shares

[shepherdess]

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/national/ ... -1-5418964" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[daveallum]

I worked for British Gas when it was privatised and if this 10% handout works out the same,the shares will be held in trust for you,we were able to sell them if we wished after two years but we paid tax on them,if we held them for the full three years then we were able to sell them without paying tax.It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

[silly suffolk]

I worked for British Gas when it was privatised and if this 10% handout works out the same,the shares will be held in trust for you,we were able to sell them if we wished after two years but we paid tax on them,if we held them for the full three years then we were able to sell them without paying tax.It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

i wonder how many people b gas employed before privatisation in comparison to now? the bribe will carry 1 hell of a consequence.

[daveallum]

I worked for British Gas when it was privatised and if this 10% handout works out the same,the shares will be held in trust for you,we were able to sell them if we wished after two years but we paid tax on them,if we held them for the full three years then we were able to sell them without paying tax.It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

i wonder how many people b gas employed before privatisation in comparison to now? the bribe will carry 1 hell of a consequence.

I still have a few former workmates who are still employed in the gas industry and I would think that the workforce of British Gas (not it's contractors) has dropped by at least 50%.

[parcelboy]

Keep the shareholders happy its easy just put your prices up

[iamchopski]

10% of nothing is still nothing!

[steven100]

Con!

[borgpicard]

Shove the shares

[comeracing]

there called phantom shares PART 2.

[spoodoo]

Robbed us of £1400 That's ok we just shook our heads and got on with it,,,and they expect us to respect them etc

[wandle]

10% of nothing is still nothing!

Colleague Shares was NOT a proper share-ownership scheme, it was a simple bonus scheme that was given a deliberately misleading name.
What's now being proposed would be a true share-ownership scheme, with real shares that would be tradeable on the London Stock Exchange. I would guess we'd need to keep them for a minimum of two years to be able to sell them tax-free though.
Might have to stop moaning that 'the owners of this company are clueless' when WE own 10% of the shares, mind

[UnhappyGremlin]

Problem with this is, could we really trust the management structure to run the company in a way that would result in us actually getting anything for the shares when the time comes for us to sell them? They would devalue them from their original expected price to a mere fraction in my opinion, possibly on purpose knowing this lot.

And if, they actually manage to maintain or improve their value, in the end, we will probably pay through the nose in terms of job cuts, working conditions and pay freezes/cuts. I for one will not, as is being possibly proposed, buy any extra for myself. If they decide that we can only have them if we buy at a discounted rate, again, not interested.

And if by some miracle, the shares are worth more, I'd be willing to bet that the management will have a higher holding than us and will benefit more than we will. Which would be a shock to the rank and file, obviously.

[barrowc]

Any guide to investment would tell you to diversify what you're invested in. Having a significant amount invested in the company you work for is not necessarily a great idea in my opinion - see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7389304.stm and http://www.northernrockvaluer.org.uk/, for example

[wandle]

Problem with this is, could we really trust the management structure to run the company in a way that would result in us actually getting anything for the shares when the time comes for us to sell them? They would devalue them from their original expected price to a mere fraction in my opinion, possibly on purpose knowing this lot.

And if, they actually manage to maintain or improve their value, in the end, we will probably pay through the nose in terms of job cuts, working conditions and pay freezes/cuts. I for one will not, as is being possibly proposed, buy any extra for myself. If they decide that we can only have them if we buy at a discounted rate, again, not interested.

And if by some miracle, the shares are worth more, I'd be willing to bet that the management will have a higher holding than us and will benefit more than we will. Which would be a shock to the rank and file, obviously.

The share price of a company listed on the stock exchange is not set by the management of that company. Market forces would determine the price. If there are more buyers than sellers, the share price rises, and vice versa. Obviously, disastrous decisions made by senior management could hit profits and thus create a situation where the share price falls. But they would not directly 'control' the daily share price !!

[fishtank]

The Postal Services Act only guarantees 10% employee ownership.
It doesn't guarantee transferable individual share allocations.
It could be that the entire allocation is held in trust and the employees only receive a dividend,providing the company makes a profit/cuts costs/jobs etc.

If the company were to simply offer individual shares to employees and allowed them free reign to sell them to whoever they liked within 5 years the employees would own virtually nothing of the company.