UK’s Labour would cost companies £300bn in workers’ share swipe

[meridian]

Is it in the contract?

Should it even be?

Should a Board member talk to every employee employed?

When I had my first good job 19 years ago in this country I was pretty fooking happy I had it in the first place - I was lucky enough to work with great people and from time to time I even had a conversation with Board members, it was great but at no time I felt I was entitled for it - and why should anybody?

Because that’s the point

A person with capital of £100 worth of shares in a multi-million company earning an annual income of £4.50 is entitled to speak to the board, once at year at the AGM.

A person with an annual income from the company of £30,000, where if they lose that income due to the board’s incompetence they also have their entire capital at risk (house, car, etc) are not entitled to speak to the board.

Should a board member talk to every employee? Perhaps not. Should employees have an advocate at board level? Sure, why not? Why is this any different to having a non-share owning, fee retaining, non-executive Director?

[JohntheBike]

First two paragraphs are golden.

Bring it on.

These blinkered Marxists never cease to amaze me. Most pension schemes, including those of Labour councils, invest in shares of the large companies. So how would those be affected if there were further distributions of shares? So if there were some level of devaluation of those shares as a result of this idea, then clearly their own people will suffer as well as those evil Capitalists that they are trying to punish. Additionally, how long would anyone hold the shares for before being obliged to cash them in as a result of personal circumstances? Many individuals benefited, as I did, from the de-mutualisation of building societies etc. I'd bet that not many still have their entire share allocation. I have some left, but only a small proportion of what I received.

[scooterscot]

These blinkered Marxists never cease to amaze me. Most pension schemes, including those of Labour councils, invest in shares of the large companies. So how would those be affected if there were further distributions of shares?

I'm hoping negatively. The stock market is terribly overbought with fake money.

Investing in shares does not deliver a productive economy. Invest in people, however...

[darmstadt]

What we currently do, promote them out of harms way!

Ah, that explains the current cabinet...

[Zigenare]

Ah, that explains the current cabinet...

[JohntheBike]

I'm hoping negatively. The stock market is terribly overbought with fake money.

Investing in shares does not deliver a productive economy. Invest in people, however...

"I'm hoping negatively"

I would suspect so.

"The stock market is terribly overbought with fake money"

I suppose that's a problem with the Capitalist ideology, issuing shares to a greater value than the value of the company. But then the Bank of England is no different. If we all turned up with our bank notes and required the BoE to give us their value in gold, I guess we'd get a few pence each for our notes.

"Investing in shares does not deliver a productive economy"

Perhaps so, but unfortunately, I guess the fortunes, great or small, of many individuals, are intrinsically linked with the stock market. A third of my retirement income will come directly from stock market investments.

"Invest in people, however"

a laudable ideal, but I guess only in Utopia.

[BrilloPad]

The stock market is terribly overbought with fake money.

Shhhh. We must promote the greater fool theory.....

[AtW]

Because that’s the point

A person with capital of £100 worth of shares in a multi-million company earning an annual income of £4.50 is entitled to speak to the board, once at year at the AGM.

A person with an annual income from the company of £30,000, where if they lose that income due to the board’s incompetence they also have their entire capital at risk (house, car, etc) are not entitled to speak to the board.

Should a board member talk to every employee? Perhaps not. Should employees have an advocate at board level? Sure, why not? Why is this any different to having a non-share owning, fee retaining, non-executive Director?

Owners decide that - if you don’t like their decisions then get a job somewhere else, start your own company even.

[meridian]

Owners decide that - if you don’t like their decisions then get a job somewhere else, start your own company even.

Ah, the totalitarian way of management - your way or the highway. You’d be the first one on here complaining when there’s a general strike, of course, which is the other option you didn’t mention...

Here’s a clue, Alexei - you don’t need to be an owner to be on the board and make decisions that affect the lives and incomes of the employees that are helping you to build the company.

[AtW]

Ah, the totalitarian way of management - your way or the highway. You’d be the first one on here complaining when there’s a general strike, of course, which is the other option you didn’t mention...

Here’s a clue, Alexei - you don’t need to be an owner to be on the board and make decisions that affect the lives and incomes of the employees that are helping you to build the company.

Owners decide who is on the Board in my company and that’s how it’s going to be.

It’s ba enough to be robbed by constantly increasing taxes and crazy overheads like GDPR bulltulip, but if they cross the line of telling me what to do then I will take my business elsewhere.