Fwd: Uk bus ESOP

[Deborah Groban Olson <dgo@esoplaw.com>]

OrgLabour Group - I am forwarding this from Martin Mayer, a General Exec. 
Council member of the UK Transport and General Workers Union. His union 
represented the workers involved in the UK bus system privatization. He was an 
employee owner in one of those bus companies and fought for keeping employee 
ownership. HOwever, the workers wanted the substantial funds offered to them 
for their shares. So ultimately all the bus companies ceased to be worker 
owned. 
I messed up the attachment. As soon as I get it again from Martin I'll as Joe 
to put it in the library and will try to email it to the group as well. 
Thanks,
Deb Olson
>>From martin@tgw910.fsnet.co.uk  Tue Mar 13 03:12:15 2001
>From: "TGW910" <martin@tgw910.fsnet.co.uk>
>To: "Deborah Olson" <dgo@esoplaw.com>
>Subject: Uk bus ESOP
>Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:44:22 -0000
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
>
>Deborah
> 
>Please find attached our article explaining the TGWU experience of ESOPs in 
>the bus industry.
> 
>I am now very sceptical about employee ownership using individual 
>shareownership for the employees as a model. I am convinced it cannot work in 
>the long term for 4 reasons;
> 
>1. it is inequitable; shareownership levels will vary greatly between 
>employees according to length of service
> 
>2. longer serving employees with largest shareholdings are easily "bought" by 
>takeover bids offering a good deal on the shares; a minority of long serving 
>employees with the most shares can be enticed to sell, ending employee 
>ownership for good in that company
> 
>3. individual shareownership does not inculcate a collective responsibility 
>among the employees for the future of the company. It is viewed more as a 
>"golden nest egg"; some employees actually seek early departure from 
>employment so that the value of the shares can be realised ;the skills drain 
> 
>4. If shares are then to be redistributed to new employees, the company must 
>"buy back" shares from leavers - at great expense, putting the company at a 
>financial disadvantage to normal capitalist companies. The only other 
>alternative is to require new employees to buy shares off leavers. But this 
>creates unacceptable barriers to employment.
> 
>Regarding your offer of a place on your Executive Committee, I feel I must 
>turn down any formal role, particuarly as my trade union activities have now 
>turned well away from the issues of employee share ownership. But of sourse I 
>would be willing to participate in e-mail discussions, and as you say, put a 
>trade unionist input into your deliberations. As you know, my view is that 
>employee ownership, if it is to mean anything at all for working people and 
>give them any real sense of power, must be in the form of collective 
>shareownership held in trust by workers representatives accountable to the 
>employees as a whole. But those employees would forgo any personal financial 
>benefit from their shares; instead they would share in a collective strength 
>which could imporve the working environment in which they operate and, by 
>tapping the collective commitment of the workforce, achieve success for the 
>company and in turn better wages and conditions ( and avoid the drain of 
>resources to outside shareholders as happens in normal companies).
> 
>That is a vision worth fighting for!
> 
>Warmest regards, Martin
> 
>PS never been to the States, but I actually get to go to Canada next month to 
>address a conferecne in Toronto; so I 'll get a taste of life across the other 
>side of the Atlantic!
>