Re: America's poor resort to tent cities : Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:42 pm  

John Lewis.

Re: America's poor resort to tent cities : Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:43 pm  

Andy Gilder wrote:

Other than the traditional owner/director or family run company, very few people acquire shares so they can have a say in the running of the business. They are acquired usually as an investment, either in terms of expecting the share price to rise or dividends to be plentiful.

You would also have to question the ability and competence of many shareholders to get involved in the decision making process of a company.

It would be a nightmare.

Even if the owner/family/directors felt confident enough to issue shares to employees (and some do) can you imagine the diversity of opinion at the next board meeting, and would there be a table big enough ?

And from the other end of the spectrum, if there is no financial need to do so at the moment why would an owner/director want to open up the books for browsing for any old Joe Bloggs on the shopfloor with ten shares to have a pick through and then spend the next 12 months griping about the MD's take home pay ?

Re: America's poor resort to tent cities : Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:47 pm  

Mintball wrote:

John Lewis.

I went to school with him. Did you too?

Re: America's poor resort to tent cities : Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:49 pm  

Mintball wrote:

John Lewis.

IIRC the employees have a "staff council" which is used to filter suggestions up to a Board of Directors - who are then responsible for having the final say on decisions that impact the business.

The only recourse staff have as "shareholders" is through an AGM, as they would in any other business.

Re: America's poor resort to tent cities : Wed Feb 15, 2012 2:29 pm  

But it works rather well, don't you think, Andy? And all the staff get a share in the annual 'dividend'.

Re: America's poor resort to tent cities : Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:52 pm  

Mintball wrote:

But it works rather well, don't you think, Andy? And all the staff get a share in the annual 'dividend'.

But does it work well purely because of is "partners" policy or because it has been a well-managed business with a unique brand that appeals to a particular market? I think the latter on balance.

Re: America's poor resort to tent cities : Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:32 pm  

Dally wrote:

But does it work well purely because of is "partners" policy or because it has been a well-managed business with a unique brand that appeals to a particular market? I think the latter on balance.

If I wanted to show someone an example of a loaded argument this would be a great candidate. You say that your opinion could ONLY be invalidated if it were determined that a successful business in which seemingly contented employees have a say in its successful running is so ONLY because the employees have a say as opposed to one or more of infinite other possibilities (products, service, stupid luck etc.)

You set impossible demands and then congratulate yourself because no one can meet them.

Trust me. You won't melt like ice cream under a hot sun if you can bring yourself to admit the business is successful at least in some teensy weensy part because of the system.

Re: America's poor resort to tent cities : Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:33 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

If I wanted to show someone an example of a loaded argument this would be a great candidate. You say that your opinion could ONLY be invalidated if it were determined that a successful business in which seemingly contented employees have a say in its successful running is so ONLY because the employees have a say as opposed to one or more of infinite other possibilities (products, service, stupid luck etc.)

You set impossible demands and then congratulate yourself because no one can meet them.

Trust me. You won't melt like ice cream under a hot sun if you can bring yourself to admit the business is successful at least in some teensy weensy part because of the system.

What a load of tosh!

The point I was making was that because Jonelle is organised in a way that suits her mindset she holds it out as a model and thus tries to imply its successful because of its staffing arrangements. Whilst that will play a part, is it really likely to be the full story? In other words, I was rather more politely than you making essentially the same point.

Re: America's poor resort to tent cities : Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:26 am  

Dally wrote:

What a load of tosh!

The point I was making was that because Jonelle is organised in a way that suits her mindset she holds it out as a model and thus tries to imply its successful because of its staffing arrangements. Whilst that will play a part, is it really likely to be the full story?

WHERE did mintball claim it is the only reason?

Re: America's poor resort to tent cities : Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:22 am  

Staff inclusion is not the sole reason for JLP's success but it cannot be ignored as a significant contributory factor. They regularly score highly in polls of: customer satisfaction, supplier satisfaction and staff satisfaction, when compared to their publicly-quoted competition.

Strange too that heavily unionised industries in Germany & France also perform well, could the involvement of worker representation at board level also have something to do with that success?

An old (and some may say tired and outdated) motto is:

Tell me and I may hear
Show me and I may see
Involve me and I WILL understand