Give up your employment rights.

I'd probably take the shares to be honest.

Assuming they're shares that I'll be able to sell off my own back when it benefits me that is. The problem of course is if there are loopholes, which given the general incompetence of Government, I'm sure they'll screw it up. But if everyone was incentivised with resonable equity in a company (which you don't lose when you're sacked) you'd assume people would work harder to make more.
 
aln said:
I'd probably take the shares to be honest.

Assuming they're shares that I'll be able to sell off my own back when it benefits me that is. The problem of course is if there are loopholes, which given the general incompetence of Government, I'm sure they'll screw it up. But if everyone was incentivised with resonable equity in a company (which you don't lose when you're sacked) you'd assume people would work harder to make more.
Click to expand...

Good point with :D
 
spankingtexan said:
:D says the employer who doesn't want to pay the basic minimum wage to all.
Click to expand...

Who said that? That leftie drums out again I see.... Never let facts get in the way of a good argument.

Just so you know the vast majority of the employed in this country are employed by SME's. Just so you know again, setting up a business doesn't involve opening a shop and then paying yourself a million quid a year, so therefore most small business owners are not rich, in fact a lot are positively skint, and massively exposed if it all goes wrong.

If this scheme helps it remains to be seen, but lets have a look at the finer detail before the left wing bilge starts being spilt eh?

If its voluntary and the up front offer is good then why not? I would argue any employer who's invested in someone up front is less likely to sack someone whos not quite working out in the first couple of years where rights are less, but what do I know?
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
I think that will be its main use., is for new companies that can't afford high wages.
Click to expand...

Such companies can and do already offer such incentives as stock in lieu of pay when starting up. And as for that being it's main use? If other business see a cost benefit in operating this way, what would stop them? And from the look of it it'll only be voluntary if the employer wants it to be voluntary.
 
kitch9 said:
Who said that? That leftie drums out again I see.... Never let facts get in the way of a good argument.

Just so you know the vast majority of the employed in this country are employed by SME's. Just so you know again, setting up a business doesn't involve opening a shop and then paying yourself a million quid a year, so therefore most small business owners are not rich, in fact a lot are positively skint, and massively exposed if it all goes wrong.

If this scheme helps it remains to be seen, but lets have a look at the finer detail before the left wing bilge starts being spilt eh?

If its voluntary and the up front offer is good then why not? I would argue any employer who's invested in someone up front is less likely to sack someone whos not quite working out in the first couple of years where rights are less, but what do I know?
Click to expand...

I feel so sorry for you, but your opinion is respected. Voluntary is the key word here.
 
Last edited:
I am sure I read its open to being offered to staff but could be the new contract for new positions if employers sought to roll it out further.

I would take £30k of shares to give up those rights, I wouldn't give then up for £2k

I guess its all relative at the end of the day, and the devil will be in the detail.
Could you waive your rights work somewhere for 2 years then leave and sell the shares etc

Sounds like the sort of thing labour would scrap anyway so I don't see it being a big thing for this parliament. If the blues or blues/yellows get in again then its more of an issue imo
 
I'm confused, don't employees automatically have fewer employment rights until they've worked for 2 years? Surely this would apply to all start-ups so isn't it just complete nonsense to say it will help new companies?

Also, how can it be voluntary when there's nothing to stop new offers of employment being conditional on accepting payments for as little as £2000 in exchange for waiving your rights?

I've read about a few cases in the USA where start up companies have been able to claw back shares they offered to employees in the early days, so I'd be worried about that if I was made such an offer.

I'm afraid this has all the hallmarks of yet another government attack on women in the workplace as one of the rights you can be asked to waive is the right to ask for flexible hours.
 
Glaucus said:
:confused:
It's for small to medium fast growing companies.
You give up some rights and in return you own shares and thus have a say in the company.
Need a bit more detail rather than a headline quote.
It's also totally volutrrary.
[..]
Click to expand...

You give up all the key rights apart from basic health and safety. For a little cash upfront, you lose everything.

"Hmm...redundancies would cost us £5000 per employee and we'd need to spend some weeks setting it up."

"No worries, give them £2000 today and then just tell them to get lost straight away."

As for the idea that it's totally voluntary, that's naive at best.

There have been several "voluntary" reductions in working conditions from my employers. It's voluntary as in "agree to this or you'll never get a pay rise and you'll be first out the door when we're getting rid of anyone". Prior to that, I worked illegal hours for years. They knew I wouldn't do anything about it because I needed the job. That's from an employer that is considered relatively nice to work for.

If there's a large imbalance in power between the parties involved, "totally voluntary" only exists if the superior party chooses to allow it.
 
scorza said:
I'm confused, don't employees automatically have fewer employment rights until they've worked for 2 years? Surely this would apply to all start-ups so isn't it just complete nonsense to say it will help new companies?

Also, how can it be voluntary when there's nothing to stop new offers of employment being conditional on accepting payments for as little as £2000 in exchange for waiving your rights?

I've read about a few cases in the USA where start up companies have been able to claw back shares they offered to employees in the early days, so I'd be worried about that if I was made such an offer.

I'm afraid this has all the hallmarks of yet another government attack on women in the workplace as one of the rights you can be asked to waive is the right to ask for flexible hours.
Click to expand...

It'll probably just wind up another way for the rich to get paid tax free anyways. I'll work for you for £1, but £100k in shares.
 
RDM said:
No they couldn't because that breaks anti-discrimination laws which apply to the employer not the employee.
Click to expand...

True, but only relevant if they were honest. They could just fire you and not give any reason at all. Unless they said "I'm sacking you because I'm racist and I think you're the wrong race", who's to know? Without any rights, you can't even get any information.
 
The Chancellor told delegates: "Today we set out proposals for a radical change to employment law. It's a voluntary three way deal. You the company: give your employees shares in the business. You the employee: replace your old rights of unfair dismissal and redundancy with new rights of ownership.

"And what will the Government do? We'll charge no capital gains tax at all on the profit you make on your shares. Zero percent capital gains tax for these new employee-owners.
Click to expand...

I understand that people that have a stake in a company are probably going to work harder, be more interested in how well the firm does etc but not sure why they would need their rights reduced at the same time.

Had to laugh at some of the red faced replies to this in here. You make it sound like it was forced upon everyone.
 
MrMoonX said:
lol if you give up your employment rights then you become a slave, exactly what the tories want a working class of slaves to make them and their mates richer
Click to expand...

Its this sort of statement that annoys me.

Whilst there are plenty of successful Tory businessmen its not a right soley reserved for Tories nor those inheriting the silver spoon to be a businessman.

Alan Sugar for example is neither Tory nor did he inherit wealth. He is a self made man who supports the Labour party.

Plus of course there will be some alliegence for Tory voters and the rich in EXACTLY the same way as you get with Trade unions and the Labour party.
The rich are just as entitled to have their vote and vote for those who will best represent them as the "working man" can choose to vote Labour. Making out that the tories in any way are acting differently to Labour in the principles of working slightly harder for those who voted for them is plain idiotic.
 
robskinner said:
I would take £30k of shares to give up those rights, I wouldn't give then up for £2k
Click to expand...

You presume that the value of the shares when granted is the same or better than when they were granted, that they aren't restricted in some way, that they haven't been diluted by other share issues, etc.
 
Dolph said:
sounds like a good proposal to me, reinforced by who in this thread is against it...
Click to expand...

You think that giving up hard earned employment rights is a good idea? Even if it is "voluntary". Following that logic we might as well go back to the Victorian era and have work houses for the poor. I mean it was a boom time for companies then so why not emulate that today?

Employees have these rights for a reason, and its got nothing to do with the frothing at the mouth left, it's to do with protecting employees from exploitation. Not having that protection is quite frankly stupid.

I'm surprised you haven't gone on the say how the Public Sector is full of jobsworths and that these proposals will help get rid of all those work-shy public sector types...
 
I'd give up my rights for unfair dismissal for £50k, unfortunately my company is gigantic rather than medium sized. If I had low skill levels and a dead end job I wouldn't risk it but the job market is pretty buoyant for those with my skill set so redundancy doesn't scare me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom