a replacement to take her shift. Why would you ‘let her go’ at that point? I would think you’d have to schedule her shifts and track it when she doesn’t show up. Otherwise, it is just your word against hers. From the judge’s perspective, what is he supposed to think? How is he supposed to know that she was unwilling to work the new shift or not? Based on what you said? Or what she said? If she lied to the judge to get UE, then your issue is with her period. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-employees-have-access-to-company-books/574704/25 "2011-03-15T03:26:48Z")
> [@CaveMike](#): > > Why would you ‘let her go’ at that point? I would think you’d have to schedule her shifts and track it when she doesn’t show up. Otherwise, it is just your word against hers. From the judge’s perspective, what is he supposed to think? How is he supposed to know that she was unwilling to work the new shift or not? Based on what you said? Or what she said? > > If she lied to the judge to get UE, then your issue is with her period. Honestly, I didn’t think it was going to become an issue to begin with. She told us her new hours at the other place, we told her that wouldn’t work for us and that was it. I was just about knocked out of my chair when I got the UI paperwork from her. Luckily, even though I didn’t think I would need any proof because I didn’t think there was going to be a problem, I actually had all the proof I should have needed. On her original application she wrote the hours of her 1st job and the hours she would be available to work for us. Then when they changed her hours and she came in to talk to us about it she handed us a piece of paper with her new hours written on it with the hours she’s be able to work for us on it (something that really wouldn’t have done us any good). When I disputed it and we went before the judge she didn’t lie about anything, so that was never a problem. I thought I had it in the bag. I even had her original application where she wrote down the hours she was available to work (around her current schedule), I brought in old schedules to show what her schedule looked like, I brought in a copy of what she handed me showing her new hours at the other job etc… She confirmed this was all true. She even confirmed to the judge that she couldn’t work for us anymore due to the new schedule at the other place. I walked out of there feeling pretty confident since the judge (and she) agreed that working for us really wasn’t possible given the new situation. ---
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-employees-have-access-to-company-books/574704/26 "2011-03-15T04:18:05Z")
I know of two cases where a union ask to see the books. 1st case after looking at our proposals the company’s lawyer stated something along the lines of we can not affor what you are asking. We may as well just close the doors and give you the keys. The union rep responded show us your books, we do not want you to close the doors, but you need to prove your claim. Of course they refused and we discarded their claim. In the second case, I heard this one second hand, the members were demanding too much according to the union rep. He could not talk them down. They ended up getting the contract signed for what they wanted. But the day the owner signed the contract he handed the union rep the letter stating he was closing the doors in 60 days. He gave the books to the union to go over to prove what he said about it being better to close. The union went to the members and explaind that if they did not make consesions they would have no jobs. They voted to take consenions. The uninon then went to the owner and showed him the new contract, but if the owner accepted the contract he had to make some operation consesions. If ssomeone brought a tractor in to be repaired and parts were needed 20% was added on to the parts going to the shop. It was cheaper for the tractor owner to have his employees repair the tractor. The union was requiring that pratice to stop, if the owner accepted the contract he was to discount parts going into the shop and add a sur charge for parts going out the door. End results the busines picked up and the owner had to rehire some of the laid off mechanics to handle the work load. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-employees-have-access-to-company-books/574704/27 "2011-03-15T07:19:31Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > That’s a different scenario (and I’m not sure if that’s what the OP was referring to). In that case, I also think there should be some proof that the books aren’t being cooked. (Most likely that they are signed off on quarterly by an outside CPA firm. This is common in larger business with bank loans). In certain businesses, it’s so easy to do it’s not even worth looking at the books. He mentioned the NFL in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-employees-have-access-to-company-books/574704/28 "2011-03-15T18:52:19Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > Like I said earlier, I really don’t think what people make should be based on what the company makes (at least not in all situations). Secondly, I don’t think most people would understand what they’re looking at. If business owners were forced to show their books to the employees, I’d love it if employees had to be educated on what they were looking at first. I’d like to see a very quick very basic accounting class first. Nothing to in depth. How to read a P&L and BS. Understanding what a profit margin is. Understanding how much an owner really gets too take home after all is said and done. What kinds of expenses are really involved in running a business etc… Why is the solution from business owners automatically that their employees don’t get it and the facts must be hidden? Explain to them why you get the piano and they don’t get a raise. That way everybody wins. Hiding the books seems to foster an atmosphere of distrust and paranoia With the NFL situation, the owners are pleading poverty. If they say they’re not making money, then its incumbent upon them to prove it. The NFL also differs in that the players are very in-demand commodities themselves and have the power to demand openess, whereas a cashier would not ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-employees-have-access-to-company-books/574704/29 "2011-03-15T19:14:20Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Why is the solution from business owners automatically that their employees don’t get it and the facts must be hidden? Honestly…because a lot of employees really don’t get it. You can explain to them “Listen, I’m not going to give you a raise because you were late to work 7 times in the last 9 weeks, you’ve been caught taking extra cigarette breaks behind the building, you don’t work nearly as hard as everyone else and you just don’t have enough initiative. I want to walk into the cooler and find you putting things away from the trucks we got in today, I don’t want to be constantly having to tell you what to do. Maybe in a few months we can talk about this again, but right now, no, I don’t think you deserve a raise” But you want to know what an 18 year old goes and tells his co-workers (and most of this stuff gets back to me at some point) “He’s such an ass. He told me I can’t have a raise, but then he goes any buys himself a \_\_\_\_\_” In fact, when my dad bought his Tahoe, he was originally planning to get an Escalade, but decided against it just because so he wouldn’t have to deal with this kind of thing. For that same reason, he almost never invites employees to his house. Not that his house is anything special, but it’s bigger and in a better neighborhood then most of theirs. To re-iterate what I said earlier. They also tend to not realize that he built this business up from nothing. He spent the first 15 years working 90+ hour weeks. Yes, he should be able to afford nicer stuff then them. He’s worked harder then them, he continues to work harder then them, he puts up with a lot more bullshit then them. Most regular employees also don’t have the slightest inkling of how much stuff goes on behind the scenes. They see him (and me for that matter) in the office on the phone of typing on a computer and think nothing of it, but have no idea what’s going on. They don’t see him going out for lunch or drinks, but don’t see the thousands of dollars worth of business that comes back in from those meetings. They see him going home in his Tahoe, but don’t see him coming back at 8:00 at night for 3 more hours to do paper work. Then coming in at 5am to help out in the deli or unload trucks. Employees tend to see what they want to see. You can explain all this to them and they’ll still say “Yeah, but look, at all this money I put in the drop safe, we’re having a great day, why can’t I have a raise?” Honestly…people have said that to me…why don’t people understand this. There’s so many things wrong with a statement like that, I don’t know where to start. That’s why. I’ve dealt with a lot of employees in my life, and, well, must of them just aren’t smart enough to understand what to do with ‘the books.’ ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-employees-have-access-to-company-books/574704/30 "2011-03-15T19:20:50Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > “At will” is the law in most states, but it has never impressed me as a moral position. The choice of “take it or leave” is in no way comparable to the kind of choice that the employer gets to exercise. It’s the most moral position possible. Neither party is forced to do anything in any way. It’s a purely voluntary association. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-employees-have-access-to-company-books/574704/31 "2011-03-15T19:25:22Z")
For only some definitions of “voluntary,” “force,” and “moral.” ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-employees-have-access-to-company-books/574704/32 "2011-03-15T19:25:43Z")
In regards to the NFL, when the owners of the teams are the ones telling the players they make too much and it is putting the owners under, I’d say that it shouldn’t be an offer, it should be a necessity. I think as a collective the players want the owners to do well so that they will do well. Show me yours and I’ll show you mine type of deal. If the owners are just telling them stuff and expect the players to believe it as if it was gospel, I don’t buy it. They should absolutely have to show them the books. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-employees-have-access-to-company-books/574704/33 "2011-03-15T19:29:16Z")
The NFL is in some way different from most businesses in that the “employees” themselves represent almost the entire value of the business. In fact, there are models of sports leagues in which the players are themselves the owners – ultimately, there’s no real need for separate ownership in a sports league, because the amount of “capital” being contributed by the owners is incidental. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-employees-have-access-to-company-books/574704/34 "2011-03-15T19:33:26Z")
If it’s a publicly held company, then employees must have access to the company’s finances. How else are they going to do the books? If it’s a privately held company, it’s up to the owners whether or not to give out financial information. As always, it’s negotiable. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-employees-have-access-to-company-books/574704/35 "2011-03-15T19:48:18Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > In the NFL lockout thread, people are discussing whether employees should have access to company books, especially in a collective bargaining context. I believe employees ABSOLUTELY should have access, so they have a sense of how profitable their boss is, and if they are getting a fair shake. The profitablity of the company has fuck all to do with whether or not the employee is getting a fair shake. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-employees-have-access-to-company-books/574704/36 "2011-03-15T19:56:00Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > For only some definitions of “voluntary,” “force,” and “moral.” If one is using definitions like: voluntary - a small sparrow force - lemony, having a a strong lemon-citrus small or taste moral - director’s command on a porn set Otherwise, my statement stands. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-employees-have-access-to-company-books/574704/37 "2011-03-15T19:59:19Z")
> [@furt](#): > > The profitablity of the company has fuck all to do with whether or not the employee is getting a fair shake. So, how do you decide the going rate for a football player? Especially when the employer is a monopoly, and no one else employs football players? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-employees-have-access-to-company-books/574704/38 "2011-03-15T20:00:30Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > Honestly…because a lot of employees really don’t get it. You can explain to them “Listen, I’m not going to give you a raise because you were late to work 7 times in the last 9 weeks, you’ve been caught taking extra cigarette breaks behind the building, you don’t work nearly as hard as everyone else and you just don’t have enough initiative. I want to walk into the cooler and find you putting things away from the trucks we got in today, I don’t want to be constantly having to tell you what to do. Maybe in a few months we can talk about this again, but right now, no, I don’t think you deserve a raise” > But you want to know what an 18 year old goes and tells his co-workers (and most of this stuff gets back to me at some point) “He’s such an ass. He told me I can’t have a raise, but then he goes any buys himself a \_\_\_\_\_” I understand that as an owner, sometimes you have to deal with crap from employees. But isn’t that part of the job? If you didn’t want to deal with managing the business, working 90 hours a week to help it grow, then don’t be a business owner. Then again, you wouldn’t be able to afford the big house, dictate your own hours, or have the freedom of not being dependent on a paycheck. There’s a tradeoff, and it seems that NFL owners are unfairly punishing employees for that by keeping parts of their finances secret while at the same time trying to use the hidden finances to claim they should be able to pay their employees less. Sure, your father settled for the cheaper car so he didn’t have to deal with stuff, but he could just as easily institute a rule mandating no complaining about the boss’s bling. Hiding things isn’t always the best solution. To 18 year old cashiers maybe, but if your father had a loyal worker who’s been with him for decades and watched the business grow and still is paid the same as he was 10 years ago, then maybe it would have been your father who was wrong. Not saying that’s exactly analogous to the NFL though, just using an example ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-employees-have-access-to-company-books/574704/39 "2011-03-15T20:04:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Otherwise, my statement stands. Stands as what, the word of god? Please. Your statement is an opinion. There are equally valid contrary opinions, and it’s more than a little risible to dismiss them as lemony sparrow porn. There’s nothing inherently moral about the at will employment system, and there are ways to coerce people into making decisions that aren’t related to physical compulsion. The fact of the matter is that employees, more than employers, are individually subject to economic pressure that plays a coercive factor in accepting terms of employment. Whether the at will employment system is the most practical or desirable for other policy reasons, it is not a representation of a system that is “most moral” or even “mostly moral.” It is largely amoral. Whether or not that makes it the best policy choice is an issue that must be tempered by balancing various kinds of legal rights, and more often than not, those balances favor employers. You may disagree with all of this, but if you do it with declarations like “most moral” or “My statement still stands,” you won’t be persuading anyone that you’re right. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-employees-have-access-to-company-books/574704/40 "2011-03-15T20:09:19Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > In the NFL lockout thread, people are discussing whether employees should have access to company books, especially in a collective bargaining context. I believe employees ABSOLUTELY should have access, so they have a sense of how profitable their boss is, and if they are getting a fair shake. I am currently in the process of writing employee evaluations, which will be used to determine what raises my account execs do and do not receive. Should I have access to their income tax records, bank statements, and so forth, so that I can determine which of them is in most and least financial distress, and use that in deciding who to give raises to? Please explain your answer. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-employees-have-access-to-company-books/574704.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-employees-have-access-to-company-books/574704.md?page=3)