Should everyone share the profits?
I was intrigued by an article I read in PM online today about London transport workers receiving or demanding a monetary bonus ahead of the additional work they'll be required to undertake as a result of the Olympic Games in 2012.
The argument appears to be that because the operating companies will make greater profits as a result of increased users, the employees should receive a monetary bonus for their part in handling these additional customers.
So, in essence, the argument appears to be similar to a dividends scheme for employees! Is it right that employees should receive a bonus under these circumstances and wouldn't they receive requisite payment for "additional work" in overtime payments?
Or is this a more socially acceptable model of corporate responsibility where profits generated as a result of wider activities such as the Olympics (and the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow in 2014) to spread the economic benefits?
Should the dividends stop at transport workers? What about shops that experience increased trade; airlines that experience increased passanger numbers; public sector workers? Where would you draw a line?
Should your pay be reduced at quieter times, creating a link between demand and remuneration - a bit rate for transport and services workers?
Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
YouTube
51,377 people viewed the community in October
As someone who endures the London transport system on a daily basis where the standard of service is on the whole is quite poor I think it is a case of the city once again being held to ransom.
On the same principle should we commuters be receiving a rebate for our transport system being overloaded and us having to make alternative arrangements?
Colin, I am with John. Why get paid more for doing your job?
(Unless there is a total change in compensation systems such as a lower base salary and a higher proportion based on a performance (company/personal) related bonus.)
I'm absolutely puzzled by the logic being applied. Surely driving a full bus is the same as driving an empty one; same for trains and on it goes?
I'd have to concur with John's comments about "being held to ransom", it seems wholly wrong to demand additional monies from your employer on the basis the employer's likely to make greater profits from the London Olympics or any other event.
Why stop at the Olympics? If you're on the O2 arena route, should you share in the profits of the O2 when there are events on too?
And today train travellers have been told that they face above inflation price increases!
Plus the tube drivers are threatening to strike on Boxing Day as, according to the papers, they are disputing the pay they will receive. Another hurdle the struggling retail community and UK business will need to overcome.
The coalition's notion of "all being in this together" doesn't appear to be resonating with many.
We've now got the public sector unions divided over further strike action, some suggesting they're ready to accept the latest offer whilst others stating they remain unhappy and will recommend further industrial action.
Britain's now on the brink of being held to ransom.
There was a debate on a Scottish radio station yesterday pointing out that benefits will increase by the RPI rate of inflation (5.2%) this year; public service and civil servants including the armed forces will have the imposition of a pay freeze for 2-3 years with pay awards then limited to 1% per annum.
The debate questioned whether the armed services were a "special case" and should be exempted from the pay freeze.
Within minutes there were several groups all claiming they were "special cases" and each case as competent as the last.
Is this just the natural conclusion to 'capitalism'? Every man (and woman) for themselves?
My partner had to get up at 4.45 this morning in order to get to her 12 hour shift on the intensive care unit because of the tube strikes today. She's due to work tomorrow as well when the tubes are shut for Christmas day so is having to stay with a friend nearby in order to get any kind of decent sleep before the next 12 hour shift. So you'll have to excuse me if I have absolutely zero sympathy for these money grabbing swines holding the capital to ransom (yet again) over the Christmas weekend.
Now it seems the London Bus Drivers want a pay bonus for working during the Olympics http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/02/london-bus-drivers-olympic-st... I wonder who'll b next?
If they're working longer hours perhaps, but for just having a full bus it's ridiculous. Do they get paid more for working during rush hour?
And would they be happy if 'bit rate' was applied e.g. they are paid per passanger all year round rather than just when the bus is busy?
Should they take a pay cut if the company makes less than expected profits or even a loss? Or is this (excuse the pun) one way traffic?
@Adi if they work longer hours I assume they'll get over time.
Where will it end? Shouldn't we just be embracing the fantastic business opportunities the Olympics and Paralympics will bring rather than trying to exploit it or am I just being naive?
It is pretty sad imo.
Another article on the same topic - this time on a deal brokered with the underground staff of London.
http://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/pm/articles/2012/04/row-over-extra-6000-for-tube-drivers-during-olympics.htm?wa_src=email&wa_pub=cipd&wa_crt=news_3&wa_cmp=pmdaily_050412
I feel that this is not about 'profit sharing' for increased business, and as many of you have commented, the additional volume of work will be remunerated with over-time payment. I do however, sense what this could be about if it were approached in the spirit rather than the letter.
As someone who has set up and run a worker's co-operative, I very much support organisations which look at different business models and particularly those which adopt a more egalitarian governance. This may also include sharing risk, but it certainly encourages staff to be part of a business, rather than just an employee; leading to greater shared responsibility.
In my opinion, profit sharing is problematic in public service scenarios, either fully or part funded; on one hand yes staff are driving the service forward, but we the public have paid for it; should we get a share too?
Perhaps, after the Olympics, some organisations, private and public, could review what to do with the increased profits, and think about how they could add value, it is a chance they may never have again.