Vince Cable, the silly old unreformed socialist fool who masquerades as a Lib Dem Minister for Business (not that there is that much difference between socialism and modern day liberalism) has objected, in no uncertain terms, to the very sensible Beecroft Report which suggests there is too much red tape involved in the hiring of suitable and the firing of unsuitable employees, and that the UK economy would grow much more quickly if it was removed.
Beecroft has retaliated by claiming that Cable is not fit for office. I think I know who I believe in. Of course, Wavy Davy is sitting on the shelf, or should that be the fence?!
Boadicea's Chariot 
Venture capitalist?
Screw the people who work for you as long as there is a healthy profit in it and a nice fat executive bonus?
It has taken decades to establish protection for employees and this fat cat wants to wipe them out with a flourish of his Mont Blanc. Good on you Cable.
This isn’t socialism it’s just common sense. If anything, the big firms need to be reeled in not let loose. How many times have they told us we are in a recession and the cost of supplies are on the up? They have no choice but to increase the consumer costs and make compulsory redundancies. Then the profit/loss report comes out and they are overjoyed with record gains.
I see this Beecroft has been ‘on the board’ of over 20 companies. He seems proud of that but we used to call it “The Circus”. Not because you moved from one place to the other, never stopping long at each position but because it’s where you put all the proper clowns.
“Screw the people who work for you as long as there is a healthy profit in it and a nice fat executive bonus?”
You know that is not the case. And you also know that many people are working badly in their jobs and are a liability to most of the workforce. While I accept that the Beecroft Report could have been worded more diplomatically, it surely must be possible to get rid of workers who are riding on the backs of others and costing their company money. One Government minister comes to mind, for a start!
FEEG,
I know it IS the case.
Recently where I work we had a triple wave of redundancies in one year. The same year our CEO was awarded a 60,000 bonus.
Ferret, are you serious? Venture capitalists are the people who invest in new businesses and provide capital for existing businesses to grow and prosper. Without them there would be no workers. VCs put their money where their mouth is. If the company they invest in goes bust, they lose out. Often they do go under. But every so often they succeed and quite rightly the investor takes a substantial cut. Who is going to invest in start ups if not VCs? Most banks only lend on a very sure thing. Not only to VCs lend money, they also provide considerable expertise and other benefits such as contacts for trading opportunities.
It’s unpalatable but cost reduction is one of the tougher aspects of a CEO’s job. You should try it and realise you’ve earned your bonus when you’ve saved the company from certain ruin. Fewer jobs are better than none.
OK Sipu, buy at the same time if there were no workers there would be no business.
It strikes me as hilarious that no-one dares point out the elephant in the room. Wavy Davey is hell bent on getting us back to the exact same state of affairs which dropped us in the brown stuff in the first place.
As soon as the investors and the shareholders see the slightest dip in the price they take their money and run. So what do the board do? They cut overheads as soon as the rain comes and the first place they start is the wages bill. Scrupulous employers will weather the storm and run lean for a while but they are few and far between. If the tories get their way and make it easy for companies to lay off staff on a whim then it will become a quarterly practice. After all there are plenty folks in the dole queue if a decent enough order should come along.
Gambling on the performance of businesses seems acceptable to most but when a lot of people rely on those firms to put a roof over their heads and pay the bills, fly-by-night get rich quick cowboys are not welcome.
Look at what is happening over the facebook flotation fiasco. A bunch of ‘gamblers’ are now sueing FB and the bank because they lost a bundle on their bet. I don’t see anyone taking Ladbrokes to court because dobbin didn’t do well in the 3:40 at Kempton.
Hmm Janus,
I woul dhave a hard time convincing the four people who could have worked for a year on the money that CEO awarded himself as a perk.
The bonus was certainly not awarded to him by himself! The board/owners needed a job done and he got paid by the results! Nasty business, I know.
As with most things there is a happy medium. Certainly employment law has become silly in the UK and needs rewriting but not to the point where people can be hired and fired with impunity.
Equally venture capitalism has too many facets of vulture capitalism where the banks are in cahoots with the asset stripping, or, even nastier, are themselves the asset strippers.
Far too much political grandstanding and far too little common sense. None of the sons of bitches are fit for purpose. Most of them would be hard put to wash the kitchen floor, one wonders which orifices they licked quite so assiduously to get the positions they have.
Fit for purpose? Most of them are plain disgusting.
OK Hugh,
“Accepted as a perk” my issue is, did that ‘job’ need to be done?
Mrs O, far more eloquently put than I could ever have dreamt of achieving. 🙂
Christina
Thanks for saving me from having to write what you have said so well.
On the question of companies facing hard times. Qantas recently paid its CEO an $11m bonus – and he then shut Qantas down (thus losing the company billions) so that he could reduce the Australian workforce. No one even considered stripping him of his bonus to pay for the money he ‘lost’ the company. The blame was laid at the Unions who were trying to safeguard Australian jobs – as enshrined in the Qantas Act passed when Qantas went public.
Qantas is struggling, and I suspect that years of providing poor service, and the stranding of thousands of passengers did not encourage those passengers to choose Qantas again.
The news last night was that Qantas is ‘restructuring’ again – for which read cutting the Australian workforce again. No one seems to consider that maybe, just maybe providing a better service might be a better way of turning the business around.
Cutting jobs is not always the only or best way of improving business performance, Paying huge bonuses to those who have made the cuts is rubbing salt in the wounds of those who have been sacked,
Ferret, to be frank, I am a great believer in less regulation and more conscience. The reason so many unscrupulous people exploit situations, and I agree that they do, is that governments try and regulate every aspect about what one should do and how one should behave. Tell a person he may not do something and he will do it. But, left to their own devices, I believe people are actually quite pleasant.
Somewhere there is a letter from my great grandfather, written circa 1880. Despite being ‘lord and master’ of all he could see, he makes a humble apology to one of his tenants for the fact that one of his dogs killed a sheep belonging to said tenant. In the letter, he asks for the bill so that he can pay for the damage.
I truly believe that most people who have much strive to behave honourably, provided that they are not castigated for their wealth. A case in point being Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, two of the richest people in the world who seem to be honourable, if somewhat misguided.
I am now going to bed!
CO, I fear your akshull knowledge of real live chief execuitives is sadly lacking. Your description may suit your prejudices though and if you could detail for me the daily workload of a CEO according to your own ideas I might be able to put you right.
Sorry Ferret, but I think you are wrong. Of course there are some CEOs who exploit their work force, but many do not. It is typically socialist to regulate the many, guilty or not, rather than punish the guilty.
Looked at realistically, would you rather have no job but full employment rights, or a job with fewer employment rights?
FEEG,
You are the one who wishes to punish the many for the failings of the few, not I.
You want everyone to undergo a total lack of job security because of a very small percentage of idle slackers, who lets face it, could be sacked under the current system with a little creative HR work.
Generally speaking I believe that the company belongs to the shareholders who should have the right to hire, fire and remunerate as they see fit. Job security falls into the same category as the much derided ‘Yooman Rights’. Why should anybody have the right to a secure job? Of course, if you enter into a contract with your employer, you should both stick to its terms, but If you don’t like the terms being offered, don’t work there. The legislation of Job security is a socialist concept and damages the economy and society. It leads to lower standards in the work place and makes the nation less competitive. People who know they cannot be fired never work as well as those who are at risk. It was that mentality that brought British Industry to its knees. Remember Derek ‘Red Robbo’ Robinson and all those British Leyland workers sleeping on the night shift.
It works both ways. A company cannot stop its staff from leaving. People are poached or leave for better working conditions all the time.
It is not as if it is beneficial to the company to be constantly firing people. They will only do it for the good of the company. It is disruptive and expensive. Believe it or not employers are actually human and prefer their employees to be happy. But employing slack or incompetent workers means the rest of the company suffers and put the jobs of everybody at risk. If you lose your job because the company can no longer afford you, tough. Get over it.
I did not say that. Of course everyone should have basic employment rights. The problem lies in the fact that because it is so difficult to fire anyone not pulling their weight, and there are many, not few as you say, especially in some areas of the public sector, employers are very reluctant to take on staff.
As for creative HR work, in my experience, HR are some of the worst offenders.
Janus #13.
I wish it were more lacking than it is!
You forget I worked for the US Embassy for 6 years!
As part of the trade delegation it was my job to take these tossers on factory visits round the UK. As usual with any group some were sweeties and others totally repellent! As far as their work was concerned far too many seemed to wish to be come acquainted with the inside of brothels rather than boardrooms.
Equally I ran my own businesses for years with 16 employees I think that I get the drift of what goes on.
And how many businesses did you run? (At a profit!)
Well I hate to say I told you so but lookee see what we have here.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-how-adrian-beecroft-made-a-career-out-of-cutting-jobs-7789303.html
I see he comes from the school of move up or move out, a culture where taking one weekend off work in any month was considered a sacking offence.
I also note with disgust, one of Beecrofts current money spinners is Wonga.com one of the most insidious types of company on the market today. Taking full advantage of the desperate conditions people like him have created. Pay day loans with APRs in the thousands are nothing but vultures.
So FEEG you still think that the Beecrofts of the world are not likely to sack people on a whim? Make a profit and get out, As he himself has proven so on at least 20 occasions.
Hey I know, lets bring back child labour while we’re at it.