Letter to RM issue of shares (point raised by Geoff in chat)

[Visionary Man]

Did you see any lizards?

lol

Nope! I've found humans tend to make much better conspirators though. :)

Geoff

[fishtank]

I would not call it "lies", Geoff in good faith raised a possible issue with free shares.

My comments were not directed at you or Geoff but at recent comments on twitter by semi-official CWU "sources" and an amendment to recommendation 5 at the Postal Policy forum by North Wales/North West Division.

The PEC is instructed to give the widest possible publicity amongst the membership to the terms of the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 “Employee Shareholders” as part of the anti privatisation campaign

[stephen500]

I would not call it "lies", Geoff in good faith raised a possible issue with free shares.

My comments were not directed at you or Geoff but at recent comments on twitter by semi-official CWU "sources" and an amendment to recommendation 5 at the Postal Policy forum by North Wales/North West Division.

The PEC is instructed to give the widest possible publicity amongst the membership to the terms of the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 “Employee Shareholders” as part of the anti privatisation campaign

Thanks. I hope the barrister is retained and we get to the truth by 30th Sept.

[clashcityrocker]

How much is this barrister going to charge to tell us what we already know?

[fishtank]

In furtherance to refuting fishtanks claims

You're not refuting,that would require proof.
You are simply repudiating.
You're a trained Paralegal.
You should know the difference.

[stephen500]

How much is this barrister going to charge to tell us what we already know?

I don't Care what the barrister costs. The CWU receives an income of £28 million pounds a year. A good use of subs.

[Visionary Man]

What's the projected date(s) for the issuing of the shares and flotation?

[RelocatedRick]

Having read through the original text of section 31 of the Growth etc act (GIA), it appears to me a very clear black & white situation.

The act clearly states that employees who receive shares in their employers business become "employee shareholders". No exceptions.

Having become "employee shareholders" we have accepted to lose certain rights under 205A (2). No exceptions.

NOWHERE in the text of the Growth etc act, is there any exceptions, exemptions, or distinctions to these rules, that would exclude the HMRC SIP scheme or any other share scheme from being covered by this act.

To my eyes it could not be more clear: you accept shares from your employer = you lose rights, no exceptions.

Furthermore this act is now bolted on to the Employment Rights Act 1996 which by its nature is all encompassing.

If what RM claim is true, that the HMRC SIP has nothing to do with the GIA, then why does the GIA not state that employees who receive shares under the HMRC SIP are excluded from the GIA?

And as already stated the alignment of the GIA timetable, and the govt's privatisation timetable is just soooooooooooooooooo uncanny.

Bung the stupid posties a few shares to buy their votes & keep them quiet; and then get rid of them all on the cheap once it's sold.

[barrowc]

The piece on myroyalmail.com claiming that accepting the shares won't affect your employment rights has managed to convince our place that the opposite must be true. The majority now think that accepting shares equals giving up all rights to redundancy payments etc.

It's going to take a lot more than Royal Mail's version of "Don't Worry, Be Happy" to sort this one out

[RelocatedRick]

Well there is that old nugget, if something looks like sh*t,
smells like sh*t,
tastes like sh*t,
...................................................it probably is sh*t!!

And the RM share scheme is looking and smelling very bad right now!!!

[TrueBlueTerrier]

NOWHERE in the text of the Growth etc act, is there any exceptions, exemptions, or distinctions to these rules, that would exclude the HMRC SIP scheme or any other share scheme from being covered by this act.

There is although its couched in legalese.

(c)the company gives the individual a written statement of the particulars of the status of employee shareholder and of the rights which attach to the shares referred to in paragraph (b) (“the employee shares”) (see subsection (5)), and

So if they give us the shares, but don't give us the written statement as described above, and a chance to get legal advice (paid by them), and the 7 day gap between issue and acceptance then we won't come under the GAI Act but would then come under the HRMC SIP.

We just have to be careful when we actually get the shares.

Also there is the huge elephant in the room that Royal Mail have said that we won't come under the new act, therefore if all of sudden we do then surely they are leaving themselves open to 150,000 legal claims. Thats a lot more expensive that 150,000 bills for legal advise.

[Visionary Man]

You're not refuting,that would require proof.
You are simply repudiating.
You're a trained Paralegal.
You should know the difference.

You are right I should know the difference. :)

I never got to practice. Tried everywhere locally to get a job but ended up working for RM instead. Which actually, as jobs go, isn't bad.

I like RM as an institution. That's why it upsets me that our board haven't looked after it.

[fishtank]

If what RM claim is true, that the HMRC SIP has nothing to do with the GIA, then why does the GIA not state that employees who receive shares under the HMRC SIP are excluded from the GIA?

It doesn't state any of the exclusions.
Why would it,the list is almost endless.

Company directors sometimes receive shares in lieu of bonuses.
They don't give up any of their rights.
John Lewis staff and CO-OP members get shares.
They don't give up any of their rights.

In order for the GIA to be legally binding an employer has to declare that this is what they are offering and this is what they want in return.
It can't be done by stealth,any half decent lawyer would tear that to shreds.

Royal Mail are offering "free" shares.
HMRC already recognises shares acquired through the GIA are not "free".
They have even gone as far as placing an arbitrary value of £2,000 on these rights.
That's why the first £2,000 are tax and NI free.....and ours are not.

[barrowc]

This confusion was raised as an issue during the consultation on the "employee owner" aspects of the Growth & Infrastructure Bill last year:

20. We are also concerned and confused as to the impact of this proposal on existing Employee Share Ownership Programs (ESOPs). These have been almost universally accepted as a positive and flexible component of many remuneration programs utilised by employers and enjoyed by employees.

21. We cannot help but anticipate that if the 'employee owner' proposals are developed further to the point of implementation, it can only confuse and have an adverse impact on the standing, efficacy and take-up of existing ESOPs.

Who raised this issue? The CWU - the letter accompanying that submission is signed by Billy Hayes

See page 163 onwards of this PDF file https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... dents5.pdf which is consulation response Document 6 from https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... -status--2

[Visionary Man]

Yeah That certainly looks like a nice piece of spin with carefully worded questions designed to get the desired responses.

Of course removing unfair dismissal won't get people thinking it will affect recruitment much. Recruitment is about good head hunting / recruitment techniques and about pitching a deal that will get the skills you want in the market you are competing in.

What it will do is enable a company to cut jobs en mass with very few obliged expenses on the mere premise of some spurious accounting.