ROBINSON wrote:Are you fecking serious? Honestly? I'm certain she is. The last one I can remember is this one and if you look at page three, there's even a comment from you

ROBINSON wrote:Are you fecking serious? Honestly? I'm certain she is. The last one I can remember is this one and if you look at page three, there's even a comment from you

How about no redundancies and lower profits for a while?

That would never do would it!

The "Oh dear, profits are down, sack some people that will work" mentality that pervades the simplistic business model we are stuck with these days is ridiculous. It is just total short termism.

I'd imagine your company is private not public so you are not beholden to stock market "sentiment" so if things are not going to so well no one is breathing down you neck asking for instant gratification which usually results in the "sack some people that will work" kind of response.

I have worked for both private and public companies and my experience bares out what I say above. Redundancies in private companies are a last resort. Redundancies in public companies are the first thing anyone thinks of.

One of the biggest private companies was Phones 4 U. When its founder retired a few years ago he was worth over £180m. The profits his company made year on year were never great for the size of it. Around £3m a year but the people who worked for him were all very well paid, never went on strike (because they were well looked after) and they didn't make people redundant if things were not going that well.

How about that for an alternative model?

Seems a darn sight better than the paranoia that requires CEO's of public companies to sack people at the drop of hat because if they ever said it might be an idea to let the share price drop because long term it makes sense to keep trained staff on and whether the storm would see them out of job themselves.

What a bankrupt system we have ended up with.

And guess what? In Germany its more like the Phones 4 U model than we have here and look which country has the largest EU economy.

Tories always have been and always will be self serving economic morons. And that is being polite. I often think a certain N Bevan was more accurate.

Entirely.

If you fancy investing the time, though, you could list recent stories and articles – and even reports on the TV/radio – that presented unions in general or a union specifically – in a positive light.

cod'ead wrote:I'm certain she is. The last one I can remember is this one and if you look at page three, there's even a comment from you I was thinking more of the way unions are represented in the mass media, but that's another perfectly valid example. It's the sort of background against which you get dipfucks on the Torygraph website commenting that it's no wonder there's been all those there naughty goings on at News International – because that's what NUJ members are like! They were apparently entirely unaware that Murdoch barred any unions from Wapping and replaced them with his own in-house staff association. It could be argued, indeed, that the lack of an independent trades union there helped to allow a culture where bullying and illegal practices could flourish over a long period. But the point in terms of this discussion, is that those comments illustrate how there is a negative view of trades unions that isn't even grounded in facts.

cod'ead wrote:I'm certain she is. The last one I can remember is this one and if you look at page three, there's even a comment from you I was thinking more of the way unions are represented in the mass media, but that's another perfectly valid example. It's the sort of background against which you get dipfucks on the Torygraph website commenting that it's no wonder there's been all those there naughty goings on at News International – because that's what NUJ members are like! They were apparently entirely unaware that Murdoch barred any unions from Wapping and replaced them with his own in-house staff association. It could be argued, indeed, that the lack of an independent trades union there helped to allow a culture where bullying and illegal practices could flourish over a long period. But the point in terms of this discussion, is that those comments illustrate how there is a negative view of trades unions that isn't even grounded in facts.

why should this be a surprise MF ?

union membership isn't just a privelege of a Labour Party member or anyone leaning towards left of centre

DaveO wrote:How about no redundancies and lower profits for a while? ... On this specific case: Mayr-Melnhof Group made "118.7 million + 7,5 % above previous year" in 2011. That means a "Dividend increase from 1.95 EUR auf 2.10 EUR / Share". I assume the profit quoted is in euros too. Annual results here. So this company was hardly having to make cuts in order to stay in business.

DaveO wrote:How about no redundancies and lower profits for a while? ... On this specific case: Mayr-Melnhof Group made "118.7 million + 7,5 % above previous year" in 2011. That means a "Dividend increase from 1.95 EUR auf 2.10 EUR / Share". I assume the profit quoted is in euros too. Annual results here. So this company was hardly having to make cuts in order to stay in business.

Mintball wrote::CLAP: On this specific case: Mayr-Melnhof Group made "118.7 million + 7,5 % above previous year" in 2011. That means a "Dividend increase from 1.95 EUR auf 2.10 EUR / Share". I assume the profit quoted is in euros too. Annual results here. So this company was hardly having to make cuts in order to stay in business. I think it's all about keeping shareholders happy... just because you are making a profit does it mean the company is worth keeping

Mintball wrote::CLAP: On this specific case: Mayr-Melnhof Group made "118.7 million + 7,5 % above previous year" in 2011. That means a "Dividend increase from 1.95 EUR auf 2.10 EUR / Share". I assume the profit quoted is in euros too. Annual results here. So this company was hardly having to make cuts in order to stay in business. I think it's all about keeping shareholders happy... just because you are making a profit does it mean the company is worth keeping

When a company is not in trouble, should the workforce not be a major consideration?

There's something really morally wrong if one says: 'Well, we made increased profit last year and were able to increase the dividend as a result, but we could make even more if we sacked a few people.'

Greed is good. And any sense of responsibility to staff or even the wider community/economy is utterly unimportant – to the extent that anyone who challenges this view is condemned, as we have seen in the opening post on this very thread. By someone who did not, apparently, even bother to find out what the financial state of the company was.

i'm afraid when it comes down to business the workforce seems to be the last thing the company will be thinking of - if sacking people means higher profits or less losses then so be it - I know from personal experience and realised a long time ago that honesty and scruples have no place within the vast jungle of the business community - it's money that counts,not human beings unfortunately

Indeed – but that's what I'm saying is immoral.

It isn't a universal – you only need look at a hugely successful company like John Lewis to see a different model working very well.

But as has been touched on in a number of different threads recently, and by different posters, one of the other problems with this approach is that service has declined, together an ethos of actually really helping the customer. It's almost as though repeat trade is not desirable any more.