|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Mar 18, 2022 13:37:49 GMT
Fancy having a Code de Travail to protect your workers, it's that kind of red tape bureaucratic nonsense that we left the EU to shake off... From it: "The company must then follow a strict process which includes calling a meeting with five days’ notice, offering retraining programmes then sending written notification of redundancy with at least seven days’ notice. P&O’s practice of calling a same-day meeting and then telling employees via video that they were immediately out of work clearly meets none of the conditions for process".
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on Mar 18, 2022 13:39:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on Mar 18, 2022 13:45:52 GMT
Tory minister, "going away to reflect" rather than do anything, despite knowing the night before
The tories really couldn't care less about the voters/electorate now they have got what they wanted.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Mar 18, 2022 13:50:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Mar 18, 2022 14:06:56 GMT
Huge amounts lost on the freight run, freight now routing around our west coast and then on to France and Spain. some bloke official at larne port ? northern ireland said yesterday that the port had never been busier , 100% p & o port bringing in goods etc to NI , Sky presenter kept tring to get him to blame brexit but he wouldn't
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Mar 18, 2022 17:41:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 18, 2022 19:22:13 GMT
They could. No payouts to shareholders if you have a black hole in your pension fund. There’s a good start. What about the ability to tax shareholders for dividends paid going back a few years if the company then has mass redundancies like this one? Discourage companies from doing it. Are you really that financially illiterate ? Your suggestion would mean vast majority of loss making businesses go to the wall as no profitable company would buy them, as a Stoke fan you'd think you'd understand how companies within a group can have vastly different financial results and whilst the parent company might support them with loans there comes a point they expect every company to fund itself or become profitable. Perhaps the loss making companies wouldn’t be loss making if their owners weren’t creaming off all the money for themselves. Why have a parent company if it isn’t there to support the subsidiary? Why not make sure they are two completely unrelated companies instead. The whole system stinks and is for the rich fat cat owners and against employees. No point arguing with you though. You’d defend our government whatever they did, even when they have made Putin’s mates son a Lord.
|
|
|
Post by spiderpuss on Mar 18, 2022 19:42:54 GMT
Nasty company, nasty situation. How this can happen in the 21st century is beyond belief.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Mar 18, 2022 19:59:52 GMT
This is a new low in industrial relations except for one thing... P&O have not hidden behind mealy-mouthed platitudes and instead, have just gone and done the dirty. Previously, and I'm going back to the Thatcher years, accountants ran companies and outsourced labour to find the lowest paid employees wherever they came from while British employees were thrown on the scrap heap. All our pottery jobs were given to the Far East to leave our particular area shattered as a workforce which, along with the steel industry and our coal mines disposed of, made us a warehouse city paid minimum wages.
And it all flies in the two-faced lies of Johnson who came out and said our country could now work towards a high wage society. His rich pals in high places have revealed his stupidity and duplicity.
What should happen now is the dockers should refuse to deal in any way with P&O if it tries to get going again. The mobsters they've employed to get the P&O workers off the ferries will be of no use to them then.
OS.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Mar 19, 2022 9:36:34 GMT
This is a new low in industrial relations except for one thing... P&O have not hidden behind mealy-mouthed platitudes and instead, have just gone and done the dirty. Previously, and I'm going back to the Thatcher years, accountants ran companies and outsourced labour to find the lowest paid employees wherever they came from while British employees were thrown on the scrap heap. All our pottery jobs were given to the Far East to leave our particular area shattered as a workforce which, along with the steel industry and our coal mines disposed of, made us a warehouse city paid minimum wages. And it all flies in the two-faced lies of Johnson who came out and said our country could now work towards a high wage society. His rich pals in high places have revealed his stupidity and duplicity. What should happen now is the dockers should refuse to deal in any way with P&O if it tries to get going again. The mobsters they've employed to get the P&O workers off the ferries will be of no use to them then. OS. Exactly. It was inevitable that despite what Bozo said about higher wages for British workers, businesses would take any opportunity to do things as cheaply as possible. Expect more deregulation to facilitate more of this kind of stuff.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 19, 2022 10:36:11 GMT
Are you really that financially illiterate ? Your suggestion would mean vast majority of loss making businesses go to the wall as no profitable company would buy them, as a Stoke fan you'd think you'd understand how companies within a group can have vastly different financial results and whilst the parent company might support them with loans there comes a point they expect every company to fund itself or become profitable. Perhaps the loss making companies wouldn’t be loss making if their owners weren’t creaming off all the money for themselves. Why have a parent company if it isn’t there to support the subsidiary? Why not make sure they are two completely unrelated companies instead. The whole system stinks and is for the rich fat cat owners and against employees. No point arguing with you though. You’d defend our government whatever they did, even when they have made Putin’s mates son a Lord. Dividends come out of reserves (accumulated profits) not the profit or loss for the year thanks for confirming your financial illiteracy though. Who do you think funded the £100m loss or the £250m accumulated losses a previous poster mentioned, the ferry fairies ? If P&O was a separate company it would be gone already that level of losses is unsustainable regardless of the shitty way they did it. Nice straw man not mentioned the government in this thread as for Lebredev he's lived in the UK since he was 8 owns newspapers and was not considered a problem by the many politicians who cosied upto him it's bit weird that what his father did is held against him if he was pakistan or india people would righy be shouting racism about such comments, anyway another day another $600m your beloved EU sends to Putin to help fund the war.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 19, 2022 10:53:57 GMT
Perhaps the loss making companies wouldn’t be loss making if their owners weren’t creaming off all the money for themselves. Why have a parent company if it isn’t there to support the subsidiary? Why not make sure they are two completely unrelated companies instead. The whole system stinks and is for the rich fat cat owners and against employees. No point arguing with you though. You’d defend our government whatever they did, even when they have made Putin’s mates son a Lord. Dividends come out of reserves (accumulated profits) not the profit or loss for the year thanks for confirming your financial illiteracy though. Who do you think funded the £100m loss or the £250m accumulated losses a previous poster mentioned, the ferry fairies ? If P&O was a separate company it would be gone already that level of losses is unsustainable regardless of the shitty way they did it. Nice straw man not mentioned the government in this thread as for Lebredev he's lived in the UK since he was 8 owns newspapers and was not considered a problem by the many politicians who cosied upto him it's bit weird that what his father did is held against him if he was pakistan or india people would righy be shouting racism about such comments, anyway another day another $600m your beloved EU sends to Putin to help fund the war. You say straw man and then argue the exact point I knew you would!! You are as big a joke and parody as your messiahs in the government. I know how dividends work. I think changing the law to tax parent companies paying out hundreds of millions of dividends when there is a pension deficit for employees and when they have mass redundancies would have mitigated the hundreds (thousands) of families reeling from this, at the expense of a few fat cat millionaires. It could be easily done via a clawback tax of 100% on dividends and by making what they have done illegal. Why is that so awful? Why do you oppose that? I know the government voted down protective legislation about fire and rehire. I know we have insufficient protections to employees compared with the French. I know our government gives massive income tax breaks for millionaire shareholders whilst taxing poor or normal employees much more. I know our government would need to legislate to change things for the better. But why are you opposed to that?
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Mar 19, 2022 13:06:56 GMT
Perhaps the loss making companies wouldn’t be loss making if their owners weren’t creaming off all the money for themselves. Why have a parent company if it isn’t there to support the subsidiary? Why not make sure they are two completely unrelated companies instead. The whole system stinks and is for the rich fat cat owners and against employees. No point arguing with you though. You’d defend our government whatever they did, even when they have made Putin’s mates son a Lord. Dividends come out of reserves (accumulated profits) not the profit or loss for the year thanks for confirming your financial illiteracy though. Who do you think funded the £100m loss or the £250m accumulated losses a previous poster mentioned, the ferry fairies ? If P&O was a separate company it would be gone already that level of losses is unsustainable regardless of the shitty way they did it. Nice straw man not mentioned the government in this thread as for Lebredev he's lived in the UK since he was 8 owns newspapers and was not considered a problem by the many politicians who cosied upto him it's bit weird that what his father did is held against him if he was pakistan or india people would righy be shouting racism about such comments, anyway another day another $600m your beloved EU sends to Putin to help fund the war. Lebedev was made a Lord by Johnson despite warnings from the intelligence services that he posed a security risk. Further, the House of Lords Appointments Commission advised against awarding the peerage. I haven't a clue what made them give that advice, but probably the fact he likes a party is sufficient reason to trump those advisors in Johnson's mind.
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Mar 19, 2022 13:31:47 GMT
Fancy having a Code de Travail to protect your workers, it's that kind of red tape bureaucratic nonsense that we left the EU to shake off... From it: "The company must then follow a strict process which includes calling a meeting with five days’ notice, offering retraining programmes then sending written notification of redundancy with at least seven days’ notice. P&O’s practice of calling a same-day meeting and then telling employees via video that they were immediately out of work clearly meets none of the conditions for process". There’s pro and cons to the French model. The flip side to that is that it’s very difficult and expensive to let go staff that don’t perform and this can jeopardise the viability of the company as a going concern P&O’ s behaviour has nonetheless been shocking
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Mar 19, 2022 13:39:06 GMT
Dividends come out of reserves (accumulated profits) not the profit or loss for the year thanks for confirming your financial illiteracy though. Who do you think funded the £100m loss or the £250m accumulated losses a previous poster mentioned, the ferry fairies ? If P&O was a separate company it would be gone already that level of losses is unsustainable regardless of the shitty way they did it. Nice straw man not mentioned the government in this thread as for Lebredev he's lived in the UK since he was 8 owns newspapers and was not considered a problem by the many politicians who cosied upto him it's bit weird that what his father did is held against him if he was pakistan or india people would righy be shouting racism about such comments, anyway another day another $600m your beloved EU sends to Putin to help fund the war. You say straw man and then argue the exact point I knew you would!! You are as big a joke and parody as your messiahs in the government. I know how dividends work. I think changing the law to tax parent companies paying out hundreds of millions of dividends when there is a pension deficit for employees and when they have mass redundancies would have mitigated the hundreds (thousands) of families reeling from this, at the expense of a few fat cat millionaires. It could be easily done via a clawback tax of 100% on dividends and by making what they have done illegal. Why is that so awful? Why do you oppose that? I know the government voted down protective legislation about fire and rehire. I know we have insufficient protections to employees compared with the French. I know our government gives massive income tax breaks for millionaire shareholders whilst taxing poor or normal employees much more. I know our government would need to legislate to change things for the better. But why are you opposed to that? “A 100% clawback on dividends…” interesting concept you might tease out further how this would work and would it apply to every company. Would I have to pay back the £7.18 I got from Shell dividends if your scenario eventuated? To be equitable would shareholders who supported loss making companies that eventually went bust be entitled to 100% clawback on the monies they lost?
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on Mar 19, 2022 13:40:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 19, 2022 15:14:03 GMT
You say straw man and then argue the exact point I knew you would!! You are as big a joke and parody as your messiahs in the government. I know how dividends work. I think changing the law to tax parent companies paying out hundreds of millions of dividends when there is a pension deficit for employees and when they have mass redundancies would have mitigated the hundreds (thousands) of families reeling from this, at the expense of a few fat cat millionaires. It could be easily done via a clawback tax of 100% on dividends and by making what they have done illegal. Why is that so awful? Why do you oppose that? I know the government voted down protective legislation about fire and rehire. I know we have insufficient protections to employees compared with the French. I know our government gives massive income tax breaks for millionaire shareholders whilst taxing poor or normal employees much more. I know our government would need to legislate to change things for the better. But why are you opposed to that? “A 100% clawback on dividends…” interesting concept you might tease out further how this would work and would it apply to every company. Would I have to pay back the £7.18 I got from Shell dividends if your scenario eventuated? To be equitable would shareholders who supported loss making companies that eventually went bust be entitled to 100% clawback on the monies they lost? Personally, I would change the law to tax dividends the same as PAYE. Dividends would be prohibited altogether if there is a substantial black hole in employee pension funds. Clawback on dividends would only occur for dividends on certain types of shares, namely those that give you a say in the company, rather than people who have bought shares on the LSE, or you could say only dividends of over £10k are potentially subject to clawback, and only of course in the event of mass redundancies or other significant detrimental changes to the company for employees (reductions in benefits for example). In your scenario, no, shareholders could not get money back (where would they get it from if a company is bust?). Shareholders are in a privileged position. Employees are not. I would also change the law to make companies who employ over a certain number of employees to have to be more akin to Partnerships and models adopted by John Lewis/Waitrose for example. Goving some ownership of the company to employees. I am just thinking out loud and obviously it would need detailed analysis. But the point is, our government could do a lot more to protect working people rather than wealthy shareholders. Company law and employment law as it stands is very much in favour of the rich company owners and against employees.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Mar 19, 2022 15:33:22 GMT
Fancy having a Code de Travail to protect your workers, it's that kind of red tape bureaucratic nonsense that we left the EU to shake off... From it: "The company must then follow a strict process which includes calling a meeting with five days’ notice, offering retraining programmes then sending written notification of redundancy with at least seven days’ notice. P&O’s practice of calling a same-day meeting and then telling employees via video that they were immediately out of work clearly meets none of the conditions for process". There’s pro and cons to the French model. The flip side to that is that it’s very difficult and expensive to let go staff that don’t perform and this can jeopardise the viability of the company as a going concern P&O’ s behaviour has nonetheless been shocking That's true. However, it's clearly a lot easier to get rid of the working man en masse in this country, regardless of whether they were good workers or not. That aspect appears to be basically irrelevant in this decision. Despite this, Rees-Mogg thinks workers have too much power and wants the law amended accordingly! Exaggerating a bit obviously, but what's he after exactly, a return to Victorian times when you took whatever work you were offered on a daily basis and should be grateful for it?!
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 19, 2022 16:05:22 GMT
Been losing money hand over fist for years. A quarter of a billion pounds in total. Not sure why is the government's responsibility but I guess some need no excuse. For some, everything is down to one of 1) the Tories, 2) Brexit or 3) free market capitalism and often a combination of two or sometimes all three. Of course it ain’t always primarily down to those factors. Sometimes, like here it would appear, it’s down to a poorly run company. But, banging a tired old drum seems to keep some folk happy. 1. Labour attempted to introduce an ammendment to UK Law which would have made this practice illegal The Tories voted against 2. This practice IS illegal under EU Law hence no French, Dutch or Irish sailors were fired THereford IT IS ENTIRELY down to the Tories and Brexit
|
|
|
Post by sorethumbs on Mar 19, 2022 17:52:26 GMT
“A 100% clawback on dividends…” interesting concept you might tease out further how this would work and would it apply to every company. Would I have to pay back the £7.18 I got from Shell dividends if your scenario eventuated? To be equitable would shareholders who supported loss making companies that eventually went bust be entitled to 100% clawback on the monies they lost? Personally, I would change the law to tax dividends the same as PAYE. Dividends would be prohibited altogether if there is a substantial black hole in employee pension funds. Clawback on dividends would only occur for dividends on certain types of shares, namely those that give you a say in the company, rather than people who have bought shares on the LSE, or you could say only dividends of over £10k are potentially subject to clawback, and only of course in the event of mass redundancies or other significant detrimental changes to the company for employees (reductions in benefits for example). In your scenario, no, shareholders could not get money back (where would they get it from if a company is bust?). Shareholders are in a privileged position. Employees are not. I would also change the law to make companies who employ over a certain number of employees to have to be more akin to Partnerships and models adopted by John Lewis/Waitrose for example. Goving some ownership of the company to employees. I am just thinking out loud and obviously it would need detailed analysis. But the point is, our government could do a lot more to protect working people rather than wealthy shareholders. Company law and employment law as it stands is very much in favour of the rich company owners and against employees. You make some good suggestions oggy, there should be more sensible measures regarding tax liabilities on dividends. Dividends should only be paid if debts such as pension holes are serviced to a certain level and maybe some kind of scale of dividend award dependent on debt service offset against profits for example. Your suggestion about companies being made to be partnerships over a certain workforce wouldnt work. Companies are registered as Ltd which means limited liability and are set up by a share distribution, usually held by directors unless floated. There are other types of companies that can be registered such as LLPs and a couple of others that I can't remember off the top of my head. Companies are entities, not possessions - was how my former accountant put it. They should be run correctly within the law but the law has a few loopholes which can be exploited for tax 'efficiencies' Our best time for these exploits as directors was when Labour were in power, these loopholes were being clamped down on when the coalition government came to power. As far as I'm aware (no longer a director as my company went after the financial crash) the loopholes are still there. Just makes me wonder though with you and your other Labour buddies on here pointing fingers at the Tories - why didn't Labour do any of the things you mentioned when they were in government?
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Mar 19, 2022 18:08:26 GMT
“A 100% clawback on dividends…” interesting concept you might tease out further how this would work and would it apply to every company. Would I have to pay back the £7.18 I got from Shell dividends if your scenario eventuated? To be equitable would shareholders who supported loss making companies that eventually went bust be entitled to 100% clawback on the monies they lost? Personally, I would change the law to tax dividends the same as PAYE. Dividends would be prohibited altogether if there is a substantial black hole in employee pension funds. Clawback on dividends would only occur for dividends on certain types of shares, namely those that give you a say in the company, rather than people who have bought shares on the LSE, or you could say only dividends of over £10k are potentially subject to clawback, and only of course in the event of mass redundancies or other significant detrimental changes to the company for employees (reductions in benefits for example). In your scenario, no, shareholders could not get money back (where would they get it from if a company is bust?). Shareholders are in a privileged position. Employees are not. I would also change the law to make companies who employ over a certain number of employees to have to be more akin to Partnerships and models adopted by John Lewis/Waitrose for example. Goving some ownership of the company to employees. I am just thinking out loud and obviously it would need detailed analysis. But the point is, our government could do a lot more to protect working people rather than wealthy shareholders. Company law and employment law as it stands is very much in favour of the rich company owners and against employees. There's a lot of good stuff there pal. One of the problems with company law can be actions designed with the minority of poor companies in mind can be extremely damaging to good companies- which are the majority of businesses. What you've suggested looks likely to avoid those problems. Let's hope others in positions of power are thinking along similar lines.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Mar 19, 2022 18:09:50 GMT
For some, everything is down to one of 1) the Tories, 2) Brexit or 3) free market capitalism and often a combination of two or sometimes all three. Of course it ain’t always primarily down to those factors. Sometimes, like here it would appear, it’s down to a poorly run company. But, banging a tired old drum seems to keep some folk happy. 1. Labour attempted to introduce an ammendment to UK Law which would have made this practice illegal The Tories voted against 2. This practice IS illegal under EU Law hence no French, Dutch or Irish sailors were fired THereford IT IS ENTIRELY down to the Tories and Brexit C'mon, is that the best you can do. I know two out of three ain't supposed to be bad, but I'm sure you can get a full house if you try.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 19, 2022 19:04:37 GMT
1. Labour attempted to introduce an ammendment to UK Law which would have made this practice illegal The Tories voted against 2. This practice IS illegal under EU Law hence no French, Dutch or Irish sailors were fired THereford IT IS ENTIRELY down to the Tories and Brexit C'mon, is that the best you can do. I know two out of three ain't supposed to be bad, but I'm sure you can get a full house if you try. Try and deflect all you like but you can't change the facts I didn't think it was necessary to explain to you that DP World with Assets North of £26B and 50,000 employees have no empirical reason to do this They are merely using a loophole in legislation CREATED BY THE TORIES AND BREXIT HOUSE !!!
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 19, 2022 19:47:45 GMT
Dividends come out of reserves (accumulated profits) not the profit or loss for the year thanks for confirming your financial illiteracy though. Who do you think funded the £100m loss or the £250m accumulated losses a previous poster mentioned, the ferry fairies ? If P&O was a separate company it would be gone already that level of losses is unsustainable regardless of the shitty way they did it. Nice straw man not mentioned the government in this thread as for Lebredev he's lived in the UK since he was 8 owns newspapers and was not considered a problem by the many politicians who cosied upto him it's bit weird that what his father did is held against him if he was pakistan or india people would righy be shouting racism about such comments, anyway another day another $600m your beloved EU sends to Putin to help fund the war. You say straw man and then argue the exact point I knew you would!! You are as big a joke and parody as your messiahs in the government. I know how dividends work. I think changing the law to tax parent companies paying out hundreds of millions of dividends when there is a pension deficit for employees and when they have mass redundancies would have mitigated the hundreds (thousands) of families reeling from this, at the expense of a few fat cat millionaires. It could be easily done via a clawback tax of 100% on dividends and by making what they have done illegal. Why is that so awful? Why do you oppose that? I know the government voted down protective legislation about fire and rehire. I know we have insufficient protections to employees compared with the French. I know our government gives massive income tax breaks for millionaire shareholders whilst taxing poor or normal employees much more. I know our government would need to legislate to change things for the better. But why are you opposed to that? Another $600m to Putin from your boloved EU today. When DP World bought P&O in 2019 they were already losing money your suggestion of taxing parent company dividends just means in future distressed companies will just goto the wall an even worse outcome than know. The pension deficit wont have arisen in the last 2 years it will be historic, actuary valuations are really complicated and involve massive assumptions and fluctuate considerably dependent on no of staff and the general stock market so its not unusual for pension funds to be in deficit what is key is the company continuing to pay the pensions and besides as Phillip Green found out there is no way to escape your liability in respect of this. As for fire and rehire legislation just a red herring in case you didnt notice this is actually just fire there's nothing in EU or UK law that can prevent this, the protections in french law just slow down such processes and dont stop them, what they have done is already illegal in the UK they are getting round it by just offering more than statutory redundancy payments, employees can accept this or go to a tribunal for unfair dismissal neither is a very good option for the employee essentially what you are trying to do is force a company losing bucketloads of money to keep doing that, again its shitty for the 800 but the alternative would be the company closing and 5000+ losing jobs. Massive tax breaks to millionaire shareholders what are you on about ? The majority of shares are held by companies like pension funds, the changes you suggest would wreak havoc on 70m+ peoples pensions.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 19, 2022 20:06:14 GMT
Personally, I would change the law to tax dividends the same as PAYE. Dividends would be prohibited altogether if there is a substantial black hole in employee pension funds. Clawback on dividends would only occur for dividends on certain types of shares, namely those that give you a say in the company, rather than people who have bought shares on the LSE, or you could say only dividends of over £10k are potentially subject to clawback, and only of course in the event of mass redundancies or other significant detrimental changes to the company for employees (reductions in benefits for example). In your scenario, no, shareholders could not get money back (where would they get it from if a company is bust?). Shareholders are in a privileged position. Employees are not. I would also change the law to make companies who employ over a certain number of employees to have to be more akin to Partnerships and models adopted by John Lewis/Waitrose for example. Goving some ownership of the company to employees. I am just thinking out loud and obviously it would need detailed analysis. But the point is, our government could do a lot more to protect working people rather than wealthy shareholders. Company law and employment law as it stands is very much in favour of the rich company owners and against employees. You make some good suggestions oggy, there should be more sensible measures regarding tax liabilities on dividends. Dividends should only be paid if debts such as pension holes are serviced to a certain level and maybe some kind of scale of dividend award dependent on debt service offset against profits for example. Your suggestion about companies being made to be partnerships over a certain workforce wouldnt work. Companies are registered as Ltd which means limited liability and are set up by a share distribution, usually held by directors unless floated. There are other types of companies that can be registered such as LLPs and a couple of others that I can't remember off the top of my head. Companies are entities, not possessions - was how my former accountant put it. They should be run correctly within the law but the law has a few loopholes which can be exploited for tax 'efficiencies' Our best time for these exploits as directors was when Labour were in power, these loopholes were being clamped down on when the coalition government came to power. As far as I'm aware (no longer a director as my company went after the financial crash) the loopholes are still there. Just makes me wonder though with you and your other Labour buddies on here pointing fingers at the Tories - why didn't Labour do any of the things you mentioned when they were in government? Just to clarify, I have never voted Labour in my life. I have not suggested a perfect solution and am by no means a Company Law expert (it’s been a few years since I studied it and I practice in a different area). But there is loads that this government, or a labour government, could do to better protect the working man/woman and stop backing the millionaires (which the tories certainly do more of than labour). I just wish they would make real changes. Sadly, Brexit was another step away from that with the potential to deregulate and reduce rights for employees and consumers (which were always able to be made more pro-individual and anti-business than EU law sets it at).
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Mar 19, 2022 20:37:10 GMT
C'mon, is that the best you can do. I know two out of three ain't supposed to be bad, but I'm sure you can get a full house if you try. Try and deflect all you like but you can't change the facts I didn't think it was necessary to explain to you that DP World with Assets North of £26B and 50,000 employees have no empirical reason to do this They are merely using a loophole in legislation CREATED BY THE TORIES AND BREXIT HOUSE !!! Still 2/3. Good, but could do better.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 19, 2022 20:45:36 GMT
“A 100% clawback on dividends…” interesting concept you might tease out further how this would work and would it apply to every company. Would I have to pay back the £7.18 I got from Shell dividends if your scenario eventuated? To be equitable would shareholders who supported loss making companies that eventually went bust be entitled to 100% clawback on the monies they lost? Personally, I would change the law to tax dividends the same as PAYE. Dividends would be prohibited altogether if there is a substantial black hole in employee pension funds. Clawback on dividends would only occur for dividends on certain types of shares, namely those that give you a say in the company, rather than people who have bought shares on the LSE, or you could say only dividends of over £10k are potentially subject to clawback, and only of course in the event of mass redundancies or other significant detrimental changes to the company for employees (reductions in benefits for example). In your scenario, no, shareholders could not get money back (where would they get it from if a company is bust?). Shareholders are in a privileged position. Employees are not. I would also change the law to make companies who employ over a certain number of employees to have to be more akin to Partnerships and models adopted by John Lewis/Waitrose for example. Goving some ownership of the company to employees. I am just thinking out loud and obviously it would need detailed analysis. But the point is, our government could do a lot more to protect working people rather than wealthy shareholders. Company law and employment law as it stands is very much in favour of the rich company owners and against employees. That would be quite some change in the law to tax dividends paid in checks notes Dubai as UK paye and might be a tad tricky to enforce, the only people that might be caught are UK pension funds or other UK shareholders. Also if you want dividends to be taxed the same as PAYE you seem to be suggesting the abolition of corporation tax as dividends are paid out of profit after tax so dividends become some kind of taxable deduction. I think this might need some more work....
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 20, 2022 0:12:56 GMT
Try and deflect all you like but you can't change the facts I didn't think it was necessary to explain to you that DP World with Assets North of £26B and 50,000 employees have no empirical reason to do this They are merely using a loophole in legislation CREATED BY THE TORIES AND BREXIT HOUSE !!! Still 2/3. Good, but could do better. Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Mar 20, 2022 6:29:09 GMT
Still 2/3. Good, but could do better. Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity Did you figure that out looking in the mirror?
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 20, 2022 9:47:07 GMT
Personally, I would change the law to tax dividends the same as PAYE. Dividends would be prohibited altogether if there is a substantial black hole in employee pension funds. Clawback on dividends would only occur for dividends on certain types of shares, namely those that give you a say in the company, rather than people who have bought shares on the LSE, or you could say only dividends of over £10k are potentially subject to clawback, and only of course in the event of mass redundancies or other significant detrimental changes to the company for employees (reductions in benefits for example). In your scenario, no, shareholders could not get money back (where would they get it from if a company is bust?). Shareholders are in a privileged position. Employees are not. I would also change the law to make companies who employ over a certain number of employees to have to be more akin to Partnerships and models adopted by John Lewis/Waitrose for example. Goving some ownership of the company to employees. I am just thinking out loud and obviously it would need detailed analysis. But the point is, our government could do a lot more to protect working people rather than wealthy shareholders. Company law and employment law as it stands is very much in favour of the rich company owners and against employees. That would be quite some change in the law to tax dividends paid in checks notes Dubai as UK paye and might be a tad tricky to enforce, the only people that might be caught are UK pension funds or other UK shareholders. Also if you want dividends to be taxed the same as PAYE you seem to be suggesting the abolition of corporation tax as dividends are paid out of profit after tax so dividends become some kind of taxable deduction. I think this might need some more work.... Yes, you are right. It needs work. Fortunately those far more informed than me spend years coming up with policy whereas I spend 5 mins thinking about it and type it out on a stoke message board. The fact remains, a lot more could be done, as proven by the fact French employees of P&O still have jobs but British ones don’t.
|
|