>All private companies employing more than 250 people would have to set up “ownership funds” giving workers financial stakes in their companies and increasing powers to influence how they are run, under radical plans announced by Labour as it prepares for a possible general election within months
>McDonnell intends to introduce the necessary legislation in his first year as chancellor. He will outline the proposals, which could mean workers receiving dividends to boost their incomes, in a speech to the TUC conference in Manchester on Tuesday.
The Commie Labour party strikes again, cracking down on Taxes isn't good enough, now they will force all private companies (plus 250 employees) to redistribute wealth to the plebs!! All investors should get out of Bongland ASAP!!
>giving workers financial stakes in their companies Didn't this used to take the form of pay rises and benefits for long-term loyalty?
Mason Brooks
First past the post. They haven’t a hope in hell.
Kayden Ortiz
Interesting.
I'm not actually against workers co-operatives as a concept, but I think forcing all companies to become pseudo-co-operatives is a bad idea.
Still not voting Lamebour, Ukip all the way.
Actually, that reminds me, I should register to vote.
Jonathan Myers
>I'm not actually against workers co-operatives as a concept, but I think forcing all companies to become pseudo-co-operatives is a bad idea. This. Encourage, incentivise, but not force.
Eli Wood
There's literally no reason that a company would ever give more than a penny to a worker than they have to. It's why so many contracts now have "and any other duties required" in them, so you can have them do multiple jobs for one wage.
Asher Phillips
All it will do to those companies that are near or just over the borderline of being penalised by this legislation would seek to lower the number of staff.
For example, cutting the number of staff in departments, getting rid of entire departments altogether and outsourcing them such as call center jobs.
Manufacturing would probably move else where and just export good to UK rather than manufacture there.
Super markets would be effected since they are local shops hiring thousands of people. But with online shopping and deliveries, and more automation, self check outs, scan and go, etc. They'll also be looking to decrease. The problem is if employers are given a a seat on the board they'll only vote for the interests of the employees and not the customer. Meaning all these technological advances might be voted against because employers don't wanna shoot themselves in the foot.
Adrian Nguyen
>giving workers financial stakes in their companies and increasing powers to influence how they are run
what's the problem here
Evan Roberts
>would seek to lower the number of staff. All companies want to do this anyway. What they have realised is that people will work far harder and with more variance than they "should" for their wage.
And as for automation, companies are doing this anyway because you'd have to pay a worker 10p an hour for him to be cheaper than a machine.
Reminder that on a literal fucking pirate ship the captain only got 12 shares to the lowest cabin boy's 0.5 share. Average crew, 1 share. If the captain or first mate was shit, the crew voted him out. If he didn't want to go, he was gone.
Break up your company into smaller companies that only have 249 employees. Problem solved?
Nolan Richardson
>What they have realised is that people will work far harder and with more variance than they "should" for their wage.
I doubt this, and just because some social science idiot says so doesn't mean it's true. People only work hard if they have a passion and ambition for the career/trade/job they work in. People in these shitty jobs only care about money.
Jace Long
>I doubt this Then you need to work retail.
>People only work hard if they have a passion and ambition for the career/trade/job they work in No, they work hard to keep the meagre wage they have coming in because they can't live without it. Or they have had the "Work Ethic" meme drummed into their head and as a result do not know how to NOT work hard.
In the shop I work in we have an area manager, but no shop manager. All the "manager" and "control" tasks are done by minimum wage workers. The guy in charge of the payroll is on £7.50 due to his age, and I'm in charge of stocking (the levels, delivery, etc.) and get £7.85.
Stop falling for all the lies the people who pay us like shit tell you.
Oh, and before you say "negotiate a better wage" or "get another job," all retail is like this, and moving into another industry with my (or his, or any of our) skills would be pointless because we have "no experience" in this.
Anthony Cooper
Depends on if Treasonous May is Tory leader or not. I think BoJo will oust her before long, ideally in order to put his stamp on a halfway decent Brexit (and if it fails, just blame May).
Grayson Harris
Isn't this the way it works in Germany? I believe we also have something similar here, where it's law that some members of a company board/committee have to be union or employee representatives.
Justin Turner
I've done retail, call center and warehouse work. I can confirm all three industries are similar to this. Call centers always have managers (about 8-9 of them curiously) but the other two are run by supervisors and others who are struggling themselves. Managers tend to be very hands-off, especially the bigger your company gets. I've worked in warehouses where the only time I met the manager was during induction, and never saw them again over an entire 6 month contract. And your third paragraph in particular brings home the feels. >We will pay you the BARE MINIMUM we can POSSIBLY pay you, and you will be grateful goy!
On a more selfish note, every job I've ever done has been soul-destroying, and as a result I've chosen the NEET life. Never been happier.
Cameron Perez
Sounds like to me you need to sort ye fucking life out desu
Andrew Hall
As if the Tories aren't shitting on this nation too. See their latest plans to force Universities to admit more "disadvantaged minorities".
