To those that dislike the idea of wanting more

finchy

VTech wrote:

Rover workers were very highly paid. That was never in question.
It doesn't matter about what you think about the cars, they did sell enough to justify around 4000 employees. Problem was they have 9400 !!!!

Have you read that article I've posted yet?

VTech wrote:

Anyway, I've explained simply what the biggest accountancy firm in the world confirmed so maybe they were wrong ?

But VTech, I don't know if your post is in response to mine, but the point I was making is that you don't have to be in a race to the bottom to compete in the modern world. If you invest in R&D, decent education, etc. then you can succeed. If you just indulge in short-termist cost cutting, it'll come back to bite you eventually.

pinno

VTech wrote:

pliptrot wrote:

This post certainly proves that opinions are not for changing. Every argument in this thread against increasing wages for the least well off is verbatim from those arguments against the minimum wage; all of which have been discredited. And it seems everyone who is materially successful considers those who are not as an undeserving tribe. To be successful and self-righteous is not very appealing.

Quite agree.

We're all very impressed with money, especially those who have less, right?

You just can't have everything. Sometimes people need to suffer and I'm not saying it's fair. It's just the way it is.

It's stupidity to think we can afford to bankroll everyone.

Two statements that sums the attitude of the successful. "just the way it is".

Who is bankrolling who?

Without staff, you can't have business, they are mutually dependent.

If you want to talk about the car industry lets go for it. I did my dissertation on an aspect of BMW's acquisition of the Rover group.
For too long, those captains of industry in Britain have been at odds with the workforce. The workforce has become subordinated and disenfranchised. In parallel, Unions became militant. The rot in industry set in back in the 1920's. A good example is the ship building industry where the Germans and the Japanese were seam welding ships whilst we carried on pot riveting right until the late 40's. Pot riveters didn't want to be unemployed and had strikes whilst management failed to dovetail new building techniques, deploy different work practices, actively train employees to new skills and that change was likely to increase production/labour etc.

Have a look at Volvo for internal promotion/recruitment policy or Porsche who take on more people pro-rata to unit production more than any other car manufacturer. They build flexibility into the workforce rather than being over reliant on machinery with it's continual and inevitable obsolescence.
Nissan Sunderland has been very successful despite being based in the UK employing local people. Why? because of a completely different management style.
When I visited Longbridge, I have never experienced such a depressing industrial environment having been to the Peugeot, Cotroen, Ford (Dagenham) factories.
We have yet to close that gap between the decision makers and the workers. The composition of German company boards is such that there is vested interest in decision making from shop floor to accounts to the local community.

87% of executive positions are occupied by people who have had private educations. That's telling.

slowmart

nathancom wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Anyway it is a good day, Maria Miller is finished.

On that point we can agree

Pross

pinarello001 wrote:

87% of executive positions are occupied by people who have had private educations. That's telling.

Yep, but telling that it's jobs for the boys or telling that state education is shite

VTech

If your selling goods at £1000 and it's costing you £1200 to make your going to end up in trouble.
Rover cars were ok. They for the bill and people knew what they were buying. They simply couldn't support such a huge workforce.

finchy

Pross wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

87% of executive positions are occupied by people who have had private educations. That's telling.

Yep, but telling that it's jobs for the boys or telling that state education is shite

Jobs for the boys. The % of graduates from top universities who have had a state education is far higher than 13%, so what happens between them leaving university and (not) getting to the top?

nathancom

Pross wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

87% of executive positions are occupied by people who have had private educations. That's telling.

Yep, but telling that it's jobs for the boys or telling that state education is shite

Ban private schools and state education would improve overnight.

finchy

VTech wrote:

If your selling goods at £1000 and it's costing you £1200 to make your going to end up in trouble.
Rover cars were ok. They for the bill and people knew what they were buying. They simply couldn't support such a huge workforce.

Is that a reply for me? If so, you are missing out all the points I have made in this thread. I know that you can't sell goods at a loss. Me not stoopid. What I have been getting at is how companies can pay their workers decent wages AND remain competitive internationally IF they (and the government) invest properly.

nathancom

johnfinch wrote:

VTech wrote:

If your selling goods at £1000 and it's costing you £1200 to make your going to end up in trouble.
Rover cars were ok. They for the bill and people knew what they were buying. They simply couldn't support such a huge workforce.

Is that a reply for me? If so, you are missing out all the points I have made in this thread. I know that you can't sell goods at a loss. Me not stoopid. What I have been getting at is how companies can pay their workers decent wages AND remain competitive internationally IF they (and the government) invest properly.

That would make sense if the country was run in the interest of the people. Clearly there are different imperatives.

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

[We have yet to close that gap between the decision makers and the workers. The composition of German company boards is such that there is vested interest in decision making from shop floor to accounts to the local community.

Trouble is, that only happens where there are more than 500 employees in a German company. And unsurprisingly, a recent report on German economic growth shows that a large part of German growth is coming from small and medium-sized companies (defined as those with less than 500 employees), whereas larger companies are cutting back overall.
https://www.bmwi.de/English/Redaktion/Pdf/factbook-german-mittelstand,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi2012,sprache=en,rwb=true.pdf
Seems to be a connection there between worker representation and lack of growth

The German model is pretty unique for a reason. I mean, why the hell would you want to put put people in a position of managing the company (or having a major influence on the management of the company) who don't know how to manage?

nathancom

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

[We have yet to close that gap between the decision makers and the workers. The composition of German company boards is such that there is vested interest in decision making from shop floor to accounts to the local community.

Trouble is, that only happens where there are more than 500 employees in a German company. And unsurprisingly, a recent report on German economic growth shows that a large part of German growth is coming from small and medium-sized companies (defined as those with less than 500 employees), whereas larger companies are cutting back overall.
https://www.bmwi.de/English/Redaktion/Pdf/factbook-german-mittelstand,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi2012,sprache=en,rwb=true.pdf
Seems to be a connection there between worker representation and lack of growth

The German model is pretty unique for a reason. I mean, why the hell would you want to put put people in a position of managing the company (or having a major influence on the management of the company) who don't know how to manage?

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

The German model is pretty unique for a reason. I mean, why the hell would you want to put put people in a position of managing the company (or having a major influence on the management of the company) who don't know how to manage?

Because the workforce might have some good ideas about the likely effects of any proposed changes? Because the workers are the ones who are in direct contact with customers? The worst employers I've ever worked for have always been the ones who took the attitude that their workers had nothing of real value to contribute.

nathancom

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The German model is pretty unique for a reason. I mean, why the hell would you want to put put people in a position of managing the company (or having a major influence on the management of the company) who don't know how to manage?

Because the workforce might have some good ideas about the likely effects of any proposed changes? Because the workers are the ones who are in direct contact with customers? The worst employers I've ever worked for have always been the ones who took the attitude that their workers had nothing of real value to contribute.

I am working at the best company I have ever seen, wages are top rate, there is very good biannual bonus for all employees and a share investment plan. The company makes every effort to provide for the comfort and well-being of their employees. It is also one of the most open, driven, non-hierarchical and successful places I have ever seen, since employees have been treated as an asset to be valued and as partners in the success of the firm not just as a tool to generate profits. It is not a perfect model but it is not far from it.

VTech

johnfinch wrote:

VTech wrote:

If your selling goods at £1000 and it's costing you £1200 to make your going to end up in trouble.
Rover cars were ok. They for the bill and people knew what they were buying. They simply couldn't support such a huge workforce.

Is that a reply for me? If so, you are missing out all the points I have made in this thread. I know that you can't sell goods at a loss. Me not stoopid. What I have been getting at is how companies can pay their workers decent wages AND remain competitive internationally IF they (and the government) invest properly.

It wasn't directly at you.
To be honest, the staff at rover were manipulated and I think that was made easier simply because they were not from a private background.

ballysmate

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The German model is pretty unique for a reason. I mean, why the hell would you want to put put people in a position of managing the company (or having a major influence on the management of the company) who don't know how to manage?

Because the workforce might have some good ideas about the likely effects of any proposed changes? Because the workers are the ones who are in direct contact with customers? The worst employers I've ever worked for have always been the ones who took the attitude that their workers had nothing of real value to contribute.

Could it be the unthinkable, and you didn't?

finchy

Ballysmate wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The German model is pretty unique for a reason. I mean, why the hell would you want to put put people in a position of managing the company (or having a major influence on the management of the company) who don't know how to manage?

Because the workforce might have some good ideas about the likely effects of any proposed changes? Because the workers are the ones who are in direct contact with customers? The worst employers I've ever worked for have always been the ones who took the attitude that their workers had nothing of real value to contribute.

Could it be the unthinkable, and you didn't?

Company 1: Managers completely ignored workers when we relayed common customer complaints. The end result was that ALL of the senior managers were sacked due to declining revenues and replaced by better managers. These managers listened to the workers and they turned the company around.

Company 2: General managers ignored the opinions of professionals doing their jobs. The company has recently gone bust. One of their direct rivals, for which I subsequently worked, and which had monthly staff-management meetings and staff representatives is still going very strong.

Company 3: Out of touch owner didn't have a clue how to treat staff and customers. Lost half of its customers and the best staff when a disgruntled worker set up a rival company in the same town.

EDIT: Only one of these companies was British. You get crap management all around the world.

EDIT 2: Come to think of it, all of the managers in these companies were political conservatives. I think I might be on to something here.

ballysmate

johnfinch wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The German model is pretty unique for a reason. I mean, why the hell would you want to put put people in a position of managing the company (or having a major influence on the management of the company) who don't know how to manage?

Because the workforce might have some good ideas about the likely effects of any proposed changes? Because the workers are the ones who are in direct contact with customers? The worst employers I've ever worked for have always been the ones who took the attitude that their workers had nothing of real value to contribute.

Could it be the unthinkable, and you didn't?

Company 1: Managers completely ignored workers when we relayed common customer complaints. The end result was that ALL of the senior managers were sacked due to declining revenues and replaced by better managers. These managers listened to the workers and they turned the company around.

Company 2: General managers ignored the opinions of professionals doing their jobs. The company has recently gone bust. One of their direct rivals, for which I subsequently worked, and which had monthly staff-management meetings and staff representatives is still going very strong.

Company 3: Out of touch owner didn't have a clue how to treat staff and customers. Lost half of its customers and the best staff when a disgruntled worker set up a rival company in the same town.

YOU seem to be the common denominator in these companies.
Are you sure you weren't a jinx?

finchy

Possibly. Every time I went to see Bolton play in the 90s, even when we were slaughtering teams left, right and centre in the '96-97 season, they lost. 98 points, 100 goals in a season and I saw all 4 of their defeats. My cousins used to call me Jonah Finch.

ballysmate

pliptrot wrote:

This post certainly proves that opinions are not for changing. Every argument in this thread against increasing wages for the least well off is verbatim from those arguments against the minimum wage; all of which have been discredited. And it seems everyone who is materially successful considers those who are not as an undeserving tribe. To be successful and self-righteous is not very appealing.

We're all very impressed with money, especially those who have less, right?

I am not mega rich, but can see that increasing wages without increasing productivity is not the way forward. I am all in favour of paying wages that can be reasonably supported, bearing in mind that someone's wage increase is another person's price increase. Higher wages, after all, attract better employees.
What I abhor is the something for nothing culture and sense of entitlement that pervades society.

VTech

Ballysmate wrote:

pliptrot wrote:

This post certainly proves that opinions are not for changing. Every argument in this thread against increasing wages for the least well off is verbatim from those arguments against the minimum wage; all of which have been discredited. And it seems everyone who is materially successful considers those who are not as an undeserving tribe. To be successful and self-righteous is not very appealing.

We're all very impressed with money, especially those who have less, right?

I am not mega rich, but can see that increasing wages without increasing productivity is not the way forward. I am all in favour of paying wages that can be reasonably supported, bearing in mind that someone's wage increase is another person's price increase. Higher wages, after all, attract better employees.
What I abhor is the something for nothing culture and sense of entitlement that pervades society.

And that's the nail on the head.

People are worth about 80% of what they bring in and not a penny more.
I hate exploitation of staff. I see it often as I travel and it's a sin but a company must make money to survive and tht means keeping the books in order.
I actually hate the financial side of business and have almost never been involved in this.
Costs on business for staff is substantial in them UK.

arran77

nathancom wrote:

arran77 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

This is only to say that in general businessmen are not self-made in the way Vtech describes his career and therefore not to be praised as the drivers of the economy. Most are the product of privilege.

Where do you get that little gem from? Evidence please...

And give us your definition of 'businessman' while you're at it.

People who run companies - want to do a survey of the FTSE 500 exec director backgrounds? I am sure they all come from inner city schools.

I know many people who own their own businesses and would consider themselves businessmen but your certainly not going to find any of them on a list of FTSE 500 companies, also for what it's worth they were all state school educated!

Your view is slightly warped in my opinion

Yes, because they are creating, sharing in and passing on to their employees the wealth of the nation. Oh wait, they are not, so you can all argue over the definition of a businessman as long as you want but simply wealth is increasingly being collected by those people who do run FTSE 500 companies. I think it is slightly warped that you try and group those business leaders together with some guy who runs a shop in a high street.

I'm not trying to put them in the same categories, far from it.

You do not have to employ people to be considered a businessman in my opinion, the people I know don't employ others but their achievements are no less significant than those who do employ others.

The point that I'm making is that these are people who are successful through their own hard work and they support themselves and their families as a result of this.

Stevo_666

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The German model is pretty unique for a reason. I mean, why the hell would you want to put put people in a position of managing the company (or having a major influence on the management of the company) who don't know how to manage?

Because the workforce might have some good ideas about the likely effects of any proposed changes? Because the workers are the ones who are in direct contact with customers? The worst employers I've ever worked for have always been the ones who took the attitude that their workers had nothing of real value to contribute.

There are plenty of ways to value employees and get their input that without putting them on the board. My company does that no problem though a variety of other routes. Trouble is with the board rep idea is that in reality, you usually don't get the most useful ones moving into these positions - you get the politically motivated ones - the Bob Crow types.

Look again at the evidence above - I showed you that in companies where there is no obligation for worker reps on the board, companies perform markedly better compared to companies that do have owrker reps on the board. So why do it?

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

Look again at the evidence above - I showed you that in companies where there is no obligation for worker reps on the board, companies perform markedly better compared to companies that do have owrker reps on the board. So why do it?

Which bit of the document are you talking about, when you say that these SMEs perform markedly better? The only comparison I can see from quickly reading through it is that they increased employment, but that was only over a 3 year period, and doesn't analyse how they perform compared with companies from similar sectors. For example, according to that document, most of these companies are in manufacturing. How do they compare to Siemens, VW, etc?

VTech

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Look again at the evidence above - I showed you that in companies where there is no obligation for worker reps on the board, companies perform markedly better compared to companies that do have owrker reps on the board. So why do it?

Which bit of the document are you talking about, when you say that these SMEs perform markedly better? The only comparison I can see from quickly reading through it is that they increased employment, but that was only over a 3 year period, and doesn't analyse how they perform compared with companies from similar sectors. For example, according to that document, most of these companies are in manufacturing. How do they compare to Siemens, VW, etc?

You can't compare siemans and vw though as they are not new business bringing in new jobs. They are established.

I paid more tax than one of the top 3 coffee houses in the UK in 2008. 2009. 2010. 2011 and 2012 !!
How can that be right ?!?

finchy

VTech wrote:

You can't compare siemans and vw though as they are not new business bringing in new jobs. They are established.

Fair point. So really it's very difficult to compare SMEs to large multinational companies - apples and oranges. It's also too short a timescale and doesn't answer questions such as what has happened to these small businesses. Have they survived through until 2014? Were they maybe established by people who have marketable skills who had been laid off by employers?

VTech wrote:

I paid more tax than one of the top 3 coffee houses in the UK in 2008. 2009. 2010. 2011 and 2012 !!
How can that be right ?!?

It's unjustifiable.

pinno

nathancom wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The German model...

Because the workforce...

I am working at the best company I have ever seen, wages are top rate, there is very good biannual bonus for all employees and a share investment plan. The company makes every effort to provide for the comfort and well-being of their employees. It is also one of the most open, driven, non-hierarchical and successful places I have ever seen, since employees have been treated as an asset to be valued and as partners in the success of the firm not just as a tool to generate profits. It is not a perfect model but it is not far from it.

Psst, pass it on - nathancom is a bus driver for Stagecoach.

arran77

pinarello001 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The German model...

Because the workforce...

I am working at the best company I have ever seen, wages are top rate, there is very good biannual bonus for all employees and a share investment plan. The company makes every effort to provide for the comfort and well-being of their employees. It is also one of the most open, driven, non-hierarchical and successful places I have ever seen, since employees have been treated as an asset to be valued and as partners in the success of the firm not just as a tool to generate profits. It is not a perfect model but it is not far from it.

Psst, pass it on - nathancom is a bus driver for Stagecoach.

I reckon he works for John lewis!

Stevo_666

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Look again at the evidence above - I showed you that in companies where there is no obligation for worker reps on the board, companies perform markedly better compared to companies that do have owrker reps on the board. So why do it?

Which bit of the document are you talking about, when you say that these SMEs perform markedly better? The only comparison I can see from quickly reading through it is that they increased employment, but that was only over a 3 year period, and doesn't analyse how they perform compared with companies from similar sectors. For example, according to that document, most of these companies are in manufacturing. How do they compare to Siemens, VW, etc?

Bottom of page 10...

Anyhow, you're the one saying it's such a good idea so let's see your evidence in favour, otherwise it's just more leftiebollox wishful thinking

Stevo_666

nathancom wrote:

[since employees have been treated as an asset to be valued and as partners in the success of the firm not just as a tool to generate profits. It is not a perfect model but it is not far from it.

So you're a valued tool rather than a profit generating tool? How exactly do they value you?

arran77

Stevo 666 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

[since employees have been treated as an asset to be valued and as partners in the success of the firm not just as a tool to generate profits. It is not a perfect model but it is not far from it.

So you're a valued tool rather than a profit generating tool? How exactly do they value you?

By paying him every month