Ok, so as the title says, really. Had a very small inheritance earlier this year, so DH and I bought some equipment, formed a ltd. company at Companies House, with the two of us as joint shareholders.
It's a creative business, so we knew it was going to be difficult to make it work financially, but if we make it a success, it could potentially be a big earner. Run from home to start with so very few overheads, just a website, computer maintenance, and equipment maintenance.
Some ex-colleagues saw that we'd started it, and wanted to join. I said there's no money in it, no-one's getting paid anything yet, and we can't employ you, but if you want to come in and help, we'll split all the profits equally, and essentially run it as a co-op. Did a couple of unpaid projects with the starter money together as portfolio material - fine. As we're all freelancers in the industry, we all have jobs outside of the co-op/company anyhow, some in the industry, some not.
Some are paid well, some work sporadically, some aren't employed at all. One team member brings us in on an outside commercial project, which provides the client with free services, and us with portfolio material. All fine. We decide though, that this is going to be the last freebie for now.
So now we come to decide what to charge clients, and how we're going to split that money. DH and I are fairly well-skilled, and in the scenario where everyone gets a fee on a job, his fee would be much higher than anyone elses. However, as we're keen for this to be a co-op, he insists that despite us charging clients the union rates for fees, all fee money should be divided between everyone in the company, meaning that some of the team members who don't have a role on a job, but have a background, day-to-day job, would get a share of the fees. However, one team member has said that as his job outside of the co-op is his main source of income, if there's a job for the co-op where he has to perform his usual role, that he should get both his freelance fee AND his co-op share. I feel that's a bit grabby, but DH says we're probably just going to have to suck it up and pay him his fee on top.
If we pay individuals their union rates that we charge the client, there'll be some who don't get a fee, as they either don't work directly on the service jobs, or they don't work it if they're not available. If we pay everyone a share of every job, then those who don't work it are technically getting paid for not working that job - but they are working on other jobs unpaid, which is why DH was fine to sacrifice his high fee. I just feel like it's all gone to shit already, and am not entirely sure what to suggest to remedy it. The only thing I can think of, is that Gary (not his real name, obvs) gets his outside and company job fees where he brings the company into a job, but only gets his company job fee where the company sources the job? (Hope that all makes sense!)