Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Britains 'Shares for rights' scheme

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    sabaku_no_gaara's Avatar Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    9,274

    Default Britains 'Shares for rights' scheme

    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



    Businesses will be allowed to remove "gold-plated employment rights" in exchange for handing out shares to employees which will be exempt from tax, George Osborne has said.

    In his Tory conference speech on Monday, the chancellor unveiled a £100m "employee-owner" scheme that will allow shares worth £2,000 to £50,000 to be exempt from tax if employees give up certain work rights, such as the right to claim unfair dismissal. He said the measure was aimed at the tens of thousands of small and medium-sized firms.

    The chancellor's plan would allow businesses hiring staff to insist they forfeit employment rights in two broad areas in exchange for the shares, which would be exempt from capital-gains tax. Existing employees would have the right to refuse.

    Employees would:

    • Give up their rights under UK law on unfair dismissal, redundancy and the right to request flexible working and time off for training.

    • Women would have to give twice as much notice of the date when they want to return from maternity leave. Women currently have to give eight weeks, but this would increase to 16.

    During his speech, Osborne also confirmed he would seek an additional £10bn of welfare cuts from 2015-16, and that 80% of the deficit reduction would be borne by spending cuts rather than tax rises.

    The last budget had outlined detailed plans for £6bn of welfare cuts in 2015-16 and £10bn the year after but Osborne would like to go faster.

    Tory sources said senior Liberal Democrats had agreed these broad numbers, but none of the detail of how they would be achieved.

    These announcements were coupled in Osborne's speech with a promise to stick to his plans to cut the deficit. He said he would not repeat the mistake of Edward Heath in 1972, who "two years into office was faced with economic problems and over powerful unions buckled and gave up".

    He signalled that some of the cuts would come from freezing benefits. He said: "How can we justify the incomes of those out of work rising faster than the incomes of those in work?"

    "Where is the fairness, we ask, for the shift worker leaving home in the dark hours of early morning, who looks up at the closed blinds of their next door neighbour sleeping off a life on benefits".

    The chancellor also indicated he would cut child-tax credit for larger families and maintain the current housing benefit budget by withdrawing benefits to those aged 25 and under. He defended his strategy and claimed the economy "is healing", but "we will finish the job we have started".

    Osborne said taxes for the most well-off would be increased over the next few years, but he ruled out a mansion tax or temporary wealth tax. "Even Denis Healey thought this was a bad idea," he added.

    He said he would not introduce a tax on homes because "it would be sold as a mansion tax, but once the tax inspector had his foot in the door you'd soon find most homes in the country labelled a mansion. It's not a mansion tax, it's a homes tax, and this party of home ownership will have no truck with it." He promised to look for more income from tougher tax evasion.

    He added: "Just as we should never balance the budget on the backs of the poor, so it is an economic delusion to think you can balance it only on the wallets of the rich."

    Discussing the coming spending review, Osborne said: "Our published plans require us to find £16bn of further savings and ... the broadest shoulders will continue to bear the greatest burden."

    More broadly, the chancellor admitted his forecasts had been blown off course. "The truth is, the damage done by the debts and the banking crisis was worse than we feared. The rise in world oil prices has been larger than anyone forecast. And sadly the predictions that you made, I made, that almost everyone has made, about the euro turned out to be true".

    He attacked critics such as Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, saying: "Our critics gamble everything: our credibility, our financial stability, our low interest rates, the cost of our debt – they would risk everything on the dubious idea that a few billion more of spending would dramatically improve the fortunes of a trillion and a half-pound British economy."

    He said he wanted the Conservatives to be a one-nation party that speaks for the corner-shop owner, the teacher, the commuter and pensioner. "They are all part of one nation – one nation working together to get on."

    Osborne also made a surprise announcement that he would be consulting on generous tax breaks for the shale gas industry, a move designed to mirror tax deals being offered in the US.

    It was not clear how much the energy department knew about the proposal, but Ed Davey, the energy secretary, told a gas conference in London on Monday that he hoped to lift a suspension on shale gas exploration that had been imposed last year amid concerns over the technology used to exploit it.

    "I hope it will prove possible for me to give a green light to shale," Davey said.
    So basicly Brittons would give up certain rights like protection from being fired (If I understand correctly) and in exchange for this, they will receive a significant amount of stocks in the company?

    On one hand in theory it sounds good, if an employy has tax free shares in the company he'll want the company to do well because of dividends or the value of his shares (wich he could sell for instance on the stock market) but what if the shares drop dramaticly because the company is doing poorly and then the workers get layd off without any form of compensation because they gave up their rights? Then they'll get stuck with no job and a stack of worthless shares no?

    Can someone clarify please?

    EDIT: forgot to mention my source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...-rights-scheme

  2. #2

    Default Re: Brittains 'Shares for rights' scheme

    "How can we justify the incomes of those out of work rising faster than the incomes of those in work?"
    "Where is the fairness, we ask, for the shift worker leaving home in the dark hours of early morning, who looks up at the closed blinds of their next door neighbour sleeping off a life on benefits".


    Well said.
    "Its a GUNDAM!"
    "Nope. This is Polish Winged Cavalry."

  3. #3
    Senator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,234

    Default Re: Brittains 'Shares for rights' scheme

    There aren't two 't's in Britain, British, Britons, or whatever it is you're trying to say.

    Osborne is an idiot with no sense of economics or civil rights. Why a man who studied geography and ancient history is in charge of an economy I will never know.

    Oh wait, no, I do know. Because he's a private school knob like the Prime Minister.

  4. #4
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,003

    Default Re: Brittains 'Shares for rights' scheme

    Damn the British are lucky. They actually get protection from being fired?

  5. #5

    Default Re: Brittains 'Shares for rights' scheme

    Most Western countries have. So you cant easily fire incompetent or lazy worker.
    That is why workers from East are so popular. They work harder are paid less and can be easily fired.
    "Its a GUNDAM!"
    "Nope. This is Polish Winged Cavalry."

  6. #6
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,003

    Default Re: Brittains 'Shares for rights' scheme

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarissofoi View Post
    Most Western countries have. So you cant easily fire incompetent or lazy worker.
    That is why workers from East are so popular. They work harder are paid less and can be easily fired.
    I live in a right to work state. Meaning they can fire me for whatever reason they want, when they want, as long as it isn't discrimination.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Brittains 'Shares for rights' scheme

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    I live in a right to work state. Meaning they can fire me for whatever reason they want, when they want, as long as it isn't discrimination.

    What is unfair dismissal

    There are several ways your dismissal could be unfair:

    • your employer does not have a fair reason for dismissing you (eg if there was nothing wrong with your job performance)
    • your employer did not follow the correct process when dismissing you (eg if the have not followed their company dismissal processes)
    • you were dismissed for an automatically unfair reason (eg because you wanted to take maternity leave)

    http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employme...al/DG_10026692
    This plan is retarded, most of the hallowed Small and Medium businesses aren't PLCs in the first place so don't HAVE shares, and the real kicker it is not, as he implied in interviews 'voluntary' it is made clear in the OP that it is mandatory, you have to accept this plan, one designed to turn employees back into what the Tories try to make them every time they have power: indentured servants.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Brittains 'Shares for rights' scheme

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarissofoi View Post
    Most Western countries have. So you cant easily fire incompetent or lazy worker.
    That is why workers from East are so popular. They work harder are paid less and can be easily fired.
    You can readily fire someone in the UK as long as the requisite procedure is followed and the reason is covered in the terms and conditions of employment or on grounds of redundancy.


    2 observations

    The UK is subject to EU equality directives, so I can't see how these specific rights can be given away, short of resiling from the relevant EU directives.

    A person without rights in a struggling company would be the first to go in a redundancy situation, and they will find their company worthless.
    Last edited by mongrel; October 09, 2012 at 06:10 PM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  9. #9
    Anna_Gein's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    3,666

    Default Re: Britains 'Shares for rights' scheme

    That is what protection from being fired are meant to. Not to assure every lazy and incompetent person will keep their work as it won't.

  10. #10
    Father Jack's Avatar expletive intended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ratae Corieltauvorum
    Posts
    5,208

    Default Re: Britains 'Shares for rights' scheme

    Sounds like a scheme John Lewis and Waitrose have had for employees for decades
    Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo.

  11. #11
    Azog 150's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    10,112

    Default Re: Britains 'Shares for rights' scheme

    Quote Originally Posted by Father Jack View Post
    Sounds like a scheme John Lewis and Waitrose have had for employees for decades

    Except workers in these places still retain their rights.

    Workers having shares in their company is a fantastic idea and it should be employed right across the board. Waitrose and John Lewis are great examples. We could even take it further and establish fully fledged co-operatives. This is how capitalism should be done. But shares at the expense of workers rights.....
    Under the Patronage of Jom!

  12. #12
    Irishman's Avatar Let me out of my mind
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,850

    Default Re: Britains 'Shares for rights' scheme

    The British sure are fond of giving up rights. Double jeopardy, worker protection... I didn't know basic rights were commodities to be traded.
    The flow of time is always cruel... its speed seems different for each person, but no one can change it... A thing that does not change with time is a memory of younger days...

    Under the perspicacious and benevolent patronage of the great and honorable Rez and a member of S.I.N


    He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.

  13. #13
    Civitate
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    13,565

    Default Re: Britains 'Shares for rights' scheme

    Quote Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
    The British sure are fond of giving up rights. Double jeopardy, worker protection... I didn't know basic rights were commodities to be traded.
    No, this is only a proposal from one Tory at the Tory conference. This does not represent the views of the vast majority of Britons.
    Under the patronage of Rhah and brother of eventhorizen.

  14. #14
    Father Jack's Avatar expletive intended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ratae Corieltauvorum
    Posts
    5,208

    Default Re: Britains 'Shares for rights' scheme

    And double jeopardy is only ever wavered if significant fresh new evidence emerges, usually only ever in murder trials. Which I am supportive of.
    Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo.

  15. #15
    Irishman's Avatar Let me out of my mind
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,850

    Default Re: Britains 'Shares for rights' scheme

    And double jeopardy is only ever wavered if significant fresh new evidence emerges, usually only ever in murder trials. Which I am supportive of.
    Just adds more subjectivity to the legal process if you ask me. And promotes even longer trial periods which already stretch over years (while the accused is often imprisoned whether or not they are guilty).

    No, this is only a proposal from one Tory at the Tory conference. This does not represent the views of the vast majority of Britons.
    I know, excuse the hyperbole. Its just the idea of trading rights for money (or anything for that matter) is ridiculous to me.
    The flow of time is always cruel... its speed seems different for each person, but no one can change it... A thing that does not change with time is a memory of younger days...

    Under the perspicacious and benevolent patronage of the great and honorable Rez and a member of S.I.N


    He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Britains 'Shares for rights' scheme

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    I live in a right to work state. Meaning they can fire me for whatever reason they want, when they want, as long as it isn't discrimination.
    it's the same in the UK. If you're incompetent you get fired. You can't be fired when your employer finds out you are gay or French or whatever.

    The trouble is in enforcing this, and I'm betting the same problems exist where you're from. No employer who fires a worker based on unjustified prejudice is going to admit their motives. They'll just say they need to lay off workers, or that particular worker wasn't very good. To prevent this there is a lot of red tape. Employer's word isn't good enough, they must have written records showing that they plan to shrink their workforce, or that a particular employee was incompetent, or whatever, essentially they must prove they aren't simply bigots. They must give them a couple of weeks notice. That bureaucracy costs employers money, time and efficiency. But if they don't do it, employees will smell compensation sue

    In sectors like mechanical engineering it's fairly common for employees to ignore their own dismissal protection rights because labour forces there are so fluid. A major contract being awarded may mean one company loses 3,000 jobs and another gains 3,500. The situation may reverse itself again in as little as 6 months.

  17. #17
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,003

    Default Re: Britains 'Shares for rights' scheme

    Quote Originally Posted by irelandeb View Post
    it's the same in the UK. If you're incompetent you get fired. You can't be fired when your employer finds out you are gay or French or whatever.
    Oh they can fire me if i was gay or whatever. They'd just use a separate reasoning for it. Like me having a bad worth ethic.

    Quote Originally Posted by irelandeb View Post
    The trouble is in enforcing this, and I'm betting the same problems exist where you're from. No employer who fires a worker based on unjustified prejudice is going to admit their motives.
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by irelandeb View Post
    They'll just say they need to lay off workers, or that particular worker wasn't very good. To prevent this there is a lot of red tape. Employer's word isn't good enough, they must have written records showing that they plan to shrink their workforce, or that a particular employee was incompetent, or whatever, essentially they must prove they aren't simply bigots. They must give them a couple of weeks notice. That bureaucracy costs employers money, time and efficiency. But if they don't do it, employees will smell compensation sue
    ]
    And one thing businesses don't want more of, or states for that matter, is bureaucracy.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Britains 'Shares for rights' scheme

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post

    ]
    And one thing businesses don't want more of, or states for that matter, is bureaucracy.

    this move will destroy confidence and trust, how can I (a hypothetical me who has spare cash) spend my money if I can't be confident I will have a job tomorrow, and how can I trust my employer when he can fire me at will for no reason? Save all you can for when you get the rug ripped out from under you, don't spend anything you don't have to...and viola yet another dip back into a shrinking economy.

  19. #19
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,003

    Default Re: Britains 'Shares for rights' scheme

    Quote Originally Posted by justicar5 View Post
    this move will destroy confidence and trust, how can I (a hypothetical me who has spare cash) spend my money if I can't be confident I will have a job tomorrow, and how can I trust my employer when he can fire me at will for no reason?
    Don't piss him off? My state has had this for a long while now. I am not afraid of loosing my job. As long as i don't mess up, i should be fine. I think you may be exaggerating on how employers act.

  20. #20
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Shambhala
    Posts
    13,082

    Default Re: Britains 'Shares for rights' scheme

    People that work have that bit extra cash to buy nice things and luxury items.That is why I work.
    People on the dole have shabby clothes and shop at cheap stores full of bad quality food.
    Working also gives you pride and self respect.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •