clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Although the only reason you're going on paid leave from work in the first place is because of the actions of the trade unions so swings and roundabouts.
Pricks
But prices are going up by that without the pay rises. I accept in certain instances there are supply/demand issues, such as crops. In others there have been increased costs due to things like Brexit.When was the last time VAT was reduced across the board?
It isn't just train drivers, if everybody employed gets 10% pay rises every year then everything is going to go up in price to cover it. Then we need another pay rise to cover that.
Take a Small / Medium business who has to give a 10% pay rise to 20 staff every year. Then there's the increase from suppliers for their staff and materials etc.
So your mates put up their prices to cover their costs.Then fair play to you for getting a decent pay rise every year in it!
I don't need to swallow anything about price spirals, I have seen the impact working for SMEs first hand who don't have greedy shareholders and huge profits to absorb the additional costs in. The same as mates who work in various trades who keep having to put their prices up to cover costs (yep fuel is mostly the government taking their taxes etc) but then it's the everyday person who then has to pay more for an electrician, plumber or carpenter.
Which in many cases, especially in big business, has nothing to do with an inability to absorb the costs but an ideological one to maintain excessive profits. They will always fuck the employees for the benefits of shareholders.It would result in job losses - I mean what experience do you have running an SME
"Businesses have costs to pay and if they go up they should increase prices to cover it to keep going."So what do you do close every business that can’t pay that and everyone is out of work
And if I showed people I know and work with your thoughts on here they'd think you were a short-sighted, selfish arsehole.You know where I work. I showed the guys your advice - they think your an entitled c**t who doesn’t live in the real world but honestly come round and explain why we close the place and throw everyone out of work as we can’t afford an inflation matching pay rise
I’m not joking the offers there
What % pay rise did the employees get?I have on average increased prices up by 15% which includes absorbing the annual pay rise of employees so the profit margin is reduced
And if I showed people I know and work with your thoughts on here they'd think you were a short-sighted, selfish arsehole.
Might go all Marxist here, but isn't the answer worker co-op's?
Then if they decide to give the big pay rise, they get less in dividends. If they don't get a pay rise it's covered by higher dividends. Swings and roundabouts.
Well, clearly not because as I said it's swings and roundabouts. Why take a pay cut to get the money back in dividends? They just won't take any dividends.And if they make losses it’s then illegal to take dividends without pay cuts so they take big pay cuts? Yeah
Well, clearly not because as I said it's swings and roundabouts. Why take a pay cut to get the money back in dividends? They just won't take any dividends.
The board of directors and executives, as at every company. Who are chosen by the shareholders, Who in that case would be the employees. So if they try and fuck the employees over by giving low pay rises and/or poor dividends but increase their own wages by a huge amount, those same employees can vote them out. On the other hand if the company does well and they get decent wages and dividends they'll keep them on and be more likely to accept them giving themselves big wages.So a worker co-op and who makes the decision on pay dividends and overall strategy? Draw straws to see who does it?
The board of directors and executives, as at every company. Who are chosen by the shareholders, Who in that case would be the employees. So if they try and fuck the employees over by giving low pay rises and/or poor dividends but increase their own wages by a huge amount, those same employees can vote them out. On the other hand if the company does well and they get decent wages and dividends they'll keep them on and be more likely to accept them giving themselves big wages.
Meanwhile the employees have a vested interest in doing a good job because the financial performance of the company improves and so will their own financial remuneration. It's effectively a PRP scheme, which I'd have thought you'd have been behind as it encourages people to work harder to achieve results rather than just coasting along.
For someone who seems to think that people are motivated by money, you also seem to be very keen on ensuring said people recieve as little of it as possible.
Shareholders can pretty much do fuck all except own a piece of paper. They have the option to vote for the directors and stuff, but aren't obliged to and many don't bother. It's a shit method of distributing money from a company, and only exists because of the self-interest of those who originally set up the idea in the first place because it minimised their effort and responsibility but maximised their own financial returns. It's bollocks.
Care to explain which bits aren't true or plausible? Or is it just a pithy comment because you can't actually argue with the points made but they're different to the failing system you desperately cling to.Do you honestly believe this crap?
Care to explain which bits aren't true or plausible? Or is it just a pithy comment because you can't actually argue with the points made but they're different to the failing system you desperately cling to.
Normally owned by the owners. Who in most small enterprises tend to be the people who do much, if not all, of the work. So are owner/employees themselves.Welk it’s nonsense is this. Go on than what’s the biggest stumbling block to a company that’s a typical SME distributing shares? Who normally owns those shares?
Normally owned by the owners. Who in most small enterprises tend to be the people who do much, if not all, of the work. So are owner/employees themselves.
If they employ a small number of people, often in less senior roles to enable the business to function, As a senior employee they would have higher wages due to that. Plus they often cover many roles, both in terms of providing the service or producing the product as well as admin/exec roles. They can be remunerated for each of those roles by salary, enabling them to have higher earnings. If they get someone on board of a similar experience, then it's more a partnership anyway and so should have more equal distribution of proceeds.
If that person injects money into the business it could be in the forms of loans that generate interest, which could either be paid or accrued depending on performance and enabling them to get a reward for that monetary contribution.
As the business grows they would either have to delegate the work or the management of the business, and so the proportion of the organisation's overall workload that person does diminishes. But chances are if the number of employees are growing so are the business revenues and profits so they can maintain or increase overall earnings.
There are still plenty of opportunities for those people to earn a significant amount more than others.
When you get into large companies, esp those listed on stock exchanges, the system is a complete nonsense that adds nothing to a company after initial purchase but takes an awful lot out in perpetuity.
It's a radical idea I grant you, but so was the idea of companies and businesses being separate legal entities at one point. Why are you so against the idea of business ownership by a larger number of people far more deserving of sharing in the returns? I assume given your stance you're hugely opposed to CEO's, directors and executives being given share packages in their companies, as they are only employees after all? Or do you think it's a good thing because it encourages them to perform well? And if so, why does that apply to them and not to rank and file employees?
Bang on
The loans rarely generate interest and the owners bear the risk - in your scenario it would mean the workers would have to share the risk - would say 10 workers on a £100k loan pay £10k each and bear risk for a profit share? I doubt that very much.
I’m not against it but they must bear risk
I think the problem of investment when it comes down to the utilities like rail is it's become extracted through the end user via a levy in price to them.Owners often make the choice to not extract any interest or put it in as capital, often looking to use it to build and thus get greater returns in dividends later on. If the potential dividend to them was reduced they'd probably choose to take/accrue the interest instead. They have the risk of providing the money, they get the potential return of interest as mitigation for that risk. The extra risk if they choose to defer or take low repayments is offset by interest increasing longer term.
In terms of risk/reward, the owner has more risk but would still have higher reward.
The 'owner' could get the following:
Wages from job (+ wages for administrative roles undertaken)
Salary as Executive/CEO
Interest on loans (if applicable)
Dividend (if payable)
Employees would get:
Wages/salary for their position
Dividend (if payable)
It's still a favourable position for the small business owner. And if they don't think that level of risk is acceptable for that level of return, they could just be an employee somewhere.
So what you’re saying is that executives/shareholders etc are still taking the piss.I had to have a quick look at the Unite report as the way he’s talking everyone’s creaming it in….and I’m a bit dull like that
Average profit margins increased from 5.3% in 2019 to 9.1% in 2021…as they indicate, this is a 70%+ increase but this is just in the profit margins. Really he could’ve just said average profit margins have increased by 3.8% but I guess it doesn’t sound quite as dramatic
If you then look at the profits and profit margins in 2020 and you combine those with 2021 and divide by the two years (to get an average over shit pandemic year and good post pandemic year) the profit margins are similar to 2019. If you take the average net profit over the two years combined (2020 and 2021) it’s £255m pa, which is actually less than the £326m in 2019.
I don’t doubt companies found ways to gouge or increase prices but it looks like that was done, at least initially, to replace the lost profits in 2020. Profits don’t just go to shareholders remember, a lot will be reinvested in the business….for some maybe paying off additional Covid debt that was needed to keep businesses going during the pandemic
It will be interesting to see how 2022 pans out as some, in particular petrol companies have continued with this policy of taking the piss, however, other companies margins might be squeezed compared to 2021. Unite are as bad as the politicians when it comes to presenting/manipulating data to suit though. It’s why I don’t trust what either side say at face value when I see them debating in media.
I’m posting this as the pandemic has caused major damage for many businesses and the suggestion that there’s all this available cash sloshing around just isn’t correct for many. Where it is, then of course, reward the staff properly/fairly
What I think is more relevant from Unites position is their argument around what some of the bosses appear to think is an acceptable pay rise for themselves. Birmingham airport CEO for example. How can they then argue for pay restraint from employees….jokers.
So what you’re saying is that executives/shareholders etc are still taking the piss.
In larger businesses they don’t decide what dividends are paid to them.
Owners often make the choice to not extract any interest or put it in as capital, often looking to use it to build and thus get greater returns in dividends later on. If the potential dividend to them was reduced they'd probably choose to take/accrue the interest instead. They have the risk of providing the money, they get the potential return of interest as mitigation for that risk. The extra risk if they choose to defer or take low repayments is offset by interest increasing longer term.
In terms of risk/reward, the owner has more risk but would still have higher reward.
The 'owner' could get the following:
Wages from job (+ wages for administrative roles undertaken)
Salary as Executive/CEO
Interest on loans (if applicable)
Dividend (if payable)
Employees would get:
Wages/salary for their position
Dividend (if payable)
It's still a favourable position for the small business owner. And if they don't think that level of risk is acceptable for that level of return, they could just be an employee somewhere.
I do not, but if I was looking to run a business I would be looking at doing so along these lines.I assume you run your own business and it runs on these terms and is very successful?
I do not, but if I was looking to run a business I would be looking at doing so along these lines.
If we want to generate enough pollutant that we'll never get rid of, yep.Need to get on these nuclear power plants pronto
If we want to generate enough pollutant that we'll never get rid of, yep.
It's just kicking the can down the road to an even bigger problem, and abdicating responsibility.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?