You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
They hope that accepting wage cuts in return for a share of the profits will give their members more power and money in the future.
This would seem to be a deferred payment with increased power for the workers - is this the goal of the Tories?
Any link where they have given up their employment rights in exchange for this?
The link explans why these deals are uncommon and far from the norm and are often a response to the recession- did you read your own link?
About 10 percent of German businesses offer profit sharing to their employees, and only 2 percent give them equity ownership.
Its hardly established and even the one you linked to is described as
Much of Huber's plan is still up in the air. Where will the shares come from? Why should the remaining shareholders give up a portion of their shares for the benefit of employees? Piech, a billionaire, is the most likely to agree. Or should employees, in return for receiving shares, work longer hours for the same pay?
odd they have this confusion given it is a "pretty established"
1/10
That was a really good read Zulu - very interesting insight into how it can be done effectively. Trust those analytical, logical, clear thinking Germans to come up with a solution!! 😆
Here you are andyrm, since you apparently value the opinions of business people on this issue Justin King, who serves as a government adviser as well as holding one of the biggest roles in British business, says it is a rubbish idea :
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sainsburys-chief-executive-justin-king-slams-george-osbornes-proposal-to-allow-workers-to-waive-employment-rights-to-receive-company-shares-8204341.html ]Sainsbury’s chief executive Justin King slams George Osborne’s proposal to allow workers to waive employment rights to receive company shares[/url]
According to the article the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development also think it's a crap idea :
[b][i]The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development said that “creating a two-tier labour market” would do little to help employers or their workers. “It is highly doubtful whether inviting employees to sign away basic employment rights will deliver the motivated, driven, high-performing workforce that small firms need,” said the organisation’s employee relations adviser, Mike Emmott.[/i][/b]
Of course you don't trust the media, because according to you the primary purpose of the media is to sell papers or gain viewer ratings rather than report the facts. So perhaps you don't believe that those quotes are correctly attributed ?
The idea of shared ownership is a great one in many circumstances, it's good to hear it talked about. The idea of diminishing worker protection is a terrible one. Rolling a good idea around a terrible one doesn't make a good idea, it makes a dog**** taco.
How will this affect civil servants, nhs, council workers etc?
MrsT is a civil servant, no pay rise last 3yrs but does get her annual PP, bonus as the press would call it 🙄 If government had better control over what goes on within it's own departments then we may not be in such a state as we are ❗ Some of what is going on with regards her work is unbelievable 👿
There will probably be an opt out clause written in for firms who cannot afford to administer any kind of scheme 💡
In my last few years as a motor mechanic I worked in a garage that operated a bonus scheme. The scheme encouraged us to knock as much time off a service as possible thus enable each person to maybe fit another service in during the day. Hrs were tallied up at end of week and bonus payed at whatever the rate was. I was always in the bad books for taking the quoted time to complete a service. I could do it quicker but the way I had been trained in my previous job and as an apprentice was to do a thorough job. Rarely did I get cars returning and I actually built up a customer base who asked for me to service their cars. I started to become a wee bit unpopular, so left 😀
Trekster - the public sector doesn't comprise of companies, so I don't think this mad / interesting idea would apply in any case.
Ernie - interesting to see Justin King's take on this - thanks for posting up.
But you really should try and see past the generalisations and prejudgements you've made about my thinking.
My "distrust" of the media as you put it comes from time working in the news media while I still lived in London and saw the dark side of it all, from "editorial support" for advertisers to close annual contracts (you all know the whole Future Publishing thing, that's a drop in the ocean), and you only have to watch the news at 10 on BBC, Sky and ITV to see that each will report the same political stories with a different bias to meet their target demographic's preferences. So it's not a blind mistrust but an understanding of how it works and a conscious decision to research & make my own judgements. 🙂
Trekster - interesting about your bonus scheme at your old employer. That's exactly the challenge that needs to be faced head on in performance based schemes - setting KPIs and realistic targets, but at the same time ensuring quality standards aren't compromised. It's something that interests me greatly as we work to increase employee share option and performance schemes at my place. Done right (as at John Lewis) it can be great for morale, done wrong it's a fast track to declining standards and "box ticking" to hit basic targets.
You keep banging on about share options as if the "in lieu of employment rights" bit to the proposal doesn't exist. It does, the proposal links them quite clearly.
the public sector doesn't comprise of companies, so I don't think this mad / interesting idea would apply in any case.
Schools are public sector and are increasingly comprised of academies, which are set up as limited companies. Hence this could apply to teachers theoretically...
MSP - While the current proposal is without doubt flawed (the whole trading of rights thing isn't good, the aim should be to create an engaged workforce who work harder out of loyalty, rather than a disengaged workforce who fall back on legal "rights"), but it has to be a good thing that this is being put out in public to be discussed.
Only by putting a proposal forward can others then contribute ideas, thoughts and suggestions. Who knows - maybe by this announcement we will see a working group of good business leaders coming together and in time advising this and future governments.
Engaging, discussing and suggesting ideas has to be a good thing, even if at early stages the ideas are flawed.
Only by putting a proposal forward can others then contribute ideas, thoughts and suggestions. Who knows - maybe by this announcement we will see a working group of good business leaders coming together and in time advising this and future governments.
Isn't Justin King part of such a working group? And he thinks its s stupid idea.
Engaging, discussing and suggesting ideas has to be a good thing, even if at early stages the ideas are flawed.
Not when this is merely the least unpalatable part of numerous suggestions drawn up by someone who donates vast amounts to the Tory party, and made most of his fortune on a legal loan sharking company that preys on the desperate. Have you read any of his other suggestions?
Again you are merely focusing on the supposed incentive side of the scheme, but as you point out with the JL scheme there is no problem or legal barrier to already doing something of this nature.
All that is new in this proposal is the trading of basic rights for promises of future carrots.
Not when this is merely the least unpalatable part of numerous suggestions drawn up by someone who donates vast amounts to the Tory party, and made most of his fortune on a legal loan sharking company that preys on the desperate. Have you read any of his other suggestions?
Read a lot of things he suggests and to be honest, don't like them. But to reach a proper conclusion, all sides need to be heard or else you are effectively censoring someone whose opinions you don't like.
Again you are merely focusing on the supposed incentive side of the scheme, but as you point out with the JL scheme there is no problem or legal barrier to already doing something of this nature.All that is new in this proposal is the trading of basic rights for promises of future carrots.
So wouldn't it be good if someone from JL now came forward proactively, to show examples of how schemes like this [i]can [/i]be done well, and in turn grow business & create wealth?
Yes the potential incentive side of this is very good - it's the other side of the coin that's not so great. And that is hopefully something that can be worked out if the right people are brought to the table to consult further.
Are you really not getting this, incentive schemes already exist, this has nothing to do with incentive it is about trading away rights for promisses, that is the proposal, everything you are trying to sell as a positive already exists.
Are you really not getting this, incentive schemes already exist, this has nothing to do with incentive it is about trading away rights for promisses, that is the proposal, everything you are trying to sell as a positive already exists.
andyrm. One thing.
working hard & smart I have positioned myself as pretty indispensible to the overall organisation
Don't kid yourself. No one is indispensible.
You are also being incredibly naive if you think that this is being put forward to benefit the employees.
Don't kid yourself. No one is indispensible.
Note the word "pretty". Although as highest revenue generator by a factor of 40%, with a £1.1Mpa revenue stream and a track record of developing teams with fast growth curves, I am as safe as safe can be in any industry. 🙂 Short of a massive direction change, which is extremely unlikely given the 5 year plan, things are pretty solid.
Are you really not getting this, incentive schemes already exist, this has nothing to do with incentive it is about trading away rights for promisses, that is the proposal, everything you are trying to sell as a positive already exists.
Again as I have said, maybe this proposal will serve to encourage discussion within organisations about how they can make something work. But I totally see that the "trading in" aspect is something people would be uncomfortable with to say the least.
OK it's pretty clear you don't understand the proposal, and just want to pretend its something completely different.
But to reach a proper conclusion, all sides need to be heard or else you are effectively censoring someone whose opinions you don't like.
Well my opinions on this are censored pretty effectively then. Strangely they don't seem to hold as much weight as those of someone who's donated over half a million to the Tory party.
Well my opinions on this are censored pretty effectively then. Strangely they don't seem to hold as much weight as those of someone who's donated over half a million to the Tory party.
So I guess the challenge is working out how to put ideas like this to a workforce and then feeding it back to central government policymakers. Probably the way it should be done would be for the big employers to put together an independent working group, put proposals to their respective employees and then pitch back to government re: tax breaks in return for employee share schemes perhaps?
By definition, someone who donates will have greater influence than someone who doesn't, so it's a case of finding a way to represent those who don't, so that all voices are heard.
Companies aren't not hiring because of employment legislation - rather the (global) economy is on it's knees and no-one's spending any money. Once companies can grow, they will be able to hire - see also being able to borrow money from the banks we bailed out/subsidise...
Surely Osborne would be better placed encouraging companies to pay a living wage, rather than a pittance which is then propped up by Tax Credits etc?
Companies aren't not hiring because of employment legislation - rather the (global) economy is on it's knees and no-one's spending any money.
Nail. Head.
Tax breaks for manufacturing & skilled industries would make it easier for these companies to become competitive in a global marketplace again and so grow & in time, hire. The shift from "making" is a significant part of what went wrong here.
Companies aren't not hiring because of employment legislation - rather the (global) economy is on it's knees and no-one's spending any money.
Which is why this proposal is nonsense. It's not about encouraging SMEs to hire, it's about making people like Adrian Beecroft even richer (which will also keep the donations rolling in nicely).
Maybe is not a bad deal
Wonder what the employment rights are in Brazil, Russia , India and China?
Maybe is not a bad dealWonder what the employment rights are in Brazil, Russia , India and China?
Yep its a race to the bottom.
Yes we should be more like these marvellously dynamic 'BRIC' countries.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/19/corruption-india-anna-hazare
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/10/brazilian-presidential-aide-guilty-corruption
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-19843176
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18622833
I'm sure our current government agrees.
its a race to the bottom.
+1
Hmm, race to the bottom...
we're not really doing very well in this race are we then?
You know, looking out the window, it doesn't really look much like China or India does it?
The race to the bottom has been going on for decades, but the people in the race are the manufacturers, not the governments
look where your clothing is manufactured, look where your bike components are made - but go on, keep blaming the government, don't accept responsibility yourself, keep buying the carbon fibre frames made by teenage girls in China rather than the one made by craftsmen in Europe, and keep blaming someone else...
Although as highest revenue generator by a factor of 40%, with a £1.1Mpa revenue stream and a track record of developing teams with fast growth curves
Tell me you didn't say that with a straight face. Seriously, do you use those sort of phrases in real life?