💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 2495.gmi captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:16:10. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-01-29)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2010-10-25 03:55:10
Business Secretary Vince Cable is to call for a comprehensive rethink about how UK companies are run. Is it time for a corporate rethink?
Mr Cable will address the CBI annual conference and ask whether shareholders in one company should be consulted before their board buys another company - and if they should also rein in company bosses more.
The business group CBI has said that the UK will need to work hard to maintain its position against rising global competition for business investment, and that it needs to cut regulation and reduce both business and personal taxation.
How should companies change the way they are run? Should shareholders have more power? Should the government cut regulation? How can the UK remain attractive to investors?
Although short term hedge funds may have bought in heavily to Cadbury at the end, long term shareholders would probably still have sold Cadbury willingly to the highest bidder. What is required is for Government to intervene and to block takeovers which are against the national interest.
Complain about this comment
I totally agree that the UK has personal and business tax too high and is far to keen on regulating every aspect of life.
We are over-taxed, under-represented and over-governed. Time for government to back off.
Shareholders should have a lot more power. But the *actual* shareholders, not the people running the pension funds on behalf of investors. Even without that, greater shareholder power is better as it should stop boards rewarding themselves to the cost of the employees, the shareholders, the business and consumers as a whole.
Golden parachutes should go, but not through regulation, through pressure from shareholders not to reward failure.
Complain about this comment
Is it time for a corporate rethink? Never hurts to think again.
How should companies change the way they are run? Possibly.
Should shareholders have more power? Absolutely. Managers have far too much power--particularly to reward themselves at shareholder expense without consultation.
Should the government cut regulation? Good grief! How can you ask such a question? OF COURSE!
How can the UK remain attractive to investors? Let me count the ways....
First, remove corporation tax altogether.
Second, reduce regulation of every sort.
Third, remove NI completely.
Fourth, introduce "at will" hiring and firing.
Fifth, rebalance capital gains and dividend taxation to discourage debt, and encourage long-term thinking.
Sixth, make temporary immigration easier for highly skilled people.
Seventh, gag Vince Cable. The last sensible thing he said was to compare Gordon Brown variously to Stalin and Mr Bean.
Complain about this comment
@3 MellorSJ
Now, I appreciate that you have listed ways to make the UK more attractive to business there, but are you going to try and argue that those are actions we should actually take?
Because at-will employment law in the states is a grossly unfair move that put back workers rights by a long way.
We don't need to become French in our employment laws, but respect for the rights of the employee (which most people will always be) is essential and one of the things the UK has right at the moment.
To continue your list of things that would make the UK more attractive to employers - taking away the minimum wage, removing all health and safety restrictions, allowing indentured servitude and corporal punishment. All these things would be favourable, but as far as I'm concerned we don't want to turn ourselves into the US, let alone china.
Lord knows I don't want to get to the situation where you get two weeks 'vacation' in a year and are expected to put in 60+ hour weeks, or you'll be at-will fired.
Complain about this comment
I think we should protect UK businesses. In this globalised world this can be very difficult. Certainly any UK company that has had a government loan or subsidy should have it signed in a contract that they cannot sell the company abroad without government approval. We mustn't allow any more Cadbury or utility company sales abroad.
Complain about this comment
Our Company is a large construction company. We are struggling in the current climate, but have re-structured and re-assessed our position in the market and our approach to work-winning. However, our main ethos, top priority and strongest core value is the safety of our staff. The government should be doing more to help large UK companies (we are not foreign-owned) to thrive, and therefore create jobs. Our takeovers of smaller companies has always proven to be in our best interests and, more importantly, the interests of the company taken over.
The recent announcement securing infrastructure projects is a good start (for us), and will enable us to recruit 2-3,000 more staff over the next couple of years. A lot more could be done to halt the outflow of good companies to more economically-friendly countries.
Shareholders should have a say in Company management, as their interests are deeply affected by a company's performance.
Complain about this comment
Its a simple case of the bosses have got it wrong but are to powerful to be told.
Britain has always been a country of innovation and it still is if it wasnt for the fact that people at the top take to many wrong dicisions.
Large companies should do what is right for the country not the company. We hear endlessly that companies are in it for the long haul. Then start practicing this. and as the country gets stronger so will the companies and Britain will regain its international reputation but two things stop this, the overwhelming reaction to greed and the fast buck and letting other nationals enter this country to poach our achievments.
Complain about this comment
Tell you what I would like to see from big companies and corporations, a bit more honesty, I know its dreadfully old fashioned to think that anything near the truth might be helpful to anyone but trust me it is. these companies have a policy of denying anything and everything and then blatantly lying to customers, this then filters down through their ranks until they end up at the very bottom of the ladder with people like those on the apprentice. Brazenly lying and utterly useless. If I ran my business in this way I would be bust in days, these big companies need to understand that just because they have plenty of money, and can cheat and lie their way out of pretty much anything, including paying UK tax does not make them hero's or clever. In the eyes of many ordinary people, the ones the big boys are ripping off it makes them underhand and duplicitous and it seems to rub off on everyone in their organisation, its simply not good enough.
Forget about who votes for who if someone wants to go shopping, how about banging there heads together and teaching them some manners and grace to start with, this nastiness that has crept into UK business is somewhat distasteful to those of us who were brought up with the idiom to treat others as you wish to be treated yourself.
Complain about this comment
Gothnet asks: "Now, I appreciate that you have listed ways to make the UK more attractive to business there, but are you going to try and argue that those are actions we should actually take?"
I most certainly am.
"Because at-will employment law in the states is a grossly unfair move that put back workers rights by a long way."
Why would it be unfair?
"We don't need to become French in our employment laws, but respect for the rights of the employee (which most people will always be) is essential and one of the things the UK has right at the moment."
No problem. But the ability to fire people when the business has difficulties means that businesses are more likely to hire.
"To continue your list of things that would make the UK more attractive to employers - taking away the minimum wage,"
Excellent idea. Why didn't that occur to me?
"removing all health and safety restrictions, allowing indentured servitude and corporal punishment. All these things would be favourable, but as far as I'm concerned we don't want to turn ourselves into the US, let alone china."
I would not agree with that at all. But you're welcome to make your own list :)
"Lord knows I don't want to get to the situation where you get two weeks 'vacation' in a year and are expected to put in 60+ hour weeks, or you'll be at-will fired."
The reason the US has such appallingly low levels of vacation time is because of the insane burden placed on businesses to provide certain benefits. These are "per person" costs, and so it is advantageous to have as few employees as possible and have them work as many hours as possible.
Chief among these (not a government mandate, though I have no first-hand knowledge of Obamacare) is the expectation that a business will provide health care. One company of which I have direct knowledge spent $10,000 per employee last year. Add two employees at 30 hrs/week (the usual number for access to a health-care plan) and it costs you $20k. get a worker to work 60 hrs/week and it costs you $10k.
This specific issue does not pertain in the UK. But I'm sure there are similar types of burdens here.
Complain about this comment
@9 MellorSJ
At-will employment is nothing to do with companies being able to slim down when they have a hard time of it, and is everything to do with being able to get rid of people for no reason at all.
Boss having a bad day? It turns out your religion is the wrong one? Any number of other petty things.
That's what makes it a bad thing and unfair. Redundancy in the UK is already not that tricky for a company if it's genuinely a case of hardship or removal of functions within the business. If it's not genuine redundancy there should at least be a good reason to get rid of someone.
I agree it would make the UK attractive to business. But making ourselves attractive to business should not mean sacrificing our hard-won employee rights.
As for the US, no, it's not high per-employee costs as compared to the rest of the world that keeps the hours up and the vacation low, it's because they can. it's because the culture of the US has the balance far more in favour of the employer than the employee. It is done because it can be done and people have no recourse if they want a job.
Complain about this comment
Are we really meant to take seriously the prescriptions of a person who thinks that a question beginning "how....?" ("How can companies change the way they are run?") can be meaningfully answered with the single word "Possibly"?
To coin an entirely original phrase: if you like American employment law so much, why don't you go and live there?
Complain about this comment
The Board of some Companies, particularly Banks, have acted like pirates without reference or due consideration to their shareholders. This is often tolerated until the muck hits the fan. So, yes, the Board needs to be held in check.
The UK is attractive for business investment because there is less red tape compared to, say, other European countries.
Complain about this comment
Germany has the "VW-Gesetz" (VW Law). Basically it prohibits the acquistion of a significant German company by a foreign owner. "But that is entirely contrary to the Treaty of Rome" I hear you say. Well you're right - but the Germans are keeping it because it suits them. Would that our Govt had this sort of resolve.
Complain about this comment
Gothnet makes two unfounded assertions with: "At-will employment is nothing to do with companies being able to slim down when they have a hard time of it, and is everything to do with being able to get rid of people for no reason at all.
Boss having a bad day? It turns out your religion is the wrong one? Any number of other petty things.
That's what makes it a bad thing and unfair. Redundancy in the UK is already not that tricky for a company if it's genuinely a case of hardship or removal of functions within the business. If it's not genuine redundancy there should at least be a good reason to get rid of someone.
I agree it would make the UK attractive to business. But making ourselves attractive to business should not mean sacrificing our hard-won employee rights."
At-will employment means exactly what it says. Do you really believe that a business will spend the time and money to recruit and train someone only to fire them on a whim? That business would not be one for long!
But let's (perhaps?) agree that the ability to fire someone at minimum cost will make a business more likely to take the risk of hiring someone in the first place.
"As for the US, no, it's not high per-employee costs as compared to the rest of the world that keeps the hours up and the vacation low, it's because they can. it's because the culture of the US has the balance far more in favour of the employer than the employee. It is done because it can be done and people have no recourse if they want a job."
You have any evidence for this? In my experience, it is simply (a) what I said, and (b) tradition in a hard-working country.
My own (US-based) company offered four weeks off (+ statutory days), and the option of taking unpaid leave, with sufficient notice. That may sound like hardly a gift, but when those fixed costs are taken into account, it actually costs quite a lot.
Complain about this comment
john sopwith wrote: "To coin an entirely original phrase: if you like American employment law so much, why don't you go and live there?"
Got the T-shirt.
Only in the UK for family reasons :)
Now, do you want the make the UK more friendly to business, or do you just want to throw insults about? Hmm?
Complain about this comment
Seems ok in principle, but expect the big bosses to stump their feet and get things "unchanged".
Complain about this comment
Business Secretary Vince Cable is to call for a comprehensive rethink about how UK companies are run. Is it time for a corporate rethink?
---
Of course its time for a rethink, the current trend of businesses working on an unsustainable model of ever-increasing profits and economic Darwinism, verging on corporate cannibalism, alongside he development of certain industries into unofficial cartels and oligarchies are obviously not in the interests of Society as a whole.
However as was made clear both before and after the election through letters from 'business leaders' offering unconditional support for the conservative party and by the pre-election deal with Newscorp, the Conservative party is far to cozy with big business to ever be able halt the current trend of the largest corporations, such as utility companies and banks, treating the public like a cash cow, to milked until dry.
Complain about this comment
@14 Mellor SJ
You can already get rid of employees who are incompetent and you can make people redundant that you don't need, here in the UK. That is a fact. At-will simply removes employee protection and removes the need for the company to have a reason to get rid of someone.
This is a bad thing for the worker. Many things that are good for the worker are bad for the company, and vice-versa. This is one that I believe the UK to have right. You are entitled to think otherwise.
And whether I believe a company would invest in training someone (fat chance of that these days) only to fire them again - why leave that to the discretion of the company?
And as for the second part -
"You have any evidence for this? In my experience, it is simply (a) what I said, and (b) tradition in a hard-working country."
The US? A hard working country? Ha!
From personal experience and from my father's (insurance exec for a string of large multinationals) the output from the US is lower than most of Europe, they just have a culture of showing up for long hours because it's expected.
Complain about this comment
The problem with shareholders having more power is a double edged sword.They should have power to veto poor decisions but also be aware that to get more and more dividends you need to invest not just off load staff and dont the company bosses just love to quote the dividend issue when rushing off to cheap production countries.We all recognise that companies run on a global basis but they quickly hide behind the same old arguments when off loading production or services to places where labour and tax rules are more favourable or should we say bargain basement.If companies want to have favourable trading in the UK (which they do)they must invest in the UK.Government in turn needs to offer the carrot and stick approach.Favourable tax breaks only if investment and employment is concentrated in the UK and more rules,taxes etc; where the company just wants to exploit the UK market by using sweat shop labour in far eastern outlets to line investors pockets.What all companies should remember whether they like it or
not is it should be a priviledge to make and sell goods/services in the UK-its not a god given right.There are 60m people in the UK and between them they are the UK not the few companies who merely operate here.So it should be profit with responsibility not rip off at any cost.
Complain about this comment
Clearly something has to be done to get the country back on course,however,the CBI is somewhere to the right of Ghenis khan, left to their own devices "Business Leaders" in this country would love to implement a maximum wage of 50 pence per hour and increase the working day to 23 hours, abolish all holidays and any regulations that protect a submissive workforce. British "Business Leaders" are without a moral compass and to rely on their outpourings as a solution to the problem is as sound as putting Dracula in charge of the Blood Transfussion Service. British Bussiness Leaders" care nothing for this country as long as they can make vast profits and avoid paying taxes, whilst castigating the workforce for being "idle" The CBI is the last organisation that should be consulted and the servile coverage of it's ramblings by the BBC is a disgrace.
Complain about this comment
Should companies change ...? of course they should. We must ensure that the present micro-management from central government is curtailed. We should take a leaf out of the French and German books and be nationalistic over our own companies, (sod the EU rules, they do).
ALL our managers must be formally trained in the art of resource manipulation, (good management has to be learnt it is not inherited!)
Vince Cable has not the grounding to lecture the populance on good use of resource.
Complain about this comment
When I last looked the western world was seething at how corporations had been complicit in the collapse of global economies. There was strong language about the need for tighter controls, downsizing, greater effort to reduce human suffering at the whim of profiteering, a lockdown on fraudulent accounting, and so on. We were told this needed international effort and cooperation because much of the damage inflicted in the last decade came from offshore cheats.
I sometimes struggle with a conceptual difference that some people have about trade union power, the so called block vote, and the big time company share holder who overthrows the irksome one time shareholder. I cannot find a difference and if one is immoral so is the other. So, for me, smaller is better. Limit shareholder ownership in all corporates so that no one individual (person or corporate entity in whatever guises) can invest more than five per cent in a listed business, and that smaller shareholders must jointly hold at least fifty percent ownership.
There should be much greater control over businesses moving from one place to another and much greater control over wages paid, health and safety provided, and contractual rights of the workforces.
In other words if we are going to have global economics then we must have global currency, global regulation, global unions and so on.
Let us see how far we get with this.... I am guessing nowhere.
Complain about this comment
"
3. At 06:22am on 25 Oct 2010, MellorSJ wrote:
"
I like you.
Complain about this comment
Gothnet writes: "And whether I believe a company would invest in training someone (fat chance of that these days) only to fire them again - why leave that to the discretion of the company?"
Because it's their concern, not the concern of the state.
"The US? A hard working country? Ha!"
From personal experience and from my father's (insurance exec for a string of large multinationals) the output from the US is lower than most of Europe, they just have a culture of showing up for long hours because it's expected."
Here, actually, you have a point. But then that merely reinforces my second point about tradition.
In Japan, people in Tokyo can get on the train at 08:00, get to the office at 09:30, leave at 18:30 for drinks with colleagues, get back on the train at 21:00, and get home at 22:30. They are not noticeably more productive, but they do have a common view of problems/solutions that reduces conflict and makes decisions more "sticky," cutting costs significantly.
At the other end of the spectrum, the French, with their 35 hr week, are actually very high in the productivity tables. The cost is low unemployment, because that productivity comes from efficient use of capital and reduction in employment.
What lessons we can draw from this, I'm not sure, except, perhaps, that culture plays a large part...
Complain about this comment
9. At 07:33am on 25 Oct 2010, MellorSJ wrote:
No problem. But the ability to fire people when the business has difficulties means that businesses are more likely to hire.
-------------------------------------------------
Erm, we already have this. It's called redundancy!
Unless you're suggesting that, in times of trouble, businesses should just be able to fire employees at random without even a penny for their hard work and loyalty.
If a business is struggling then maybe the company directors should question their own management skills and fire themselves for incompetence!
Complain about this comment
i think Comrade Vince should move to Russia where his beliefs would be more suitable to the general concensus.
Complain about this comment
"
17. At 08:37am on 25 Oct 2010, InertiaStalls wrote:
Of course its time for a rethink, the current trend of businesses working on an unsustainable model of ever-increasing profits and economic Darwinism, verging on corporate cannibalism, alongside he development of certain industries into unofficial cartels and oligarchies are obviously not in the interests of Society as a whole.
"
In that case, you'll need to get rid of the WTO, World Bank, IMF etc. Because it is Globalization which drives these bodies and it Globalization which is in search of ever greater profits through, against other things, "corporate cannibalism".
Complain about this comment
It often appears that large companies are run mainly for the benefit of senior managers and board members. They certainly seem to receive ridiculously large financial rewards for the, often limited, skills they deploy. There is scant regard for the shareholders' interests, let alone the employees and customers.
I do not think giving the shareholders more power is the answer. If they think the company is being badly managed, they are more likely to sell their shares than to hang around trying to improve things.
Works councils, representing all the employees, as in Germany, might be the answer. The employees collectively, have a very complete understanding of the way the business works and are in a good position to spot the deficiencies of senior management. They also have a personal interest in the success of the company.
All companies with more than a certain number of employees should be required by law to have a works council.
Complain about this comment
Tes it is lets have them pay for their mistakes for a change why should we the public bail out badly rub banks etc?
Complain about this comment
I'm tired of being exploited by greedy executives. I want to see a more equitable distribution of profits. Some CEOs such as Steve Jobs (Apple) are clearly special but the majority don't deserve the millions they receive.
Complain about this comment
3. At 06:22am on 25 Oct 2010, MellorSJ wrote:
Is it time for a corporate rethink? Never hurts to think again.
How should companies change the way they are run? Possibly.
Should shareholders have more power? Absolutely. Managers have far too much power--particularly to reward themselves at shareholder expense without consultation.
Should the government cut regulation? Good grief! How can you ask such a question? OF COURSE!
How can the UK remain attractive to investors? Let me count the ways....
First, remove corporation tax altogether.
Second, reduce regulation of every sort.
Third, remove NI completely.
Fourth, introduce "at will" hiring and firing.
Fifth, rebalance capital gains and dividend taxation to discourage debt, and encourage long-term thinking.
Sixth, make temporary immigration easier for highly skilled people.
Seventh, gag Vince Cable. The last sensible thing he said was to compare Gordon Brown variously to Stalin and Mr Bean.
=========================================
Basically turn ourselves into Pakistan, or Gary, Indiana USA
Some business/economic plan!!!
Complain about this comment
Kuradi Vitukari wrote:
"
3. At 06:22am on 25 Oct 2010, MellorSJ wrote:
"
I like you."
Careful there, Kuradi!
The leeches will be all over you. Like, er, leeches.
Complain about this comment
"
25. At 09:02am on 25 Oct 2010, rightofleft wrote:
If a business is struggling then maybe the company directors should question their own management skills and fire themselves for incompetence!
"
Personally I'd say they should throw themselves of the tallest building, but here they'd be "rewarded" by their failure with a hansom golden goodbye plus inflation proof, gilt edged pension.
Complain about this comment
"
26. At 09:02am on 25 Oct 2010, essexash wrote:
i think Comrade Vince should move to Russia where his beliefs would be more suitable to the general concensus.
"
Why would he want to go to one of the worlds quickest expanding free-markets?
Complain about this comment
3. At 06:22am on 25 Oct 2010, MellorSJ wrote a load of irrational delusional nonsense again!
OK Mellors, you see the truth is our business class and corporate parasites are singularly the laziest, most dimwitted bunch of little thugs one could possible imagine! They survive through nothing more original than nepotism and cronyism....as a 'collective' of networked, connected imbeciles, they are singularly the most incompetent, morally bankrupt and corrupt bunch of fools!
I suggest you go and investigate HOW business functions in successful economies like Germany! They seem to get it right......do the right thing for the right reasons...As I have said before WE should be aspiring to emulate the best not seek to compete with the worse! You appear to blindly follow an ideologically driven mystic irrational drivel for the fulfilment of nonsensical whims, desires and mindless wishes for reality to be as you imagine would be of benefit to you personally, while disregarding the necessary elements of a fully functioning economy! I guess you think the USA provides the way forward....well have a closer look at the USA - GHOST Towns and economic oblivion is their future - you can join them if you desire but it ain't capitalism and it ain't rational!
And you are a fool, if you really think more of the same is the solution! Making the UK 'attractive to business' based on irrational nonsense - is suicide and our 'thatcherite' high priests have been driving our economy closer tot he ZERO for decades now! Look around you - it DOES NOT WORK! Our economic reality is a consequence of thatcherite, Freidmanite, Reaganomics - Its a disaster and you know it! Germany and France REJECTED the Mad Hatter teas party during the 80's and never took the USA path to misery, social destruction and de-regulation - And oh what a surprise - they are the most robust economies in Europe, if not the world!
Bottom line is, during the financial crisis the German government in 'cooperation' with unions and business adopted a short working, wage subsidy to assist business - so few businesses had to resort to cutting employee numbers! They protected their industry during the down turn and CONSIDERED the LONG TERM! And 'agreed' regulation makes it expensive to make folk redundant. Oh and guess what, German employers actually value their employees! The whole exercise is predicated on the idea of 'protecting' jobs.....Well that appeared to be quite successful! And does not act as a barrier to successful business or investment! In fact, when European companies are looking as mitigating economic 'shocks' they look to make UK employees redundant first, or close business in UK first - WHY because it is cheaper, and they KNOW German government and other European countries will do what is necessary to protect jobs in their country!
The British on the other hand will sacrifice there OWN people first, and move production to Asia rather than do the right thing for the right reasons! Well, I really look forward to the future of the UK - a desolate, third world nation, with no real business, no real investment and no real jobs - all because our political cliques and our business buffoons - NEVER seem capable of doing the right thing for the right reasons.....they are collectively a disgrace - a bunch of dimwitted little thugs masquerading as capitalists!
Complain about this comment
rightofleft writes: "If a business is struggling then maybe the company directors should question their own management skills and fire themselves for incompetence!"
Good grief! Every visit to HYS impresses me with the complete lack of reality for most of the posters.
Listen up now: Market conditions change, and when they do, companies go out of business. Sometimes, just sometimes, you can divine the future and plan to shift the business. But that's difficult. It's hard to shift business models (and the employees that live within them); it's hard to develop new skills and attitudes; it's hard to enter a new market.
Not only that, but what do think happens when the Board fires itself (fat chance of that, but never mind)? Think now. Think hard ....
You got it! EVERYONE loses their job!
Good grief.
Complain about this comment
"
24. At 09:01am on 25 Oct 2010, MellorSJ wrote:
In Japan, people in Tokyo can get on the train at 08:00, get to the office at 09:30, leave at 18:30 for drinks with colleagues, get back on the train at 21:00, and get home at 22:30. They are not noticeably more productive, but they do have a common view of problems/solutions that reduces conflict and makes decisions more "sticky," cutting costs significantly.
"
So how come the Japanese economy has pretty much been in stagnation for the past 20 years? "sticky" wages and prices are big factors in this type of economic stagnation, even with periods of deflation!
Complain about this comment
Yes reform of Britain's business methods is long overdue. The practice of selling companies to someone who buys them by borrowing leads to the removal of the companies assets. Businesses need more long term planning with cooperation and cross holding of shares between banks and manufactures. We need planning to ensure that we have cheap energy to ensure basic industries survive worldwide competition such as steel and chemical plants, it does nothing for climate change to move production abroad if you believe in man made climate change. We need transport systems that are fast to move goods cheaply and quickly within the UK and not just set up for imports. We need a tax system that encourages investment in new factories, not offices, and machinery and plant and only penalises those that remove money from industry. We need to reduce the incentive to become a lawyer or doctor and increase it to become an engineer, maybe free university courses for engineers and expensive ones for lawyers. Remember nothing has
ever been created by a lawyer or doctor and good health owes more to development of clean water, sewage systems and improvements in farm yields than health services.
But of course nothing will be done as parliament is run for the benefit of lawyers. To see how Britain will fair if current policies, the last 100 years, continue just look at the history of the decline of the Roman Empire or how China declined for centuries before its recent growth and increase in wealth through manufacturing.
Complain about this comment
"
35. At 09:22am on 25 Oct 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote:
The British on the other hand will sacrifice there OWN people first, and move production to Asia rather than do the right thing for the right reasons! Well, I really look forward to the future of the UK - a desolate, third world nation, with no real business, no real investment and no real jobs
"
Pretty much sums up today, not the future.
Complain about this comment
In all discussions of this nature, the investors receive major consideration but they don't generate the income of a business, the employees do. Why shouldn't they have a say?
Peter D South Carolina
Complain about this comment
The major problem with large UK companies is that the majority of shares are held by pension funds using your and my money.
However, we get no vote in how the companies are run. These fall to a handful of fund managers who are in league with the directors of the companies our money is invested in. There is a cosy cartel whereby ridiculous bonuses and harmful strategic decisions are voted through, in return for which the companies place their pension funds with the cooperative fund managers.
There is, of course, also the possibility that there may be other incentives falling to the fund managers - but we won't go there will we?
Complain about this comment
3. At 06:22am on 25 Oct 2010, MellorSJ wrote:
Is it time for a corporate rethink? Never hurts to think again.
How should companies change the way they are run? Possibly.
Should shareholders have more power? Absolutely. Managers have far too much power--particularly to reward themselves at shareholder expense without consultation.
Should the government cut regulation? Good grief! How can you ask such a question? OF COURSE!
How can the UK remain attractive to investors? Let me count the ways....
First, remove corporation tax altogether.
Second, reduce regulation of every sort.
Third, remove NI completely.
Fourth, introduce "at will" hiring and firing.
Fifth, rebalance capital gains and dividend taxation to discourage debt, and encourage long-term thinking.
Sixth, make temporary immigration easier for highly skilled people.
Seventh, gag Vince Cable. The last sensible thing he said was to compare Gordon Brown variously to Stalin and Mr Bean.
What you mean is Lets introduce slavery at birth for the plebs like me?
Complain about this comment
Kuradi writes: "So how come the Japanese economy has pretty much been in stagnation for the past 20 years? "sticky" wages and prices are big factors in this type of economic stagnation, even with periods of deflation!"
I didn't say it was good, or even a determining factor. In fact, I merely made the observation, and then wondered how it might affect the productivity of their economy.
Complain about this comment
40. At 09:31am on 25 Oct 2010, Peter Dewsnap wrote:
In all discussions of this nature, the investors receive major consideration but they don't generate the income of a business, the employees do. Why shouldn't they have a say?
Peter D South Carolina
Because the employees don't have a clue how to run a business. That's why they're employees Peter.
Complain about this comment
Rethink? A great many companies will have enough to think about very soon. They'll be fighting just to survive once the cuts bring the catastrophic economic downturn which now seems inevitable.
Complain about this comment
David Cameron's speach about trade and how little we do with BRIC countries. The fact is that these countries are VERY corrupt and money is required to lubricate business. The ethics of the British and the destructive power of the naive left and media will not allow that, so we steer clear of those countries. I wonder how that can be overcome?
Complain about this comment
31. At 09:14am on 25 Oct 2010, you wrote:
3. At 06:22am on 25 Oct 2010, MellorSJ wrote:
Is it time for a corporate rethink? Never hurts to think again.
How should companies change the way they are run? Possibly.
Should shareholders have more power? Absolutely. Managers have far too much power--particularly to reward themselves at shareholder expense without consultation.
Should the government cut regulation? Good grief! How can you ask such a question? OF COURSE!
How can the UK remain attractive to investors? Let me count the ways....
First, remove corporation tax altogether.
Second, reduce regulation of every sort.
Third, remove NI completely.
Fourth, introduce "at will" hiring and firing.
Fifth, rebalance capital gains and dividend taxation to discourage debt, and encourage long-term thinking.
Sixth, make temporary immigration easier for highly skilled people.
Seventh, gag Vince Cable. The last sensible thing he said was to compare Gordon Brown variously to Stalin and Mr Bean.
=========================================
Basically, turn the UK back to times of Surfs, basically enhanced slavery.
What Britain simply needs is more LOYAL business people, people who will not sell their nation down the road for a quick personal profit.
What Britain also needs is much STRONGER protectionist legislation and or just pro Beritish protectionist government.
It seems to work for China, USA, Germany, France, India and many other countrys.
Complain about this comment
I've never really got involved enough in this area to make a valid point, other than politically. So I won't comment.
But in a connected area, (very loosely I agree) it has been stated that i) the public sector must suffer the same as the private sector in terms of job losses etc.
ii) the private sector will create enough jobs in the foreseeable future to absorb the half a million public sector job cuts.
All ok so far. But what about the half a million private sector job cuts (see i) above); are we talking about at least a million extra jobs or am I just being silly?
Complain about this comment
One things certain, the selling of the family silver to foreign owned companies shouldn't be allowed. It's not fair practice for foreign owned companies to buy companies such as cadbury's, Rolls Royce etc only to then shift production and the expertise and the profits abroad.
Complain about this comment
The biggest difference to company law that would have the greatest effect is also the simplest - make it mandatory that businesses pay their invoices on time! There is once large High St chain who's policy is to pay invoices on 120 days, which in my view is absolutely criminal. i won't say who they are, but if they tried that on me I'd tell them to get on their bike, which they sell plenty of...
Complain about this comment
Kuradi Vitukari wrote:
"
35. At 09:22am on 25 Oct 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote:
The British on the other hand will sacrifice there OWN people first, and move production to Asia rather than do the right thing for the right reasons! Well, I really look forward to the future of the UK - a desolate, third world nation, with no real business, no real investment and no real jobs
"
Pretty much sums up today, not the future."
You simply have to face up to reality: Asia wants to eat your lunch.
You have two options. One is to ignore this and keep going on about "fairness" and "the right thing for the right reasons."
The second is to reduce costs until you can compete. That doesn't mean you have to fire people, or reduce wages to 50p/hr. It does mean that you face up to the problem. And if you can't .... watch the jobs move to Asia.