Getting fired from your own company???

[googlebis]

What the fuck does that even mean? i just heard about this! even Steve Jobs got fired from his own company! another thing that surprised me even more is that i didn't find some direct answer to this on google, yt and stuff! as if it is a casual thing! i'm a little shocked/confused, getting fired from a company is normal because let's say the owner of the company fired you, but who the fuck can fire the owner??

 

[belg]

I believe the shareholders forced Steve out of the company he founded, together they owned more of the company than him. That's how.

 

[1Enigma]

That's why I won't go into business with certain people. If I did I would make it to where I could fire his ass.

 

[googlebis]

That's why I won't go into business with certain people. If I did I would make it to where I could fire his ass.

the kinda people who ask questions? have manners grandpa!

 

[Intrucoder]

What the fuck does that even mean? i just heard about this! even Steve Jobs got fired from his own company! another thing that surprised me even more is that i didn't find some direct answer to this on google, yt and stuff! as if it is a casual thing! i'm a little shocked/confused, getting fired from a company is normal because let's say the owner of the company fired you, but who the fuck can fire the owner??

The Board of the company has a right to appoint/remove a CEO. In case of Steve Jobs, he has lost that vote because everyone was start to hate him for the outbursts he had with employees and members of the board.
On the other hand you keep the share in the company and receive dividend income on it.

 

[googlebis]

The Board of the company has a right to appoint/remove a CEO. In case of Steve Jobs, he has lost that vote because everyone was start to hate him for the outbursts he had with employees and members of the board.
On the other hand you keep the share in the company and receive dividend income on it.

any course you'd recommend? i really need to deeply understand this, thanks

 

[Deleted member 15724]

Usually when you take on shareholders, you go from being an owner to a "manager". On paper you're the owner, but you're pretty much working for your investors. If they have the power they can/will fire you if need be. In most cases you'll still have shares in the company, so you still have your investment/assets in the company, but can't make the decisions you'd like.

 

[BrandingCat]

You must have 50 + 1 of a company to own it.

 

[trollini]

any course you'd recommend? i really need to deeply understand this, thanks

That will depend on your country and usually is established in the law that regulates the commerce . But you question does not has a lot of science either. Imagine you start a company with 3 people. Each contributes with $500 dollars. When you start your company you guys decide it will be separated in lets say 1500 shares (you decide the ammount) So each share is valuated in $1. From there 1 thing will be decided. How many of the annual revenue you all will receive bases on total revenue, from there your part will be divided based on your ammount of shares. But 1 of your friends is indeed not working in the company, he is only a shareholder so he has not salary because of that nor operational decision.

Now, each one of you have a 33.3% of the company, all desicions must be made by the 3 of you in a vote. So you are not forced to work in your company, but no one can remove your shares. So what happened with Jobs was simple, he founded the company and because of that he was in charge of the company (as a worker), but at the same time he had shareholders (included himself) but more that 50% of the shareholders voted to fire him. This while retaining his shares of course.

 

[googlebis]

That will depend on your country and usually is established in the law that regulates the commerce . But you question does not has a lot of science either. Imagine you start a company with 3 people. Each contributes with $500 dollars. When you start your company you guys decide it will be separated in lets say 1500 shares (you decide the ammount) So each share is valuated in $1. From there 1 thing will be decided. How many of the annual revenue you all will receive bases on total revenue, from there your part will be divided based on your ammount of shares. But 1 of your friends is indeed not working in the company, he is only a shareholder so he has not salary because of that nor operational decision.

Now, each one of you have a 33.3% of the company, all desicions must be made by the 3 of you in a vote. So you are not forced to work in your company, but no one can remove your shares. So what happened with Jobs was simple, he founded the company and because of that he was in charge of the company (as a worker), but at the same time he had shareholders (included himself) but more that 50% of the shareholders voted to fire him. This while retaining his shares of course.

but at the end the company still his right? i mean he can close it, sell it, whatever he wants?

 

[trollini]

but at the end the company still his right? i mean he can close it, sell it, whatever he wants?

Shares represent a part of the company, from a perspective where a company is only money. From there you can decide what to do with your money. Sell them to others, or ask the company to give you the money they are valuated.
So a company has the following structure: Shareholders committee ---> CEO > Vicepresidents > Common workers. Shareholders can only act by a consensus in which the vote is weighted by the ammount of shares every person has.
So if you have 100% of the shares of a company you have 100% control over it, but if you only have 10% then you have a limited weight on the decisions taken by the shareholders comittee.

So no, he could not close the company by himself but he could have sold his shares, but by the time he was fired they were not worth a lot, so probably the others shareholders didnt really cared about.

PS: Sorry for typos and so, im writing from the cellphone.

 

[Stitches and Burns]

Steve Jobs was the co-founder of Apple, not the owner. Apple took on investors/shareholders in order to grow, and that reduced Jobs' shares in the company, to the point that they were able to kick him out.

 

[Ravzar]

A company is a corporate entity which has its own legal personality. This means that the company is its own person. If you founded the company you own it. However, as time goes on you might give away equity or go public. At that point you do not own the majority of the company anymore (in most cases, but I am going to give you an interesting exception below). It is not your company. You sold it. It's like building a car and saying you can't drive it now.

It gets more complicated with voting rights. Jezz Bezos owns 17% of Amazon. It's doing well so people are happy to keep him. He obviously has a lot of people on his side and a lot of the voting power. However, if everyone else wanted him out he will be out. This is because it's not his company anymore. He owns a piece of it but he works for the shareholders.

One huge exception I was talking about is when you rig the voting rights in your favour. It's completely legal as long as it's clear to investors. So Mark Zuckerbeg owns well under 50% of Facebook shares (the numbers reported online for his share ownership vary but you could find this information out in company reports). However, he owns a special class of shares called class B shares which give him 10 times more voting rights. That is, every share he has counts for 10 votes of a normal shareholder. This means he maintains voting control. People have tried to fire him but he just votes against it. Nothing can happen at FB unless Mark Zuckerberg allows it because of his voting rights. Therefore, he is untouchable and can never be fired from Facebook.

 

[Domi01]

fired in your own company?? really?

 

[fb3003]

@googlebis - what has been provided in response to your question, falls under "corporate governance" concept. Search that term, and you will find lots of good sites that talk about this, in particular difference between power of board and having the most number of shares. You just having the most number of shares = does not equal you running the company the way you see fit. you pretty much have zero power of day to day operations... this is where concept of corporate governance comes in. you can influence the board, and even have a board sit. But in a board, each member has a equal vote. kind of complicated....

 

[MrSempay]

He founded the company.
He sold equity to investors.
Jobs now owns like 5% of Apple.
The investors (represented by the board of directors) decided to keep him on as CEO.
The investors fired him as CEO.

This happens a lot. It's called dilution. A similar thing happened to the guy that founded Famous Amos. He lost his business AND the right to his name.