AnotherLimey wrote: why would i not take the shares on offer?
Because the value of your shares will be dependant on anti-worker measures.
If your trade union principles can be bought off with the promise of the possibility of a couple of grand, then .......you can finish the sentence yourself.
Aren't all wage rises and bonus structures ultimately dependant on anti-worker measures though.
Granted these are more obvious but doesn't your argument undermine the whole philosophy of collective bargaining?
Would you refuse EVR bearing in mind you would be culling a job in the process?
I think trying to guilt trip members into refusing the shares citing trade union principles is a little unfair.
clashcityrocker wrote:
Any dividend or increase in value will I believe , be a direct result of job losses and the degradation in terms of conditions of those that remain.
Do I want to stain my hands with that blood money? No thank you.
I don't own shares in any company. I don't subscribe to the share-owning democracy crap. I won't accept the bribe.
wow I did not believe there was any socialist left
fishtank wrote:
Aren't all wage rises and bonus structures ultimately dependant on anti-worker measures though.
Granted these are more obvious but doesn't your argument undermine the whole philosophy of collective bargaining?
Would you refuse EVR bearing in mind you would be culling a job in the process?
No I don't think so.
EVR for example would arise from an office revision which would establish the office staffing. You don't get an EVR unless that job can be lost.
Wage rises are about trying to get as much for the workers as possible. It doesn't follow that a 3% wage rise would be accompanied by a 3% savings drive.
Privatisation will probably mean savings measures which are detrimental to the service and the staff, by necessity. And let's remember they have already played around with zero hour contracts and a 2 tier service (Angard).
You can't compare that to a wage rise or a bonus.
The societies of consumption and squandering of material resources are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet.
clashcityrocker wrote:It doesn't follow that a 3% wage rise would be accompanied by a 3% savings drive.
No you're right.
It would more likely be a 5% savings drive.
I respect your position,I just don't think it's really fair to portray it as anything more than a personal ideological stand.
I think both the Government and Royal Mail would be quite happy if all employees opted out,they would soon get over the embarrassment IF the sale is oversubscribed and they had an extra £300 million to play with.
clashcityrocker wrote:
I won't accept them because:
Any dividend or increase in value will I believe , be a direct result of job losses and the degradation in terms of conditions of those that remain.
Do I want to stain my hands with that blood money? No thank you.
I don't own shares in any company. I don't subscribe to the share-owning democracy crap. I won't accept the bribe.
If we are privatized, you've come to own these shares by accident, you haven't stained your hands with anything. Being a share holder you will have a voice and yours is the type of voice that will be needed. Please don't cut your nose of to spite your face.
Cant really call free shares a bribe as we have no influence over privatisation. Sure we can strike over pay and conditions but we cant strike over privatisation on principle. If we're going to get stiched up let's grab whats on offer.
skull wrote:
Being a share holder you will have a voice and yours is the type of voice that will be needed. Please don't cut your nose of to spite your face.
skull wrote:
Being a share holder you will have a voice and yours is the type of voice that will be needed. Please don't cut your nose of to spite your face.
your dreaming-you wont have a voice.
respect to clash
You don't know, one day there might be a vote put to shareholders. I'd rather have someone like clash having a say than not. The greater the amount of shares going to employees the better.
Just listening to Alex Salmond on the BBC news, he's calling for the sale of RM to be delayed until after the Scottish independence referendum. His argument is that the Scottish people own 8% of RM and the government don't have the right to sell off and pocket the cash raised from Scottish assets.
AnotherLimey wrote: why would i not take the shares on offer?
Because the value of your shares will be dependant on anti-worker measures.
If your trade union principles can be bought off with the promise of the possibility of a couple of grand, then .......you can finish the sentence yourself.
skull wrote:
You don't know, one day there might be a vote put to shareholders. I'd rather have someone like clash having a say than not. The greater the amount of shares going to employees the better.
Just listening to Alex Salmond on the BBC news, he's calling for the sale of RM to be delayed until after the Scottish independence referendum. His argument is that the Scottish people own 8% of RM and the government don't have the right to sell off and pocket the cash raised from Scottish assets.
aye there may be a vote but taking that the other 90% is sold any vote would be concerning returns on shareholders investment which would be diametrically opposed to the concerns of the 10%.Your voice would still be on the picket line and thats if Royal Mail hasnt been chopped up and outsourced which would surely be the beginning of the end for the CWU.
I presume Salmond will be dismissed out of hand and what he is really looking for is independence votes and to build on the CWU Edinburgh Branch independence reccommendartion....independence another escape route for working people blocked off by Labour
This might be a stupid idea, i know noting about shares and how the %s of them means who runs the show, but sitting here im thinking (right here goes). If they are giving us 10% of the shares which is £2000 for full time and pro rota for part time and say the maximum you can buy is £10,000 (dont forget workers have the priority for the shares, if they want to purchase more) then why arent the union encouraging us to buy as many as we can afford. Dont shoot me down but can someone tell me why this is not a good idea, as we would more or less be able to buy the maximum amount being sold between us and have an even bigger say in how its run
