Jeremy Corbyn (Vol. 3)

[Shakermaker]

Willy Nilly said:

I'm not suggesting that any Labour idea should be implemented, that would be crazy, but the UK has historically had poor labour relations. John Lewis seems to have a good relationship with the workforce, so is that a model that could be used more often in business?

It seems to, despite that bonus having been consistently lowered over the last 5 years. In 2014 they got a 15% bonus, last year it was 7% (according to the most recent data I can find with a 30 second search)

[Bullett]

I think employees being stakeholders in the business they work for is a fundamentally sound idea. The labour approach to this is terrible of course but the general principle is good.

Does it actually make a difference though? I've had shares in several companies I worked for and equity in one case, it didn't make any real difference to my behaviour as I try and do the best I can anyway. If you want to motivate people with money then you need to create a direct relationship between thier actions and reward. Giving it to everyone regardless doesn't create that. "steveo did the minimum last year and still got his bonus divvy, why should I work harder" - tractor production is up again comrades.

I know JL are widely touted as a good example. Are they good because of the bonus/shareholder/partner structure or because they hire people with the right attitude and approach.

I provide consulting services across all sorts of businesses and the cultural differences are interesting. They tend to have mostly nice easy to get on with flexible people or hard nosed, by the book, humour free, bastibles.

[98elise]

Willy Nilly said:

I quite like the idea of the workforce owning 10% of companies. Businesses shouldn't be forced to sell shares to anyone, but my feeling is that if employees had more of a stake in the businesses they worked for they might put a bit more effort in. Having members of the workforce on the board would also be good because it should remove the "them and us" thing that seems to dog a lot of businesses. Businesses need staff and staff need somone to work for.

The shares are being taken from people who have bought them, and given to the employees (but not that they can be sold,). Employees then get a capped dividend with the rest taken by the government. It's simply a bribe with other people's money. In the case of companies like shell, the vast majority of the dividend payable will be hoovered up by the government.

The board already has workers on it. Normally people who know how to run a company. Where is the workforce member going to come from, is it only people at the lowest level or is it anyone not currently on the board. If it's mrs miggins the shelf stacker they are not going to be much use (and I think I would be similarly useless).

[98elise]

Bullett said:

I think employees being stakeholders in the business they work for is a fundamentally sound idea. The labour approach to this is terrible of course but the general principle is good.

Does it actually make a difference though? I've had shares in several companies I worked for and equity in one case, it didn't make any real difference to my behaviour as I try and do the best I can anyway. If you want to motivate people with money then you need to create a direct relationship between thier actions and reward. Giving it to everyone regardless doesn't create that. "steveo did the minimum last year and still got his bonus divvy, why should I work harder" - tractor production is up again comrades.

I know JL are widely touted as a good example. Are they good because of the bonus/shareholder/partner structure or because they hire people with the right attitude and approach.

I provide consulting services across all sorts of businesses and the cultural differences are interesting. They tend to have mostly nice easy to get on with flexible people or hard nosed, by the book, humour free, bastibles.

The ownership of JL was given away by the founder. To do the same with other listed companies you would have to get the existing shareholders (pensions etc) to give up their shares, or alternatively take them.

Labours plan seems to be to take them.

[RichB]

Willy Nilly said:

... Most of it will be boring and st and it's not like the directors aren't on it for a free lunch and an afternoon off either.

I don't know what company you're a director of but it's certainly not like that in my company!

[Gecko1978]

Willy Nilly said:

I quite like the idea of the workforce owning 10% of companies. Businesses shouldn't be forced to sell shares to anyone, but my feeling is that if employees had more of a stake in the businesses they worked for they might put a bit more effort in. Having members of the workforce on the board would also be good because it should remove the "them and us" thing that seems to dog a lot of businesses. Businesses need staff and staff need somone to work for.

I wrote my Masters thesis on this "Principle agent theory". All of the data points to employees having small shareholding of the type proposed having zero impact on staff engagement.

Its simple sound bite politics and will have zero benefit to firms but does in the Labour model act as a giant stealth tax.

As for the workers on the board....it's a flawed idea firms do not set out to exploit workers and where this does happen freedom to move to another job tends to resolve this.

[Hereward]

Gecko1978 said:

As for the workers on the board....it's a flawed idea, firms do not set out to exploit workers and where this does happen freedom to move to another job tends to resolve this.

The communists seem to be stuck in this Dickensian/Marxist-era mindset where they think all "workers" are slaves trapped in horrific jobs being exploited by evil upper-class land-owning masters. Of course there are cases of unpleasant conditions but for the vast majority in this day and age it is possible to seek alternative employment if you are vaguely competent/motivated and worker's rights in this country are very reasonable.

[RichB]

Hereward said:

Gecko1978 said:

As for the workers on the board....it's a flawed idea, firms do not set out to exploit workers and where this does happen freedom to move to another job tends to resolve this.

The communists seem to be stuck in this Dickensian/Marxist-era mindset where they think all "workers" are slaves trapped in horrific jobs being exploited by evil upper-class land-owning masters.

So true Poor old 'Working Man on the Street'

[BlackLabel]

Okay it’s only one small (1203 people) poll and it was carried out by one of the lesser known pollsters nevertheless it will be interesting to see what the polling shows during/post Tory conference.

[HoHoHo]

BlackLabel said:

Okay it’s only one small (1203 people) poll and it was carried out by one of the lesser known pollsters nevertheless it will be interesting to see what the polling shows during/post Tory conference.

2 points:

Polls are often wrong

If Labour do get elected there’s fk-all we can do about it so why worry?

[98elise]

BlackLabel said:

Okay it’s only one small (1203 people) poll and it was carried out by one of the lesser known pollsters nevertheless it will be interesting to see what the polling shows during/post Tory conference.

It's not surprising, they have just offered everyone a £500 bribe. That's on top of the extra 4 days holiday promised at the last GE.

I am positive that Labour will be in power at the next GE, they have no qualms about taking money and assets from whoever they want. Fortunately for me I will be retired by then and can be ahead of the capital flight they are expecting

[JagLover]

98elise said:

It's not surprising, they have just offered everyone a £500 bribe. That's on top of the extra 4 days holiday promised at the last GE.

I am positive that Labour will be in power at the next GE, they have no qualms about taking money and assets from whoever they want. Fortunately for me I will be retired by then and can be ahead of the capital flight they are expecting

If the Tories hold on until 2022 that is.

[Thorodin]

So, after Labour's unbridled joy at a surge in membership largely from students, they now intend to jeopardise the younger generation's futures, precisely the argument they used against Brexit, by unlimited spending should they get into power. They don't even blush.

[Russian Troll Bot]

They've banned Julia Hartley-Brewer for violating their conference Safe Space


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7393078/julia-hartle...

[Tycho]

Russian Troll Bot said:

They've banned Julia Hartley-Brewer for violating their conference Safe Space


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7393078/julia-hartle...

They really are humourless cretins.

[motco]

Russian Troll Bot said:

They've banned Julia Hartley-Brewer for violating their conference Safe Space


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7393078/julia-hartle...

Was the goose available for comment or was it still in counselling?

[egomeister]

motco said:

Russian Troll Bot said:

They've banned Julia Hartley-Brewer for violating their conference Safe Space


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7393078/julia-hartle...

Was the goose available for comment or was it still in counselling?

It was an emotional support goose, no word on the condition of the snowflake it was supporting though.

[Russian Troll Bot]

Also dropped their complaint to the IPSO regarding coverage of his wreath-laying. So that's another "smear" that turns out to be true.



https://order-order.com/2018/10/02/302734/

[motco]

Labour may introduce a four day week Mirror

The comments from readers of a popular Labour paper are enlightening.

[anonymous-user]

motco said:

Labour may introduce a four day week Mirror

The comments from readers of a popular Labour paper are enlightening.

The naivety is astounding.

How the hell is imposing a 4 day week, in itself, going to help productivity?

In fact, as no doubt they'll expect everybody to be given 5 days pay for 4 days work it’ll almost certainly damage it.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 8th October 18:39