»

[T_Bone]

Bobsonsirjonny wrote:
Thing is competition is so rife they would have given the job to someone else. Career development is a factor - if it means you can get ahead its sometimes worth the gamble. But the managers dont make the product - they are now sacking there staff. How can they make money if they dont have anyone makeing the stuff they need to make money from?

True, at this point the company is probably beyond hope.

My favorite CEO was Kay Whitmore. That man knew how to run a business, and he was very much against laying off unproductive parts of a company. He'd expand into a productive area and shift the workers there. When the stock split TWICE during the 80's, that man MADE my retirement worth what it is today.

When Kay left, it's been downhill for Kodak ever since. You just can't downsize your way to prosperity.

[AccyD]

KennyR wrote:
One, simply: the veto

Why do they need a veto? If they don't want to pay the directors then all they have to do is sack them at the AGM when their pay deals are agreed. Let's face it, this would only achieve the same effect, as the directors will leave if their pay demands are not met.

All of the present "populist" claims made by the newspapers are in response to employees who do not understand that the tools they require are already availiable in law.

Heh, nice try. You won't be informed of any bonuses, pension funds or performance related pay, just the basic wage which is often far short of what they really do get.

Wrong all of their share payments, pension payments, and bonuses are included within the total remuneration in the notes to the accounts. With their share options & bonuses seperated.

Have you ever seen a copy of a plc's accounts Kenny?

Imperialism was around even longer. Guess what, it failed. Absolutely spectacularly. It failed because it was based singularly on exploitation and as soon as people got the means to understand their part in the scheme of things, nobody was left to defend it.

Unfortunatly, Kenny you are comparing apples with pears. Imperialism is foreign policy, whereas capitalism is economic policy.

Also, I believe that capitalism has been around for longer than imperialism, (unless you can provide evidence to the contrary), since Imperialism is usually fuelled by economic gain for the invader.

My evidence: simply that injusticies in society are dealt with, sooner or later. By reform, not by revolution.

I thought that was an opinion rather than evidence?!

Try this link.

[QuikSanz]

Hi,

What, no, no, no. Ok lets see how a person I know would see this. sole owner of Mfg. Co.
1) Cut production ASAP.
2) Look for location elsewhere.
Does this sound like a good thing?

Chris