To those that dislike the idea of wanting more
Comments
-
Well, today went well, thats more people employed and happy to be working.
Great bunch of guys, and a gal.
Just had a steak dinner and sat in my room with a cup of tea. Lifes good once again.Living MY dream.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:Bottom of page 10...
OK, so like I say, measured over a very short timeframe and with no like-for-like comparisons and even then you'd have to take a whole load of other factors into consideration, such as job stability, average wages in those different companies, etc. So really, that's a bit of a meaningless stat unless it can be backed up by something a bit more substantial.Stevo 666 wrote: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
What sort of evidence are you thinking of? I could point out that Germany is a wealthier country than the UK, despite the fact that 30 million people were living under Soviet rule until a couple of decades ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... y_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Now, this doesn't conclusively prove anything, just as your link didn't, because there are loads of other factors that come into play. So I'll just ask you why you are so opposed to a system which evidently isn't stopping Germany from being one of the world's leading industrial nations? Is it because you can't stand the thought of uppity workers getting ideas above their station? Or are you just opposed to any change as a matter of principle?
Look at our country compared to Germany, FFS. We are poorer than them, we are far more heavily indebted than them, we pay far more to buy our crappy little houses than they do for their nice ones. Why? Well, maybe their industrial model is a large part of that. That would need further investigation and to be honest, I'm not going to carry out an academic study on the German economy just to post on this forum, but trying out a system, seeing if we can get it to work out over here... is that really a bad idea? Just giving something new a go? Or shall we keep banging our heads against a wall and hoping that eventually our problems will go away?0 -
Your jokes have really fallen flat this evening...Stevo 666 wrote:
So you're a valued tool rather than a profit generating tool?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. How exactly do they value you?0 -
A bit like your arguments then.nathancom wrote:
Your jokes have really fallen flat this evening...Stevo 666 wrote:
So you're a valued tool rather than a profit generating tool?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. How exactly do they value you?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Not really worth arguing with Tories, they are only in it for themselves.Stevo 666 wrote:
A bit like your arguments then.nathancom wrote:
Your jokes have really fallen flat this evening...Stevo 666 wrote:
So you're a valued tool rather than a profit generating tool?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. How exactly do they value you?0 -
Well sidestepped Finchy. The comparison is not UK vs Germany (although the situation in Germany is not as rosy as you'd like to paint). I showed you how companies with no worker reps on the board grew over a period of 4 years 2008, 2009 2010 and 2011 while companies with worker resp on the board shrank. I asked you to provide some counter evidence.
ATFQ
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Correlation does not imply causation...Stevo 666 wrote:Well sidestepped Finchy. The comparison is not UK vs Germany (although the situation in Germany is not as rosy as you'd like to paint). I showed you how companies with no worker reps on the board grew over a period of 4 years 2008, 2009 2010 and 2011 while companies with worker resp on the board shrank. I asked you to provide some counter evidence.
ATFQ0 -
Bollox.nathancom wrote:Not really worth arguing with Tories, they are only in it for themselves.
You got called out by Pross for your prejudices on the 'Gumball' thread. Here you go again."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Your evidence in favour of the argument? :roll:nathancom wrote:
Correlation does not equal causation...Stevo 666 wrote:Well sidestepped Finchy. The comparison is not UK vs Germany (although the situation in Germany is not as rosy as you'd like to paint). I showed you how companies with no worker reps on the board grew over a period of 4 years 2008, 2009 2010 and 2011 while companies with worker resp on the board shrank. I asked you to provide some counter evidence.
ATFQ"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I will take your tack and say "prove it". You claim you have proof board representation doesn't work and that proof is some meaningless correlation.Stevo 666 wrote:
Your evidence in favour of the argument? :roll:nathancom wrote:
Correlation does not equal causation...Stevo 666 wrote:Well sidestepped Finchy. The comparison is not UK vs Germany (although the situation in Germany is not as rosy as you'd like to paint). I showed you how companies with no worker reps on the board grew over a period of 4 years 2008, 2009 2010 and 2011 while companies with worker resp on the board shrank. I asked you to provide some counter evidence.
ATFQ0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:Well sidestepped Finchy.
I'm not sidestepping it. I was pointing out the weakness in your evidence. Can you really argue that 4 years is a suitable timeframe to measure economic performance?Stevo 666 wrote:The comparison is not UK vs Germany (although the situation in Germany is not as rosy as you'd like to paint).
I never said their situation is perfect. I said it's far better than the UK's and we might have something to learn from it.Stevo 666 wrote:I showed you how companies with no worker reps on the board grew over a period of 4 years 2008, 2009 2010 and 2011 while companies with worker resp on the board shrank. I asked you to provide some counter evidence.
ATFQ
And I ask you again, what sort of evidence are you looking for? As I say, it is possible that these companies employed more people while larger ones with worker reps on the board didn't, but that might be because people losing their jobs decide to set up one their own business. Or it might be because the larger ones got hit by cuts in infrastructure spending. Or it might be because the larger companies decided to outsource large amounts of work to smaller ones because the nature of that work suited smaller companies. What you've provided is a stat that is entirely meaningless without context. Unless someone's done a study (in English) of comparisons between the two ways of handling industrial relations in Germany, then there's not a lot that you or I can say on either side.
So, I'll say it again... in my opinion, it would be a good idea to try their way out on a limited basis and see if it works. Can you please tell me what your objection is to that?0 -
The problem is Finchy, we suffer from an endemic narrow mindedness. We are the best in the world at navel gazing.
We could take a leaf out of the French way and the SNCF and TGV, the Swedes for their education system, the Germans for their industrial model, the Japanese for quality, the Americans for PR and Customer Service, the Cubans for their health care (yes, Cuba - more doctors per head of population than any country in the world and they performed 250,000 eye operations 4 years ago across S America for free!) and so on...but we won't.
We are so blinkered and arrogant having pioneered just about everything and subsequently f*cked it all up because "it'll be okay...don't fix it unless it's broke".
We won't hurt our heads banging it against a wall, we'll just muddle through and have a cup of tea. We know how to deliver the mediocre to a world class level.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Unfortunately Pina, I think you're right (except for Sweden, look next door at Finland). There is still hope in some sectors though. Our universities for example still hold their own against anyone in the world, and there are still some very good manufacturers here, but I think that unless we become less insular we're just going to go the way of our football teams. Arrogance, ignorance and a steady decline.0
-
nathancom wrote:
Not really worth arguing with Tories, they are only in it for themselves.Stevo 666 wrote:
A bit like your arguments then.nathancom wrote:
Your jokes have really fallen flat this evening...Stevo 666 wrote:
So you're a valued tool rather than a profit generating tool?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. How exactly do they value you?
I vote torie because I think people should work and benefits for people unwilling to work removed. There are many other reasons but only mentioned those that correlate to this topic and I think that the problem is perception. There are plenty of lazy people who blame wealthy people for having too much money just as the wealthy dislike those unwilling to work. You then have those working but taking no risks also not happy with the wealthy as they see themself as doing the work and the wealthy getting rich off the back of it.
It's a nasty merry go round but you need all parties (other than the professional non workers)
I do think it sad that people like yourself blame company directors of thinking only of themselfs when most will at some time not be able to sleep with worry about staff. Salaries and work.Living MY dream.0 -
It is not so much that I have a problem with company directors, it is that I have a problem with people working for a pittance and being disenfranchised from the benefits their work generates. The ability to change that situation lies more with company directors than the workers since the power, economic and political, lies much more in the hands of the rich than the poor.VTech wrote:nathancom wrote:
Not really worth arguing with Tories, they are only in it for themselves.Stevo 666 wrote:
A bit like your arguments then.nathancom wrote:
Your jokes have really fallen flat this evening...Stevo 666 wrote:
So you're a valued tool rather than a profit generating tool?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. How exactly do they value you?
I vote torie because I think people should work and benefits for people unwilling to work removed. There are many other reasons but only mentioned those that correlate to this topic and I think that the problem is perception. There are plenty of lazy people who blame wealthy people for having too much money just as the wealthy dislike those unwilling to work. You then have those working but taking no risks also not happy with the wealthy as they see themself as doing the work and the wealthy getting rich off the back of it.
It's a nasty merry go round but you need all parties (other than the professional non workers)
I do think it sad that people like yourself blame company directors of thinking only of themselfs when most will at some time not be able to sleep with worry about staff. Salaries and work.
I don't see this government running the country for the benefit of all, I see wealth being unevenly distributed largely to the already wealthy and I and many others would like to see this change. I believe if people want a fairer more egalitarian system in this country we can change it but I see massive obstacles, predominantly those in positions of wealth and privilege who fear a loss of that wealth and privilege, but also those who are naturally conservative (small c) who cautiously hang to the status quo.
I would like to see those who have fallen on hard times not be castigated and stigmatised, not be told that they are lazy and need to get off their backsides. Instead, I would like the state to directly subsidise training in a variety of skills that can get these individuals well paying jobs.
I would also like to see the state once more build and rent affordable housing on a large scale so working people do not see their wages decimated by the growth of private landlords who fail to plough their profits back into new housing. I would like to see the unemployed given free public transport that extends for 6 months into employment so they can actually afford to attend interviews and get themselves back on their feet.
Simply, I want the country to be run for the millions of ordinary people, not the thousands at the top because they already have plenty going for them.0 -
Your 'avin a laugh nathancom.
Skills and training that isn't either ineffectual, ad-hoc or voluntarist? (Manual handling course for example...ha ha)
Putting a rent authority back in place?
Locally, where the Seriously Strong Cheddar (crap) is produced at a company called Lactalis, they have been shedding staff by the truckload then re-employing them through agencies and/or on Zero hours contracts. all the while citing the 'economic conditions'. In a recent statement, Lactalis announced a £3.2 million pound increase in profit from last years profit of £5.2 million.
What a joke.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Really isn't a surprise, they wouldn't be doing their duty to shareholders if they didn't take every opportunity to increase profits though...still no doubt they probably genuinely believe they are providing great jobs for the locals.pinarello001 wrote:Your 'avin a laugh nathancom.
Skills and training that isn't either ineffectual, ad-hoc or voluntarist? (Manual handling course for example...ha ha)
Putting a rent authority back in place?
Locally, where the Seriously Strong Cheddar (crap) is produced at a company called Lactalis, they have been shedding staff by the truckload then re-employing them through agencies and/or on Zero hours contracts. all the while citing the 'economic conditions'. In a recent statement, Lactalis announced a £3.2 million pound increase in profit from last years profit of £5.2 million.
What a joke.
The best was when some Tory minister came on and said people like zero hour contracts because they enjoy the flexibility they provide; They should be grateful they have a job anyway that covers their rent, clothing, food, travel and little else. They need a bit of struggle in their lives, builds character don't you know.
And rent authority, it was ridiculous that people had affordable housing and then money was ploughed back into more housing so we didn't have a supply issue that has thankfully boosted the assets of all the poor buy-to-let people.0 -
@nathancom - I actually agree with almost all of your post (around 3 above ) and don't think you would have had much fire towards you if you posted that earlier.
I also think affordable housing and the systematic sale of these properties is a sin. This has driven up rentals as less lower value renting property are removed from the scene.
On the other hand, it's well known that everything I have ever had directly resulted in the purchase of a council house so I have a lot to be personally thankful for.Living MY dream.0 -
I can't say I really mind having fire towards me, it is the nature of internet forums and a good way to hone your ideas.VTech wrote:@nathancom - I actually agree with almost all of your post (around 3 above ) and don't think you would have had much fire towards you if you posted that earlier.
I also think affordable housing and the systematic sale of these properties is a sin. This has driven up rentals as less lower value renting property are removed from the scene.
On the other hand, it's well known that everything I have ever had directly resulted in the purchase of a council house so I have a lot to be personally thankful for.
Anyway, considering you have said the exact opposite to everything I said in that post during the course of this thread you are either 1) flip flopping more than pancakes on shrove Tuesday or 2) a convert to left wing ideals.0 -
nathancom wrote:
I can't say I really mind having fire towards me, it is the nature of internet forums and a good way to hone your ideas.VTech wrote:@nathancom - I actually agree with almost all of your post (around 3 above ) and don't think you would have had much fire towards you if you posted that earlier.
I also think affordable housing and the systematic sale of these properties is a sin. This has driven up rentals as less lower value renting property are removed from the scene.
On the other hand, it's well known that everything I have ever had directly resulted in the purchase of a council house so I have a lot to be personally thankful for.
Anyway, considering you have said the exact opposite to everything I said in that post during the course of this thread you are either 1) flip flopping more than pancakes on shrove Tuesday or 2) a convert to left wing ideals.
No, I'm being straight down the line.
You again, are being yourself and flipping that sh)t to make it look like a lie but as has been seen in this and recent posts, people are noticing now and your game is unravelling.
You see, I do think it a shame that people struggle, I don't think it fair and dislike it.
However, that is the way the world is and people do need to struggle in order to force them to do jobs others see as beneath them, kind of like the way Cuba runs etc.
You also make posts that money is everything to me and that I have made this to be the case, it isn't. Money pays for toys, I like toys but that isn't really important, whats important is that I get up with the urge to work and make something of the day.
OK, on the flip side that may not be important to others but to be totally honest, its how I feel that is important to me, how I can live my life. I don't really care about money, its the fight to do more that feeds my urge.Living MY dream.0 -
Sorry Finchy, my soul was sold some time ago for a healthy tax free profitjohnfinch wrote:nathancom wrote:you are either 1) flip flopping more than pancakes on shrove Tuesday or 2) a convert to left wing ideals.
Yeah! We've saved his soul
Now we just need to work on Benito and Ballysmate and Bottom Bracket will be a good place to start a revolution. Watch 'The Portrait of Dorian Gray ' and you'll get the general drift.
Now back to the bickering..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Any evidence would be a good startjohnfinch wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:I showed you how companies with no worker reps on the board grew over a period of 4 years 2008, 2009 2010 and 2011 while companies with worker resp on the board shrank. I asked you to provide some counter evidence.
ATFQ
And I ask you again, what sort of evidence are you looking for? As I say, it is possible that these companies employed more people while larger ones with worker reps on the board didn't, but that might be because people losing their jobs decide to set up one their own business. Or it might be because the larger ones got hit by cuts in infrastructure spending. Or it might be because the larger companies decided to outsource large amounts of work to smaller ones because the nature of that work suited smaller companies. What you've provided is a stat that is entirely meaningless without context. Unless someone's done a study (in English) of comparisons between the two ways of handling industrial relations in Germany, then there's not a lot that you or I can say on either side.
So, I'll say it again... in my opinion, it would be a good idea to try their way out on a limited basis and see if it works. Can you please tell me what your objection is to that? since you're the one proposing it I'd hope you'd have some basis for a major change in UK corporate governance.
To your last point. There's nothing to stop companies trying it if they want to - what I object to is yet another piece of legislation mandating something that may be inappropriate for many businesses. Companies are pragmatic - if they think it will give them a commerical edge or increase profits they will give it a go.
What I see every day is yet more flippin legislation and people like you or interfering government ministers saying 'just a little more bit here or there' - which all puts up the prices of the products and services we sell. (If tax wasn't so onerous and complex they wouldn't need people like me )
Like I said before, there are way of doing this without either mandating it law and/or forcing the involvement to be on a formal/board level. The Group I work in has several ways to achieve this, by employee forums with elected reps to deal with issues impacting our wellbeing/socical/H&S/benefits/etc etc. We also have forums for employees to put in ideas or comment son known issues/opprtunities etc in the business. Both generate real projects that make changes. There are others but I won't bore you.
However, part of your point is based on the assumption that the directors sit there in ivory towers issuing arbitrary edicts to the minions. In the business I am in that is definitely not the case - they are out there in the market, selling, bulding relationships and getting involved in the detail. Ditto internally where I have contact with the Group CFO several times a day on averge - face to face as well as emails etc. There are a lot of businesses like that - because it works.
So I am not averse to the principle - but it should be up to the company management and/or shareholders whether and how to do this.
Do you reckon I should lease my soul back now?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
However, part of your point is based on the assumption that the directors sit there in ivory towers issuing arbitrary edicts to the minions. In business that is definitely not the case - they are out there in the market, selling, bulding relationships and getting involved in the detail.
FTFY
I sat on the board of a German company for a while, we benefited from the Unions being represented, unlike here they saw the reality of the situation rather than some class war view of workers and bosses.0 -
Who would want to be forward facing with staff these days anyone.
I no longer interview because I can't stand the first 3 questions people seem to always ask.
1) how many days holiday
2) salary
3) bonuses
All based on them getting more, more than a job which is why they are sat in front of me.Living MY dream.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:Any evidence would be a good start since you're the one proposing it I'd hope you'd have some basis for a major change in UK corporate governance.
Unless someone has done a proper study which is available in English (as I don't speak German), then there isn't really much I can point to. However, like I say, it has done nothing at all to stop many, many German companies become world leaders, while German workers enjoy higher incomes and lower income inequality than us Brits.Stevo 666 wrote:To your last point. There's nothing to stop companies trying it if they want to - what I object to is yet another piece of legislation mandating something that may be inappropriate for many businesses. Companies are pragmatic - if they think it will give them a commerical edge or increase profits they will give it a go.
It's not just about increasing profits, it's also about looking after workers.Stevo 666 wrote:What I see every day is yet more flippin legislation and people like you or interfering government ministers saying 'just a little more bit here or there' - which all puts up the prices of the products and services we sell. (If tax wasn't so onerous and complex they wouldn't need people like me )
If we didn't have an adversarial worker-employer relationship, we could get by with less legislation, and probably less bureaucracy.Stevo 666 wrote:Like I said before, there are way of doing this without either mandating it law and/or forcing the involvement to be on a formal/board level. The Group I work in has several ways to achieve this, by employee forums with elected reps to deal with issues impacting our wellbeing/socical/H&S/benefits/etc etc. We also have forums for employees to put in ideas or comment son known issues/opprtunities etc in the business. Both generate real projects that make changes. There are others but I won't bore you.
OK, that's fine, but the UK doesn't do this on such a wide scale.Stevo 666 wrote:However, part of your point is based on the assumption that the directors sit there in ivory towers issuing arbitrary edicts to the minions. In the business I am in that is definitely not the case - they are out there in the market, selling, bulding relationships and getting involved in the detail. Ditto internally where I have contact with the Group CFO several times a day on averge - face to face as well as emails etc. There are a lot of businesses like that - because it works.
Unfortunately, while that can be the case, in many cases it isn't. Look, this country needs saving. At the moment, we're totally up shite creek. We've got 500% debt-to-GDP ratio, exports are falling, etc. Let's copy countries that do better than us.Stevo 666 wrote:So I am not averse to the principle - but it should be up to the company management and/or shareholders whether and how to do this.
As I have said above, we need to take drastic measures. We can't just sit back and say "let's leave this to employers, they know best".Stevo 666 wrote:Do you reckon I should lease my soul back now?
I thought you'd sold it? Too late for that now.0 -
That's a unfettered capitalist culture for you. You reap what you sow.VTech wrote:Who would want to be forward facing with staff these days anyone.
I no longer interview because I can't stand the first 3 questions people seem to always ask.
1) how many days holiday
2) salary
3) bonuses
All based on them getting more, more than a job which is why they are sat in front of me.0 -
VTech wrote:Who would want to be forward facing with staff these days anyone.
I no longer interview because I can't stand the first 3 questions people seem to always ask.
1) how many days holiday
2) salary
3) bonuses
All based on them getting more, more than a job which is why they are sat in front of me.
Why don't you just tell them how much they'll be getting in the job advert? People do need to know whether or not they can feed their family on the salary you are offering.0
This discussion has been closed.
