[Closed] Anyone else planning on giving away their employment rights..

I can see that companies would actually insist that any new employees take this route and pressure existing ones to switch.

I do hope the LibDems come to their senses and stop this happening - it's a disaster for workers rights (in the broadest sense).

this has to be the shit idea to top all shit ideas. I'm apolitical but this makes me want to jump up and down on Gideon's head.

renumeration

remuneration.

I think that the real beneficaries will be those that nobody (in the press) has mentioned so far, owner-managers of very small SME's.

And then it'll be reported how we are avoiding tax again.

The CIPD points out that the way to have committed, engaged employees is to have great leadership in the company, not to offer the employees shares instead of rights...

To insist that employees (new or existing) sign away their employment rights must surely contravene European law, but if the Conservatives can suggest seceeding from the Human Rights Act when it gets in the way of their plans who can say what might be next?

It indicates how desperate and bankrupt of ideas they are.....

This was an idea put forward by a venture Capitalist. Why does the media and punters jump on this. It'd never get through.

It indicates how desperate and bankrupt of ideas they are.....

That's twice in one morning I've found myself having to agree with people I wouldn't normally.... 😥

I ******* hate the Tories, why can't we have a right wing party that is policy rather than greed / self interest driven (and before you all start right wing policies don't have to be based on having your own snout in the trough).

Edit: Hora you're right, but to have even publically suggested this was mental and wrong.

It sounds unnecessary to me. The Tories, with full support from the LibDems, have extended the period in which someone can be unfairly dismissed to two years (despite the UK already having among the worse employment protection in the western industrialised world) so any employer can simply sack someone after 1 year 11 months and 3 weeks and replace them with someone else. Traditional Tory policy of maintaining high levels of unemployment guarantees a ready supply of available labour.

I'm also struggling to see any benefit to anyone, with the exception of a firm that wants to get rid of experienced staff (and the aformentioned owner/manager scenario) - and that really is a firm on its way out anyway.

And while I agree that all firms will demand that new employees sign-up, so why not just change employment law anyway, and be done with?

hora - Member

This was an idea put forward by a venture Capitalist. Why does the media and punters jump on this. It'd never get through.

According to the Daily Telegraph it has the backing of Chancellor of the Exchequer :

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9594754/George-Osborne-trade-in-your-rights-for-company-shares.html ]George Osborne: 'trade in your rights for company shares’[/url]

I assume the Daily Telegraph has jumped on it because it's true.

wwaswas - Member
I can see that companies would actually insist that any new employees take this route and pressure existing ones to switch.

^^this

2 interviewees

one whos willing to waive their rights, one who isnt, who gets the job?

I also loved the way he said

"We're not going to get through this as a country if we set one group against another, if we divide, denounce and demonise."

then went on to announce a further 10bn in cuts from welfare and spent the rest of his speech slagging off the unemployed

It sounds unnecessary to me. The Tories, with full support from the LibDems, have extended the period in which someone can be unfairly dismissed to two years (despite the UK already having among the worse employment protection in the western industrialised world) so any employer can simply sack someone after 1 year 11 months and 3 weeks and replace them with someone else.

And when you look at the change in employment patterns and length of service, this already means that a hell of a lot of people are now going to spend much of their working lives with very little protection.

I think a return to the work house system would be a good idea. We could have mill owners in top hats and workers gald of a job with no rights living in poverty. The kids wouldn't have shoes and half of them would die before they hit 5.

The Tory party is ace - they only work in the interests of ~0.5% of the population but manage to get ~40% of that same poulation voting for them.

Bearing in mind that most start ups / small companies aren't listed and don't have tradable shares, it seems like total nonsense or rather just an excuse to erode employment rights.

How anyone who isn't a millionaire could have voted for this shower of sh!t and their LibDem lapdogs is quite beyond me.

Gave them up years ago when I went self-employed.

I can see that companies would actually insist that any new employees take this route and pressure existing ones to switch.

As I understand it will only apply to new staff - existing ones won't be given the option.
Probably more likely to be a wheeze to give pseudo business partners a tax free share option.

There are big companies, like EMI, that can people just before they pass their two year mark, and loads of small companies as well.

At least this might stop that...

it would be nice if it was optional, at least then you could make a judgement taking into account the stability of the company, the length of time you expect to work for them, whether you expect to get pregnant or want flexible working, the current and expected value of the shares, whether you need the money, the risk of being given the boot, etc.

is this just a callous ploy of the Tories to take advantage of greedy 'what's in it for me' Britain? is there no way that we can vote against this legislation? when's the next general election?

Worth noting that some circumstances are automatically unfair dismissal regardless of if you have the two years service or not ie discrimination.

won't this just create more court cases where lawyers act for people claiming breaches of human rights rather than going to tribunal for unfair dismissal?

It's an odd basket of things:

[list][*]unfair dismissal - idiotic. how is that beneficial to anything other than companies wanting to fire people. Currently employers have to at least cook something reasonable but can fire people anyway.[/*]
[*]redundancy - idiotic. Again, only helps the employer[/*]
[*]right to request flexible working - you have a right to request it which the company can reject on reasonable grounds.[/*]
[*]time off for training - surely beneficial to the company (if not, it's more a hobby than training) so why?[/*][/list]

Given I assume that employers from unlisted companies will give shares that are only able to be cashed in on a sale (with listed companies, it could be interesting to see how they can give away free shares too) or someone else wanting to roll-up shares, the chances are they'll have bad-leaver clauses to prevent too many being owned by non-employees.

Some of those clauses I've seen have been just insane, with any deviation from full-time employment in your current role losing the shares. This means resigning, being made redundant or going part-time could trigger the clauses and you lose the shares so I assume firing or making redundant would have the same effect. As much as I applaud the idea of a government supported worker-owner share scheme type thing, this is the worst possible way of doing it.

was going to auction mine to highest bidder, starting off at £million.....I promise to never work for you again.....

Dodgy employment practices have been going on for years. What the government should be doing is stopping the use of “self employed” workers doing exactly the same job as permanent employees for half the money.

The Agency Worker's Directive is pointless and unenforceable while existing unions are forbidden from taking any action to prevent this.

Particularly prevalent now in the airline industry, where the pilot of your next holiday flight may well be paying the company to have a go on one of their planes with little more than 100 hours total flight time.

It's just another back of the envelope policy cooked up in desperation. I fully expect another u-turn when the civil servants and the opposition start pointing out the ridiculous impracticalities and complexity involved in doing it.

The labour party and Ed Miliband are right. The hallmark of this government is incompetency, and this is just another example.

self employed= whip your own back.... its just a tax scam, allied with no rights-- casual labour , the lump, all benefit the bosses....

[i]What the government should be doing is stopping the use of “self employed” workers doing exactly the same job as permanent employees for half the money.[/i]

Again, it's not quite that simple. I'm one of those 'self-employed' types that you speak of. Yes, I'm paid more than permanent colleagues doing the same job, but I do not have the employment rights that they have and do not have any security of tenure - I can be got rid of at weeks notice. I earn more, but my 'risks' are greater.

self employed= whip your own back.... its just a tax scam, allied with no rights-- casual labour , the lump, all benefit the bosses....

Again, it's not quite that simple. I'm one of those 'self-employed' types that you speak of. Yes, I'm paid more than permanent colleagues doing the same job, but I do not have the employment rights that they have and do not have any security of tenure - I can be got rid of at weeks notice. I earn more, but my 'risks' are greater.

I think they were arguing the opposite where a company forces people to go self-employed and pays them less.

Ah, righty-o. I'll be quiet then.

IHN - but at the same time the company avoids paying NI and pension contributions. About time this is seen as tax evasion on their part.

There must be some good drugs in Tory HQ at the mo - I mean it's not like UK workers are over-protected (see any redundancy/offshoring/outsourcing deal from the last 20 years)

How about keep your employment rights [i]and[/i] get a stake in the company? It works for John Lewis, co-ops etc.

The best bit of his speech for me was the section about the mansion tax. He said:

Nor am I going to introduce a new tax on people’s homes.

It would be sold as a Mansion Tax.

[b]But once the tax inspector had his foot in the door[/b] you’d soon find most homes in the country labelled a “mansion”.

Homes people have worked hard to afford and already paid taxes on.

It’s not a Mansion Tax it’s a Homes Tax and this Party of home ownership will have no truck with it.

Hang on, you run the treasury, you're the tax man!

Wow. Knee jerks everywhere.
Just one litle thing. No one is forced to do anything yet. How about re opening this thread in 5 years when we can now what happens not just guess?

You think it's better we discuss it when it's too late?

That's some smart thinking!

Wow. Knee jerks everywhere.
Just one litle thing. No one is forced to do anything yet. How about re opening this thread in 5 years when we can now what happens not just guess?

You think that the jury is out on whether it would be a bad thing to remove employment protection for employees, and to suggest otherwise is a "knee jerk" reaction ?

Well why stop there ? ....... let's scrap the NHS and see how we've got on after 5 years ? Perhaps we can reduce the school leaving age to 12 ? Or cut the number of police by half ?

The possibilities are quite endless. And until we've tried them no one should object with silly knee jerk reactions.

🙄

Interesting........

Speaking from personal experience, I can say 100% there is definitely a place for employee share schemes to reward the hardest and most committed workers. Not sure about the whole "trading in rights" thing yet, but as it's the British media reporting it, I will await proof rather than take their word for it. We all know how inflammatory reporting is at the moment, as they battle to fight falling circulation numbers with outrageous emotionally charged headlines.

To give you some insight - as part of my first performance review I was given some shares in the company as well as renegotiating my commission and bonus structure. As a sales manager, I have spent the last 10+ years of my life working to get the job done, rather than thinking of my "rights" so to speak. Not out of being forced to by any employer, but because that's the mindset of someone in my profession. So the "trading in" bit isn't really of a concern to me IF it proves to be true.

Not long ago, we were bought my a major multinational and share values have quadrupled. Those of us with share options have varying "lock in" periods, mine is 4 years from issue, but right now, that stands me as £19k up already and the values are protected. I've got no intention of leaving, and by working hard & smart I have positioned myself as pretty indispensible to the overall organisation.

So for me, this new scheme would just be a formalisation of something that works very well already. I imagine for a lot of others who share a similar drive, it would also be welcomed.

All depends how you view things. I believe that just as much as an employer has obligations to the employee, so too does the employee have an obligation to the employer to give 100% at all times. Maybe this scheme would do something to foster more thinking like that if they had a financial interest in the success of the organisation they worked for?

Knee jerk reaction!!!!!!!!!!!

I think I set out my credentials in my original post and even I think this idea is totally bankrupt, basic workers rights are the bedrock of a successful business, not losing your livelihood on someone's whim is pretty basic in my book.

Andyrm you are awesome.

Amazing. This is a watershed moment in STW; two pages of discussion about a political issue and NOT ONE PERSON has leapt to the defence of the Tories. The closest we've had is a 'woa woa, lets not be too hasty' and a 'it doesn't affect me so it's OK by me' remark. Could this be an actual hardening of feeling against the incompetent buffoons in office? All we need now is an actual, credible oppositition...

employee have an obligation to the employer to give 100% at all times.

the employee have an obligation to the employer to give 100% at all times

No one gives 100% all or even most of the time, some with an overinflated value of self believe they do.

I give 110% at all times so **** off you workshy wastrels.

Not sure about the whole "trading in rights" thing yet, but as it's the British media reporting it, I will await proof rather than take their word for it.

Well if newspapers like the Daily Telegraph are reporting a pack of lies concerning what the Chancellor said at the Conservative Party Conference, then you can be sure that the Conservative Party would kicking up a right stink - they don't appear to be. Perhaps you think they've gone all shy ?

George Osborne's precise words were :

[i]"So today we set out proposals for a radical change to employment law.

I want to thank Adrian Beecroft for the work he has done in this area.

This idea is particularly suited to new businesses starting up; and small and medium sized firms.

It's a voluntary three way deal.

You the company: give your employees shares in the business.

You the employee: replace your old rights of unfair dismissal and redundancy with new rights of ownership.

And what will the Government do?

We'll charge no capital gains tax at all on the profit you make on your shares"[/i]

Read the whole speech here :

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/george-osbornes-speech-conservative-conference-full-text

I give 110% at all times so **** off you workshy wastrels.

I've worked for a few small companies/start-ups and have/ would have welcomed a decent share of the company in favour of employment rights but then I could have easily got another job so I had nothing to lose.

The main problem with this idea is that some employers will take advantage of people who don't really understand what this means, the exact people for whom employment rights exist.

You offer someone 5000 shares in a company and it sounds a lot until they work out that there are 25,000,000 shares so they are in effect worthless. Shares are only worth anything when they are traded on an open market and you can easily sell them.

Normal employee share schemes for publicly traded companies are a great example of motivating staff to stay put and they are rewarded with cheap shares. This [i]new [/i]idea is the other end of the company lifecycle, new companies whose shares aren't easily traded as you are often restricted by who you can sell to, and even if the company will buy them back the value is an arbitrary value, not set by market demand.

It's a crock of crap designed to reward owners and shaft employees.

</rant>

Anyone else planning on giving away their employment rights..

What is there to give away when all you have is silly part-time work eh?

Just gearing for my performance man meeting in the morning. I am a tiger I AM A TIGER..... GRrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I wish I had £500,000 spare to donate to the Tories in return for getting to write policies for them which directly benefit me. I can't wait until they implement the rest of his ideas too.

I think someone said on here earlier that it's a great idea in principle but in this case, probably pretty badly communicated and executed. There should absolutely be some kind of performance related reward for people prepared to work harder than their peers - otherwise it's easy for people to become disengaged and you end up with workforces full of people who just go through the motions, clock their hours and leave, but never really contribute.

John Lewis is a great example of an employee share scheme system that not only rewards everyone working to achieve growth, but also serves as an attractive proposition to draw the cream of the crop to them, whatever sector of the business that is in.

In all honesty, I am a bit surprised they weren't consulted on the whole thing as it would have made quite a bit of sense to do so.

Really? I'm not sure you fully understand the concept of self employment.

Self employment-- if you are a one man band, wholly responsible for all aspects of your work then yes, but the vast majority are not in that sense. In fact the opposite is true,i work in the building game, most workers are told they must be SE, but its absolute bollox-- its about restriction of rights,pay, conditions as well as casualisation.

 

I am a bit surprised they weren't consulted on the whole thing as it would have made quite a bit of sense to do so

I'm fairly sure that John Lewis haven't traded their employees employment rights.

There should absolutely be some kind of performance related reward for people prepared to work harder than their peers

Ernie, you should be creaming yourself over this

The possibility of ending the wage-slave exploitation of the proletariat is not only your avowed goal, but the very essence of the revolutionary Marxism you claim to support.

Before you lies the true path to revolution, the workers are being given the opportunity to own the means of production, no longer will the workers be caught in the class struggle, hemmed between the lumpenproletariat and the petit bourgeoisie, they have the opportunity to rise above it and control their own destiny

Arise brothers, the day of revolution is here

So what you're saying Zulu-Eleven is that the Tory Party has turned Marxist ! 😀

I'm fairly sure that John Lewis haven't traded their employees employment rights.

Exactly - hence my statement that I am surprised they weren't consulted, given the fact they run a very successful scheme along these lines.

But such a system already exists; I believe it's called..... Money. It doesn't mean hard fought employment rights should be waived, just be wise it wouldn't affect you, in your situation.

But if we had a system in place whereby hard workers could be rewarded with something related to financial growth of the organisation (in other words incentivising them to add value), wouldn't that be a good thing? Lots of jobs don't have a performance related remuneration scheme, and unless an employee is constantly upskilling and then able to get promoted to go up a pay band (unlikely in current times), then a performance related bonus, linked to overall fiscal growth would be a good thing.

Or am I missing something?

Is that Charlie Chaplin at the front with the flag?

look a policy so odiously right wing even Zulu -11 baulks at offering a defence so goes straight for a goad

Clearly this must just be the shittest thing ever thought up.

But if we had a system in place whereby hard workers could be rewarded with something related to financial growth of the organisation (in other words incentivising them to add value), wouldn't that be a good thing? Lots of jobs don't have a performance related remuneration scheme, and unless an employee is constantly upskilling and then able to get promoted to go up a pay band (unlikely in current times), then a performance related bonus, linked to overall fiscal growth would be a good thing.

Or am I missing something?

The fact that companies could do this without taking away employment rights? I think good companies (seemingly like John Lewis) recognise that incentivising their staff isn't done best by only giving them the bare minimum of rights that they can get away with providing.

But if we had a system in place whereby hard workers could be rewarded with something related to financial growth of the organisation (in other words incentivising them to add value), wouldn't that be a good thing?

You also let the bosses choose what is hard work and they may just choose the blonde with the nice jugs or their golf buddy or the best sucker upper or the yes person. Its not like employers have suddenly acquired infallibility is it - if they had they would not need to worry about infringing our rights as they would never get it wrong.

So what you're saying Zulu-Eleven is that the Tory Party has turned Marxist !

I think you'll find that I've been saying for a long time that the Tory party under Cameron is far, far to the left of the conservative home ground, let alone where I think they should be, still, it will all change when Boris is anointed as leader 😀

The fact that companies could do this without taking away employment rights? I think good companies (seemingly like John Lewis) recognise that incentivising their staff isn't done best by only giving them the bare minimum of rights that they can get away with providing.

Maybe working it differently - instead of tax breaks for the employee, give the tax break to the company if they offer and successfully implement an employee share and profit share scheme?

Obviously it would need working on to protect against abuse, but contrary to what many on here might like to believe, there's a hell of a lot of bosses who do want to see their company do well and be staffed with engaged, motivated staff as ultimately that's the kind of workforce that works hardest and makes the most profit.

So does anyone on here actually employ people?
If so is the current employment legislation stopping you employing more or is it something else?
Would this proposal be workable for you and would it make you employ more staff?

but contrary to what many on here might like to believe, there's a hell of a lot of bosses who do want to see their company do well and be staffed with engaged, motivated staff as ultimately that's the kind of workforce that works hardest and makes the most profit.

I agree, however it's not how Adrian Beecroft does things, or how the government is encouraging managers/directors to act based on his legislation.

Somerfield is a classic example. A source at Usdaw, the shopworkers' union, described Apax as "extremely difficult to deal with". "To be honest we were glad when the Co-op turned in and we were rid of them," they said.

John Hannett, the general secretary, is similary blunt. After the takeover, he said, there was "a wholesale attack on workers' terms and conditions" and Usdaw "very much welcomed the Co-Op Group's takeover of the chain in 2008".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-how-adrian-beecroft-made-a-career-out-of-cutting-jobs-7789303.html

I think this is a great idea, fully intend to sign up for some free shares the day before I resign for retirement

At any other time it's the most despicable idea yet from this shower of ****

So does anyone on here actually employ people?
If so is the current employment legislation stopping you employing more or is it something else?
Would this proposal be workable for you and would it make you employ more staff?

Regulation change wouldn't encourage me to hire more. We're at a point in the business's development where we now need to grow market share to then be able to sell more and so grow again in phase 3.

I suspect that this proposed scheme wouldn't encourage anyone to hire more as it doesn't address the fact that to hire more you need budget to do it, and budget comes from more sales, and we're in a recession so more sales are hard to come by - but then did we really expect your average politician to have a workable real life solution?

but then did we really expect your average politician to have a workable real life solution?

The idea comes from a venture capitalist.

The idea comes from a venture capitalist.

And clearly has been put past the politicians who now are putting it forward. But we're talking semantics here. The fact is that some form of employee performance related profit share scheme with a resultant tax break for the employer could be a good idea to stimulate growth, but it's been worked badly in this case. Had the right people been consulted, a better proposal would probably been forthcoming.

andyrm 🙂

You really are all over the place andyrm. You start off by saying that you don't really believe what the media are saying, then you say that it's a good idea only it isn't a good idea but what to expect from politicians, yes it was an idea from a venture capitalist but who cares who thought of it first.

Your inability to engage in straight talking suggests that you would make an excellent politician. Have you ever considered that line of work ?

All depends how you view things. I believe that just as much as an employer has obligations to the employee, so too does the employee have an obligation to the employer to give 100% at all times. Maybe this scheme would do something to foster more thinking like that if they had a financial interest in the success of the organisation they worked for?

ernie_lynch - shame you feel the need to resort to cheap insults.

I've said that I would make my own judgements on what has been reported in the media, because we know the primary purpose of the media is to sell papers or gain viewer ratings rather than report the facts.

I've also said that the idea of an employee share scheme which serves as a reward to the best workers and gives some form of profit related bonus is a good one.

I've also said that the current proposal doesn't appear very well thought out and there are better people to have consulted who could have provided a good model to put it in place.

Can't see the problem here?

Biggest problem with this idea is that the people at the top in say a company with worldwide interests who make the executive decisions on what products, what direction and markets the company sells to gets that wrong

Good point - and I don't know what to suggest there, as ultimately in the largest organisations, the top tier decision makers are very much "protected" aren't they? The only real way to improve that is to devolve at least some decision making power on a more local basis to a management team who see the real issues as they happen in real time, rather than a distanced exec board, who might be in a different country. Spent last week abroad fixing something that happened because of exactly this kind of thing, but luckily, concerns have been taken on board with regards future country launches and running more localised decisions.

ernie_lynch - shame you feel the need to resort to cheap insults.

You're a sensitive little soul aren't you ? You don't like being told that you're all over the place ? Personally I don't like being told that my insults are "cheap". But since this is a political thread I expect to get some stick. Perhaps you should do too ? 💡

You're a sensitive little soul aren't you ? You don't like being told that you're all over the place ? Personally I don't like being told that my insults are "cheap". But since this is a political thread I expect to get some stick. Perhaps you should do too ?

Far from it Ernie - but I'm able to enter into discussion without it getting all a bit angry and descending to the level of insults.

Out of interest, what are your thoughts on these proposals? Do you have an opinion on the principle of employee share options and performance related pay as a workforce motivator? What do you see as the key stumbling blocks and what are the workarounds?

ernie, any need to be so aggressive?

You need to copy and paste where I've been "aggressive" grum. I simply expressed the opinion that andyrm was all over the place ffs. A perfectly valid comment imo.

all workers want decent living wage, respect,and some security-- thats a minimum if you want'productivity'-- i suppose we all have different work experiences, mine are of underpaid and undervalued workers, allied with incompetent management, seems the norm in most places ive worked.I do know that you could cut out a lot of the so called middle managers--the barking dogs,make all accountable, have dialogue with workers and their reps(shop stewards) -- the germans seem to have cracked this conundrum-- high productivity,high wages, low hours, pay differentials are very different, as are long term planning-- we have the opposite in this economy, all short term, low pay, for many, its a vicious circle-- that needs state intervention-- capitalists left to their own devices are like foxes in a hen coop

make all accountable, have dialogue with workers

So very true there! We've seen productivity grow massively by improving communications processes between different parts of the business, but sadly that is something that is sorely lacking in the UK as a rule. I've seen plenty of companies over the years where a simple thing like a monthly meeting with an open forum would fix things.

the germans seem to have cracked this conundrum-- high productivity,high wages, low hours, pay differentials are very different,

Funnily enough, Germany has a pretty established programme of employee share ownership for trade offs in salary and benefits

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/a-share-of-future-profits-german-employees-exchange-wage-cuts-for-equity-a-640304.html