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

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

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.

About 10 percent of German businesses offer profit sharing to their employees, and only 2 percent give them equity ownership.

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.