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.

that’s 110% surely? (Bangs chest manfully)

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 :

“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”

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.

Then you too are frickin awesome, and I for one salute you sir. 😆 Now just leave your right to be sacked for liking the colour purple at the door…

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 new 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

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.

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

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ02gqyVqzw[/video]

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?

we dont all work in sales and it much harder to work out the contribution if you work on a production line, in HR, as a nurse or a myriad of other occupations.

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?

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 🙄
Eg I am in the maint section and repair machinery for a world player. We have a shares scheme which operates a bogof which is very good. The company as a whole is doing good. The Euro side of things has hit the skids due to our “Leadership” team making what was at the time a good decision which turned very sour when the markets went teats up ❗
There is probably not much this government can do to influence what is going on in mainland Europe or other world markets we sell to as far as I can see….
The race is now on to push forward new products but with hard cash being in short supply and markets being flooded with cheap Chinese stuff it is going to be tough :|. The Chinese would appear to be able to sell at below our raw material cost price which is not helping(never mind fixed costs/wages)

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