Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Would you sell your rights for shares?


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,416 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 10:57 PM

George Osborne unveils employee 'shares for rights' scheme
Proposal would allow firms to make new staff forfeit key rights, such as redundancy, in exchange for tax-exempt shares
http://www.guardian....s-rights-scheme

This just seems absolutely crackers to me, sinister, even. Compelling people to give up their rights? Why would any decent employer need to do that, unless they were planning on treating their staff poorly in the first place? Treat staff well, they'll work better. Isn't that one of the reasons the German economy works so efficiently, even though workers there have more employment rights than their British counterparts?

Why not offer employees shares in the company without stripping them of their rights? If they have a stake in it, they'd be less likely to need to exercise those rights anyway.

John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com


#2 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,624 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 04:03 AM

I'm not sure that we will have any rights at work at all in the not too distant future. Almost every industry that pays above average wages seems to have a 'don't like it, there's the door' policy. And even then more hours/worse conditions are being squeezed out of people.

So maybe you might as well get a few quid while you can?

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#3 stimpo-and-kat

stimpo-and-kat
  • Coach
  • 2,536 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 10:35 AM

I'm not sure that we will have any rights at work at all in the not too distant future. Almost every industry that pays above average wages seems to have a 'don't like it, there's the door' policy. And even then more hours/worse conditions are being squeezed out of people.

So maybe you might as well get a few quid while you can?


That attitude seems to be in a lot of jobs. Trouble is with so many looking for work there's always someone who.will accept the hassle thats thrown at them

#4 getdownmonkeyman

getdownmonkeyman
  • Coach
  • 1,729 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 10:59 AM

Has this been put forward by the Association of Victorian Mill Owners?

#5 Griff9of13

Griff9of13
  • Coach
  • 5,455 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 11:01 AM

Another example of knee jerk, soundbite policy without any thought of the implications from this lot.

There is absolutely no evidence that reducing employee rights actually encourages employers to create jobs. Also, why would you sacrifice rights to take a punt on share options, that if a company is not well run with enthusiastic and happy staff may well end up worthless anyway.

This sort of thing is also contradictory; in the same conference the tories were demonising the unemployed (again) and yet want it easier for some companies to chuck people out of work without good reason.

And another thing; what would happen if a company needed to make redundancies but faced with no choice of who to get rid of first, the good, enthusiastic worker who has the skills needed and a good record but has forfeited his redundancy rights for shares, or the slacker who isn't really of any value to the company but has not taken the share option and reduced rights and is therefore much harder or more expensive to shift? I can only foresee this being a legislative nightmare, along with state condoned murder, bringing back lynch mob justice of trying to asses how many children are too many for those on benefit.
"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

#6 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,202 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 11:08 AM

I'm self employed! The reason I'm self employed is because at my last permanent job the MD expected us all to work 50hr weeks pretty much as standard without over time toil or whatever, he was also known randomly to ring staff at 10pm at night just for a quick catch up on something none urgent. Now I've no problem doing a extra when its required but if its all the time, its a sign more employees are needed. This was a very profitable business as well.

I handed my notice in on the day of the christmas party after a 2hr telling off for not taking my mobile phone on holiday with me, and not checking in every couple of days (it was only 1 week and this requirement was not mentioned before I went). Ironically at the staff do (which employees paid to attend) the MD was having a go at some other members of staff "for taking their full hours lunch twice a week".

Whilst not all employers are like that, and I've had many who were good in the past, I sadly know that, were rights removed this guy would fire people on a regular basis just to keep people on their toes. How do I know this? Because he did with the Czech development team where workers rights were a little less enforced.

The big question I've got as I've obviously not read the legislation is what happens to these shares if you're fired? (are they forfiet, do you have to sell them at the point of termination of employment?)

Also forcing new employees to take this option seems wrong to me.

#7 MikeW

MikeW
  • Coach
  • 803 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 11:14 AM

state condoned murder,


Just to be pedantic I don't believe that if it's state condoned it's actually murder. Also you can "murder" someone today in a burglary/robbery and as long as it was reasonable you get off scott free. I cannot find the link but it was mentioned on Radio 5 last night that had been the case recently when a newsagent killed a robber in Manchester.

#8 nadera78

nadera78
  • Coach
  • 2,861 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 11:24 AM

Cameron's on the telly in the background now, wrapping himself in the flag and taking credit for things other people have done. Every single utterance from that man comes complete with sneering voice and public-school swagger. Quite sickening.
"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."
Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

#9 Griff9of13

Griff9of13
  • Coach
  • 5,455 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 11:40 AM

Just to be pedantic I don't believe that if it's state condoned it's actually murder. Also you can "murder" someone today in a burglary/robbery and as long as it was reasonable you get off scott free. I cannot find the link but it was mentioned on Radio 5 last night that had been the case recently when a newsagent killed a robber in Manchester.

True. My point still stands though, this is unnecessary additional legislation as people are already allowed to use 'reasonable force'.

Speaking of unnecessary, they are still intent on pouring billions away of our money on this. I mean, I'm sure they all can't wait to escape the deprivations of Birmingham back to the comforts of the metropolis at the end of this week, but blowing £32bn just so they can get home 10 minutes sooner is madness.
"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

#10 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,869 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 11:45 AM

If you think somebody is so pap you'll want to sack them quickly why would you want them to have shares in your company?
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#11 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,202 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 12:19 PM

Guess it depends on what happens to your shares when you leave.

#12 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,624 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 01:39 PM

That attitude seems to be in a lot of jobs. Trouble is with so many looking for work there's always someone who.will accept the hassle thats thrown at them


That's the reality for many people today. My job used to be fairly straightforward and what mattered was getting the job done. Now though its heading towards 'stick a broom up yer ###### so you can sweep up at the same time'.

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#13 Phil

Phil
  • Coach
  • 1,879 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 02:24 PM

Tell me, and mean it when you say it, that this mob are not waging class war.
"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin

#14 Leeds Wire

Leeds Wire
  • Coach
  • 3,831 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 04:03 PM

Tell me, and mean it when you say it, that this mob are not waging class war.


Indeed mate.

What's most amazing to me (having hated them for years and waited for the inevitable onslaught against those least able to defend themselves) is that they still genuinely shock me on a daily basis.

Maybe their tactic is to render people speechless with their nastiness in order to stifle two-way debate!

#15 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,624 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 04:15 PM

Tell me, and mean it when you say it, that this mob are not waging class war.


Against which class though?

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#16 tim2

tim2
  • Coach
  • 8,263 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 05:00 PM

Guess it depends on what happens to your shares when you leave.


I reckon you'd be forced to sell them at the price they are at the time you leave.

Anyway, who calculates how much your employment rights are worth?

If I was starting a small company, I'd include some shares for any new employee who stayed longer than a year. Then keep adding to them every year thereafter until the company got to, say, 20 people. I'd put some original shares aside for this purpose and factor it in to the calculations. I reckon if I was a decent employer and the people were committed and had the free shares I wouldn't need to bypass the law to get rid of them.
North Derbyshire Chargers - join the stampede

Marathon in 2014 - the hard work starts now

#17 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,938 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 07:41 PM

. Isn't that one of the reasons the German economy works so efficiently, even though workers there have more employment rights than their British counterparts?


The German economy does not work so efficiently.

#18 shrek

shrek
  • Coach
  • 5,834 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 05:35 PM

George Osborne unveils employee 'shares for rights' scheme
Proposal would allow firms to make new staff forfeit key rights, such as redundancy, in exchange for tax-exempt shares
http://www.guardian....s-rights-scheme

This just seems absolutely crackers to me, sinister, even. Compelling people to give up their rights? Why would any decent employer need to do that, unless they were planning on treating their staff poorly in the first place? Treat staff well, they'll work better. Isn't that one of the reasons the German economy works so efficiently, even though workers there have more employment rights than their British counterparts?

Why not offer employees shares in the company without stripping them of their rights? If they have a stake in it, they'd be less likely to need to exercise those rights anyway.

Not sure I agree with as a policy for permies, but there's a whole raft of people who've sold out just about every right they have and make there living as contractors, lets not pretend there real companies!

More often than not, people with modest skill sets willing to work for people who won't commit to employing them for more than 3 or 6 months at a time whilst offering them no perks and few rights, all for a price in cold hard cash mind.

#19 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,202 posts

Posted 13 October 2012 - 09:43 AM

Speaking as a self employed freelancer I'd like to correct you on a few things.

Firstly, the reason I made the jump wasn't a case of exchanging my rights for cash, but rather greater freedoms to do what I want. I can't be forced to work overtime for no pay, whether in the evenings or at the weekends.

I'm also very good at my job. If your organisation hired me and a permanent member of staff at the same time, (which has happened) I'm always more productive, sooner, than the permanent staff. Also, it's usually the case that a freelancer is brought in if there is a temporary skills gap in the organisation. Why pay, and train up, a member of staff who you aren't going to have work for in 6-12 months? It's cheaper to hire an external to come in and do the job who you don't have to pay off.

Ok I've lost some rights. If I don't perform I'm gone, fortunately that has never happened to me, but as I said I'm pretty good at my job, and I always feel that pressure keeps me on my toes. Likewise if I'm ill I don't get paid, and I have to sort out my own pension, national insurance and PAYE. I do pay tax (a lot more than Mit Romney and all the merchant bankers I know).

In what way am I not a 'real' company?

Edited by RidingPie, 13 October 2012 - 09:44 AM.


#20 shrek

shrek
  • Coach
  • 5,834 posts

Posted 13 October 2012 - 12:29 PM

In what way am I not a 'real' company?

I didn't say "you" were not. I know nothing about your circumstances.

However, I would say in my experience that a majority of contractors in the IT and Project Management spaces tend to work exclusively for one company for as long as possible and jump as high and as far as the person who signs off there timesheet tells them to. There limited company is mearly a vehicle to avoid tax and if they ever tried to enforce things like rights of substitution they'd be laughed out the place by the end client who has very much engaged the services of the individual they interviewed and not the "company" they represented.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users