Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2012/10/09 15:44:53
Subject: Give Up Your Worker's Rights, For Shares In Your Company
GEORGE OSBORNE has been accused of writing a charter for rogue employers by threatening to take away workers’ rights.
The Tory Chancellor yesterday unveiled a plan to strip employees of protection against the sack and entitlement to statutory redundancy payments.
Osborne announced a scheme that would give workers shares in their employers’ company in exchange for giving up a string of employment rights – including limiting maternity leave.
The new owner-employee contract will allow firms to award shares worth up to £50,000 to their staff in return for the employee giving up unfair dismissal, redundancy and training rights plus being able to ask for flexible working.
Osborne said there would be no capital gains tax on profits from the shares, so it would be “owners, workers and the taxman all in it together”.
The Chancellor even stole the old Marxist slogan in making the announcement to the Tory conference.
He said: “Workers of the world unite.
“Workers – 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 on the profit you make on your shares. Zero per cent capital gains tax for these new employee-owners. “Get shares and become owners of the company you work for.”
Osborne said the plan would allow businesses hiring new staff to insist they forfeit employment rights in two broad areas in exchange for the shares. Existing employees would have the right to refuse.
Women accepting the deal would have to give twice as much notice of the date when they want to return from maternity leave – 16 weeks instead of eight.
Osborne said the package would be a radical change to employment law but opponents fear it could be extended to cover all employees.
Labour’s Ian Murray, MP for Edinburgh South, said: “George Osborne’s announcement of shares for workers rights will allow rogue employers to hire and fire at will on the basis that the share ownership of the company will cost a lot less than any tribunal or redundancy payments.
“It is a barking idea, that you own your company and give up all your rights. It allows an employer to turn around and say, ‘You’re pregnant, don’t come in on Monday.’”
Murray said the scheme was a way to get the recommendations of the Beecroft Commission on employee rights into law by the back door. Lib Dem Business Minister Vince Cable has opposed plans for the compensated no-fault dismissal drawn up by Beecroft – but the Chancellor brought them back to the table in his speech.
Business organisations also suggested that Osborne’s idea will do little to stimulate growth.
The CBI said that, although it would be attractive to some workers, it was “a niche idea and not relevant to all businesses”.
The British Chambers of Commerce said it was “unlikely to be a game-changer” – while trade unions savaged the plans.
Brendan Barber, head of the TUC, said: “We deplore any attack on maternity provision or protection against unfair dismissal, but these complex proposals do not look as if they will have very much impact as few small businesses will want to tie themselves up in the tangle of red tape necessary to trigger these exemptions.
“This looks more to be said for effect than because it will make much difference, but we will be vigilant to ensure that they do not represent the thin end of a future anti-employee wedge driven by the Beecroft report.”
Paul Kenny, general secretary of the GMB union, said the proposals represented another attack on workers by a chancellor giving a “£40,000 windfall to each of the millionaire elite”.
He added: “Slashing people’s employment rights under the guise of ownership schemes won’t create jobs and it won’t create growth.
“His attempts to dupe the electorate that he knows what he is doing have been rumbled. George Osborne has as much knowledge of economics as a stick of rhubarb.”
Working Families chief Sarah Jackson said: “Employers beware. Offering owner employee contracts, where employees effectively sell their employment rights for shares, is unlikely to deliver the motivated, engaged workforce you need.
“Few men or women with family responsibilities would want such a contract. Shares go down as well as up. You could end up with no job security or employment rights and worthless shares.
“We would be particularly alarmed if jobseekers were required to take up such offers as we don’t think these would be reasonable jobs for people to accept.
“It also flies in the face of everything we know about productivity and employee engagement. Treat your employees well and you will be rewarded by highly motivated and high-performing employees.
“The Chancellor seems intent on creating two tiers of employers.
“Those in the bottom tier, who offer shares in place of employment rights, will be fishing from a small recruitment pool of younger workers without responsibilities.
“They will not be well placed to win the war for talent when the upturn comes.”
The Tory government in the UK's tried to push through a lot (selling Sherwood Forest for logging) of stupid schemes in their short time in office. Making a quick buck on offering us the ability to reduce the rights that people have spent generations to get is just asking for a load of gak from the public.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/09 15:52:44
2012/10/09 16:00:38
Subject: Give Up Your Worker's Rights, For Shares In Your Company
This is what happens when the UK elects a government.
I don't trust any party to do anything in the best interest of the country, nevermind her people.
Mandorallen turned back toward the insolently sneering baron. 'My Lord,' The great knight said distantly, 'I find thy face apelike and thy form misshapen. Thy beard, moreover, is an offence against decency, resembling more closely the scabrous fur which doth decorate the hinder portion of a mongrel dog than a proper adornment for a human face. Is it possibly that thy mother, seized by some wild lechery, did dally at some time past with a randy goat?' - Mimbrate Knight Protector Mandorallen.
Excerpt from "Seeress of Kell", Book Five of The Malloreon series by David Eddings.
"You need not fear us, unless you are a dark heart, a vile one who preys on the innocent; I promise, you can’t hide forever in the empty darkness, for we will hunt you down like the animals you are, and pull you into the very bowels of hell." Iron - Within Temptation
2012/10/09 16:25:13
Subject: Re:Give Up Your Worker's Rights, For Shares In Your Company
England has a larger population than the other three countries in the union. If they get it into their heads that the party that's spouting all that nationalist stuff about them is the party they want, then that's who gets into power.
=/ People voted in the Tories 30 years ago, and look where that got us. I don't think that many of us directly voted them in this time around (not to say that people didn't vote for the Lib Dems though). You get a recession and the right gets power, I'm just surprised that the main stream news isn't make more of a thing about how history comes in cycles, the same mistakes have been made before.
2012/10/09 16:31:08
Subject: Give Up Your Worker's Rights, For Shares In Your Company
Heh, fun fact. The day that the government was voted into power, the second search for David Cameron (other than David Cameron) on Google was indeed, David Cameron....Banker. XD
2012/10/09 16:40:47
Subject: Re:Give Up Your Worker's Rights, For Shares In Your Company
Wyrmalla wrote: England has a larger population than the other three countries in the union. If they get it into their heads that the party that's spouting all that nationalist stuff about them is the party they want, then that's who gets into power.
Let me just check who is in charge of the county of Scotland these days...
=/ People voted in the Tories 30 years ago, and look where that got us. I don't think that many of us directly voted them in this time around (not to say that people didn't vote for the Lib Dems though). You get a recession and the right gets power, I'm just surprised that the main stream news isn't make more of a thing about how history comes in cycles, the same mistakes have been made before.
There is so little difference between the three main parties (or rather, back again to the two main parties since the Lib Dems have pretty much written themselves off as a credible political organisation now) that getting angry about what "the other side" have done now or in the past is kind of pointless.
There is so little difference between the three main parties (or rather, back again to the two main parties since the Lib Dems have pretty much written themselves off as a credible political organisation now) that getting angry about what "the other side" have done now or in the past is kind of pointless.
You mean there's more to the country than the 40 or so swing constituancies?
Surely not...
Unnessesarily extravegant word of the week award goes to jcress410 for this:
jcress wrote:Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.
2012/10/09 19:54:28
Subject: Re:Give Up Your Worker's Rights, For Shares In Your Company
Wyrmalla wrote: England has a larger population than the other three countries in the union. If they get it into their heads that the party that's spouting all that nationalist stuff about them is the party they want, then that's who gets into power.
=/ People voted in the Tories 30 years ago, and look where that got us. I don't think that many of us directly voted them in this time around (not to say that people didn't vote for the Lib Dems though). You get a recession and the right gets power, I'm just surprised that the main stream news isn't make more of a thing about how history comes in cycles, the same mistakes have been made before.
Labour spends, Tories save (by grabbing money any which way they can).
2012/10/09 20:02:13
Subject: Give Up Your Worker's Rights, For Shares In Your Company
It's ridiculous that they want people to give up the right to challenge being sacked unfairly. Surely if you're sacked for unfair reasons, then the act is unjust and you have a right to response. If you've actually done something wrong to deserve sacking then it should be demonstrated. It's just a free ticket for businesses to bully and discriminate if they can fire people without stated cause or reason. So you give up the right to challenge being unfairly dismissed, what next giving up human rights for a lump sum?
Apparently all this is supposed to stimulate employers taking on more people, but what's the point? As soon as things get tough they'll wipe them out at the stroke of a pen, because that's all it will need. And this is supposed to stabilise our economy and workforce?
2012/10/09 20:19:48
Subject: Re:Give Up Your Worker's Rights, For Shares In Your Company
You are all hilarious. As was that article. I'm assuming none of you actually WATCHED the speech in which he announced this, correct? It's a voluntary scheme, intended to make small start-up firms more keen to hire greater numbers of staff.
I mean, I'm not wild about it as an idea, but please don't get all of your information from the left-wing press and half-understood slogans. The article was nakedly biased - why was there no government source directly quoted after the fact? Yes, they paraphrased some of what the Chancellor said and took some out-of-context quotes, but whoever wrote that article seemed more interested in putting about the Labour/union (same difference) viewpoint. It was like a looking-glass version of a Daily Mail article.
People can buy shares in companies if they want to (and have spare money).
Why would companies give up free shares to workers in exchange for the right to sack them? What happens when a worker who gave up his rights, and has a load of shares, gets sacked?
It is a typical tory piece of nonsense intended to get some headlines and enthuse the party right wing.
Why would companies give up free shares to workers in exchange for the right to sack them? What happens when a worker who gave up his rights, and has a load of shares, gets sacked?
All good questions, perfectly illustrating the importance of getting more policy detail before we pass judgement.
It is a typical tory piece of nonsense intended to get some headlines and enthuse the party right wing.
Pff! At least it's something - what did Ed the Red have to offer apart from nicked Tory ideas that he doesn't actually believe in?
Also, just because:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/09 22:13:48
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2012/10/09 22:18:36
Subject: Give Up Your Worker's Rights, For Shares In Your Company
Albatross wrote: You are all hilarious. As was that article. I'm assuming none of you actually WATCHED the speech in which he announced this, correct? It's a voluntary scheme, intended to make small start-up firms more keen to hire greater numbers of staff.
I mean, I'm not wild about it as an idea, but please don't get all of your information from the left-wing press and half-understood slogans. The article was nakedly biased - why was there no government source directly quoted after the fact? Yes, they paraphrased some of what the Chancellor said and took some out-of-context quotes, but whoever wrote that article seemed more interested in putting about the Labour/union (same difference) viewpoint. It was like a looking-glass version of a Daily Mail article.
You pretty much undermined your own position by equating The Labour Party with the trade unions. The Labour Party is economically right-wing and at odds with the unions over it.
Also ridiculing the left wing press has covered up your ambivalence for workers' rights. Which is fine, but at least say so.
Unnessesarily extravegant word of the week award goes to jcress410 for this:
jcress wrote:Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.
2012/10/09 23:16:35
Subject: Give Up Your Worker's Rights, For Shares In Your Company
Albatross wrote: You are all hilarious. As was that article. I'm assuming none of you actually WATCHED the speech in which he announced this, correct? It's a voluntary scheme, intended to make small start-up firms more keen to hire greater numbers of staff.
I mean, I'm not wild about it as an idea, but please don't get all of your information from the left-wing press and half-understood slogans. The article was nakedly biased - why was there no government source directly quoted after the fact? Yes, they paraphrased some of what the Chancellor said and took some out-of-context quotes, but whoever wrote that article seemed more interested in putting about the Labour/union (same difference) viewpoint. It was like a looking-glass version of a Daily Mail article.
You pretty much undermined your own position by equating The Labour Party with the trade unions.
Actually I didn't do that. I equated their viewpoints on this issue. That's an important distinction. Even leaving aside Milliband's union paymasters, it's not a massive stretch to assume that both Labour and the unions would have roughly convergent positions on workers rights.
Also ridiculing the left wing press has covered up your ambivalence for workers' rights. Which is fine, but at least say so.
Ambivalence is the only sensible viewpoint to have on almost every issue. I'll leave naive idealism to the kids down the local student union Steve Biko Bar, thanks.
Curious. If the worker do decide to buy shares into the company does that mean he/she is no longer in the Union?
Edit
Mainly because I was once Union but did buy shares into Saputo....part time job to actually get me experience in shipping refrigerated containers
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/10 00:03:49
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2012/10/10 00:57:05
Subject: Give Up Your Worker's Rights, For Shares In Your Company
You don't have to buy them under this scheme, they just give them to you. It'll be going for consultation anyhow, so I guess we'll see how it turns out.
Albatross wrote: You are all hilarious. As was that article. I'm assuming none of you actually WATCHED the speech in which he announced this, correct? It's a voluntary scheme, intended to make small start-up firms more keen to hire greater numbers of staff.
I mean, I'm not wild about it as an idea, but please don't get all of your information from the left-wing press and half-understood slogans. The article was nakedly biased - why was there no government source directly quoted after the fact? Yes, they paraphrased some of what the Chancellor said and took some out-of-context quotes, but whoever wrote that article seemed more interested in putting about the Labour/union (same difference) viewpoint. It was like a looking-glass version of a Daily Mail article.
Employee-owner status will be optional for existing employees, but both established companies and new start-ups can choose to offer only this new type of contract for new hires. Companies recruiting employee-owners will continue to have the option of inserting more generous employment conditions into the employment contract if they want to.
.. now if that's the only form of employment being offered I'm not really certain one can count that as "voluntary" really ?
Hilarious indeed.
Give Osborne his due, there's not many people who'd have thought that neo-feudalism was a realistic option, or even a sane one.
perhaps we could look at reintroducing slavery too. Workers could sleep at the workplace, thus freeing up valuable properties in areas where we need new housing and will also cut down on congestion too. Which, upon reflection would also help cut down on pollution too, helping us hit the environmental targets too ! Plus, if we don't feed them much they'll be thinner which will cut down on over crowding and a slimmer nation is a healthier one too surely ?
People say bad things things authoritative Govt. but they can do remarkable things. Look at the Khmer Rouge : sure, economically they may well have failed but look how much they did for people's health, there were almost no opticians in Cambodia under their regime.
.. so we already have pretty flexible employment rules,
A company can already hire people on a fixed short term contract for up to a year that can be terminated at the end of a probationary period. After a year if the employee is still required and the business thinks the worker is right for the Job, the contract becomes permanent. Statutory redundancy for a 25-41 year old is a weeks pay (up to £430/week) per years service, hardly a deterrent to employing somebody.
What I don't see is how this is supposed to help small businesses, the ones it is claimed this is directed towards helping.
They don't have shares and are unlikely to ever have them,
Plus....how are these to be paid for ? The employee cannot be paying for them, so it must be the employer then ? So the plan is a company can spend between £2000 - £50,000 every time it employs a person ? How does that save them money ? Firms don't have that much capital laying about, or if they do they don't need help hiring workers one would suggest. Will these companies get tax relief on this then ?
Or are these in fact not even shares, but share options ?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/10/10 08:49:34
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2012/10/10 08:42:17
Subject: Give Up Your Worker's Rights, For Shares In Your Company
Kilkrazy wrote: It would be preferable for the government to have no ideas rather than to have obviously stupid ideas.
So employee-ownership is a stupid idea? Offering new employees a stake in the future success of the company they work for is stupid?
Incidentally, what do you know about the ownership rights granted under this scheme? Anything?
We already have employee ownership in the form of the highly successful people's republic of John Lewis and other companies, which, incidentally manage to outperform the stock exchange average by 10% despite their workers have more rights than workers in non-employee-owned firms.
We should recognise that this "idea" is not an employee ownership scheme. It is a tory conference soundbite.
The scheme hasn't been fully formulated yet, so I can't of course know the details. However, as a general matter of contract law, if shares are transferred to an employee, they become his property. The picky points will be the value of shares, and how much is added per year, and so on, versus the employment rights to be given up.
Anything that stops unfair dismissal laws are just a bad idea. Now, I know they're a procedural headache in most cases, but the answer to that is improving the process, not giving companies a way to buy the right to fire people improperly.
That said, there's kind a simple elegance to the idea, in one sense. The folk who need employee protections the most are those at the bottom of the totem pole, semi-skilled and unskilled workers. Thing is, no company is going to want to hand over lump sums of cash to cashiers or ditch diggers - why give someone a fortune in shares when they're paid next to minimum wage? On the other hand, the kind of folk who are typically invested in with stocks, management and highly skilled professionals, don't really need the same level of employee protection, so it'd be an interesting idea for them.
I mean, I don't like this idea because it's just silly to remove unfair dismissal, but the system above is an interesting way of giving the market a tool to balance competing interests of people at the top and bottom. Perhaps if unfair dismissal and the more fundamental base rights were pulled out, and instead people were given shares instead of maternity leave or annual leave?
It would be really, really important to make sure the stock was worth the value of benefits surrendered, else you'd have exploitative companies getting rid of someone's annual leave in exchange for share worth like 3 pounds.
Albatross wrote: You are all hilarious. As was that article. I'm assuming none of you actually WATCHED the speech in which he announced this, correct? It's a voluntary scheme, intended to make small start-up firms more keen to hire greater numbers of staff.
It's voluntary for existing staff, but a company can make it mandatory for any new employees coming on board.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/10/10 11:01:59
Subject: Give Up Your Worker's Rights, For Shares In Your Company
Albatross wrote: You are all hilarious. As was that article. I'm assuming none of you actually WATCHED the speech in which he announced this, correct? It's a voluntary scheme, intended to make small start-up firms more keen to hire greater numbers of staff.
I mean, I'm not wild about it as an idea, but please don't get all of your information from the left-wing press and half-understood slogans. The article was nakedly biased - why was there no government source directly quoted after the fact? Yes, they paraphrased some of what the Chancellor said and took some out-of-context quotes, but whoever wrote that article seemed more interested in putting about the Labour/union (same difference) viewpoint. It was like a looking-glass version of a Daily Mail article.
Employee-owner status will be optional for existing employees, but both established companies and new start-ups can choose to offer only this new type of contract for new hires. Companies recruiting employee-owners will continue to have the option of inserting more generous employment conditions into the employment contract if they want to.
.. now if that's the only form of employment being offered I'm not really certain one can count that as "voluntary" really ?
So firms 'can choose' to offer only this type of contract and that isn't a voluntary scheme?
What I don't see is how this is supposed to help small businesses, the ones it is claimed this is directed towards helping.
They don't have shares and are unlikely to ever have them,
Plus....how are these to be paid for ? The employee cannot be paying for them, so it must be the employer then ? So the plan is a company can spend between £2000 - £50,000 every time it employs a person ? How does that save them money ? Firms don't have that much capital laying about, or if they do they don't need help hiring workers one would suggest. Will these companies get tax relief on this then ?
Or are these in fact not even shares, but share options ?
No, they're equity shares in the company. Yes, of course, if the company isn't listed then the shares won't be able to be traded on the open market. Listen, I never said I was crazy about this policy. I just think it deserves a fair hearing.
, it was being presented as "voluntary" meaning it would require both parties to agree with it.
"owners, workers and the taxman, all in it together. Workers of the world unite.'"
""Today we set out proposals for a radical change to employment law. 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. Zero percent capital gains tax for these new employee-owners."
By the definition you appear to be using a sacking is voluntary as the firm can choose to do it or not. I guess people are volunteering for prison too. Or to be victims of crime. or etc etc .
To the best of my knowledge a person loses their benefits ( or some of them anyway) if they are offered work but decline to take -- which is, generally, fair enough. Puts them over the proverbial barrel here one would suggest.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/10/10 11:25:23
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2012/10/10 11:57:26
Subject: Give Up Your Worker's Rights, For Shares In Your Company
The centre of a massive brood chamber, heaving and pulsating.
Gaaaaaaaaaak.
I'm a Tory supporter but there is little doubt that George Osbourne is a massive spanker.
This is not going to go well.
Optimus Prime for prime minister!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/10 12:37:05
Squigsquasher, resident ban magnet, White Knight, and general fethwit.
buddha wrote: I've decided that these GW is dead/dying threads that pop up every-week must be followers and cultists of nurgle perpetuating the need for decay. I therefore declare that that such threads are heresy and subject to exterminatus. So says the Inquisition!
2012/10/10 12:44:04
Subject: Re:Give Up Your Worker's Rights, For Shares In Your Company
)
, it was being presented as "voluntary" meaning it would require both parties to agree with it.
