|
Dear Org Labour Group
As a UK Bus Worker, a member and shop steward of the
Transport and General Workers Union and a Worker Director of a UK Bus company
that went through the Employee Ownership cycle I take exception to the general
point made in the e-mail 13 March 01 UK Bus ESOP which tends to imply that
the collapse of the EO Bus Companies was entirely due to the " casino desires"
of the workers. As far as I am concerned nothing could be further from the
Truth.
I would argue that a true picture is given in chapters
from my booklet (which I am in the process of updating) which I have sent to
the COG library namely
Privatisation and the British Bus Industry and Trade Union
attitude to Employee Ownership.
The fact is that they were Management led Buy-outs and
Management led Sell-outs due I would argue to the lack of representation that
the Trade Union Members received from their National Officers which left the
local officials (with no National backing) as the only level of worker
representatives, while the Management had a whole set of professional advisors
and organisations to back them. As you would imagine this placed the balance of
power firmly in the management hands. See my article Archives "TU and
EO"
I would like if I may comment on the points that Martin
has made so far.
1 Surely there has to be some
recognition in ownership of the input of service but it doesn't have to be
a great differential it is up to each company, For example my company recognised
only the last 10 years service and only for the first issue of shares whereas
Martin's went back as far as 35 years for some employees. However this has never
been an issue as far as I am aware.
2 I would augue that there needs to be a
regulated internal share market to take account of workers who need to realise
all or some of their assets. This will also help with the Buy-Back problems
that Martin mentions in 4. There is danger of sell out but that is life. I would
like to say that in the UK Bus Privatisation the average
Management Buyout lasted 2 years before being sold on whereas EO Buyouts
lasted an average of 5 years so I don't think we have anything to be ashamed of
there.
3 Agreeing with what Martin
said I promote (as do most of the UK ESOPs) in a model that combines
individual and collective ownership and so gets the best of both worlds and yes
I promote Employee Shareholding as a third source of income after Salary
and Pension and make no apologies for that.
4 I am not going to pretend this is an
easy one but with commitment and careful planning this can be
overcome.
On the point of full collective ownership I see nothing
wrong with that if that is what the workers want, but it misses
out 2 essential ingredients for a successful company responsibility
and incentive. It is OK telling the workers that they own the company but
in my experience they don't believe you until they hold the little bit of paper
that shows them, ask the workers who worked in Nationalised Industries that
were sold off under there noses.
The last ironic point on Collectivism is that the only
surviving EO Bus Company, Preston Bus (also TGWU) has a model of all
individual share ownership as indeed does the highly successful and
sustainable Tower Colliery. Having visited both these companies I would
argue that it is the whole attitude and accountability from top to bottom
and bottom to top that has been the success of these companies and not their
models.
Sorry for the lengthy submission
Dave Wheatcroft
Dave Wheatcroft
01246 233438
-Tel
|