DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 23 July 2016 Posted 23 July 2016 I just do not see Mike Ashley, being the type of person who can get any respect from his employees. Without earning that respect, he remains a liability as an employer, who will never get the best out of those who work for him.
davieG Posted 23 July 2016 Posted 23 July 2016 Where I started work on the shop floor of an engineering factory we had this 15 minute deduction we also had no official breaks, bring your own cutlery to the canteen for lunch and worked 44 hr week behind the door in the offices they didn't clock in had paid tea breaks and waitress service in the staff canteen and worked a 40 hr week. We then had some enlightened new owners who harmonised the working conditions where most of the staff ones were made universal and the waitress service was abandon and we all used the same canteen. The change in the attitude of the workforce was very noticeable and led to a significant increase in productivity. In the main treat people with respect and you will get it returned.
Izzy Posted 23 July 2016 Posted 23 July 2016 Mike Ashley wasn't close enough to the coal face to know what was really going on and even if he was, I don't think he'd have given a shit anyway. A great 'businessman' but doesn't strike me as an inspirational leader - he's not exactly Richard Branson. Listening to some of the Sports Direct employees, they just want decent and fair management, but instead they're treated like monkeys and paid peanuts. If you've got an actively disengaged workforce who don't feel empowered, you're asking for trouble. I've got no sympathy for Ashley whatsoever.
Vlad the Fox Posted 23 July 2016 Posted 23 July 2016 9 hours ago, Jay said: buying licensing rights to brand names from the past Dunlop, Slazenger etc and sticking them on cheap Chinese manufactured products. Ha ha, that explains a lot. I was on holiday recently and kept seeing people in what I thought were slazenger tops, my mind kept trying to compute them as puma. Those scousers love a sports direct slazenger fashion wear.
Strokes Posted 23 July 2016 Posted 23 July 2016 1 hour ago, davieG said: Where I started work on the shop floor of an engineering factory we had this 15 minute deduction we also had no official breaks, bring your own cutlery to the canteen for lunch and worked 44 hr week behind the door in the offices they didn't clock in had paid tea breaks and waitress service in the staff canteen and worked a 40 hr week. We then had some enlightened new owners who harmonised the working conditions where most of the staff ones were made universal and the waitress service was abandon and we all used the same canteen. The change in the attitude of the workforce was very noticeable and led to a significant increase in productivity. In the main treat people with respect and you will get it returned. Yeah I agree with this, the last thing a company needs is a 'them ans us' attitude. We have it at our place and its toxic.
Ross-Kemp Posted 23 July 2016 Posted 23 July 2016 Mike Ashley isn't the problem. Its the managing Director who's a self righteous stuck up vile arrogant ****.
Izzy Posted 23 July 2016 Posted 23 July 2016 1 minute ago, Ross-Kemp said: Mike Ashley isn't the problem. Its the managing Director who's a self righteous stuck up vile arrogant ****. But Ashley appointed him, so he's ultimately responsible. If Ashley was unaware of a 1980's bullying environment where command and control and a top down 'tell' culture is rife, then he's abdicated his duty of care to his employees. You can't be close to your business if you're flying in your helicopter or sat on a beach. The buck stop with Ashley I'm afraid.
ScouseFox Posted 23 July 2016 Posted 23 July 2016 I've worked in regimented gaffs and easy going ones. the less rules the better. if you like your job and you like your colleagues and your employer you'll do what they ask. if someone treats you like a cu nt you may as well act like a cu nt.
Guest Posted 24 July 2016 Posted 24 July 2016 14 hours ago, m4DD0gg said: assume this is a joke? why the feck would someone who earns that sort of money have to pay such a high rate of tax?! Do you understand how tax works?
m4DD0gg Posted 24 July 2016 Posted 24 July 2016 1 hour ago, FIF said: Do you understand how tax works? Erm yes thanks. Your post is suggesting that someone who earns over the £200k bracket is subject to a 90% tax rate. Are you on crack?!
ozleicester Posted 24 July 2016 Posted 24 July 2016 19 hours ago, FIF said: I believe wholeheartedly in a safety net for the population and I believe in a fair wage for fair work. I believe in a progressive tax and a 90% tax band for those earning above a certain limit - whether that is 200k or 250K - that's for better informed than me to decide. However I believe benefits should be a short term help for those between jobs and that benefits should be aimed at getting people into work. No-one should be having a better life on benefits than those at work. Everyone able to work should be in work as often as possible. I would go as far as giving coupons for food and clothes - yes it's demeaning, that's not great but neither is the use of benefits for drink, cigarettes, IPhones etc... Buy those when you're working. Without the deprivation too many people are happy not to work. I know that my socialist colleagues may be disappointed in me but that doesn't make me a tory I only took unemployment benefit for a few months when I first left school and I took a job as an office boy (yes me the man with the brain the size of planet) as my first job - I ran the company within 4 years before leaving and going to university. Since university I've never taken any benefit and I pay my taxes every year. A safety net only works if people don't abuse it. Quick question, did you pay for your university course?
Guest Posted 24 July 2016 Posted 24 July 2016 Just now, m4DD0gg said: Erm yes thanks. Your post is suggesting that someone who earns over the £200k bracket is subject to a 90% tax rate. Are you on crack?! No. Why would you think that? I believe in a redistribution of wealth and that excessive disparity in wage is bad for society. a 90% tax rate for high salaries is a way to bring equality without harm. Everything up to £200k is taxed at whatever rate most people pay. Only earnings above 200k get taxed at 90% and then that money is used by the government to help all the people in society. Since you understand how tax works I don't see why you'd be so against this. I doubt it'd affect you negatively - only positively. It may affect Mike Ashley though.
m4DD0gg Posted 24 July 2016 Posted 24 July 2016 6 minutes ago, FIF said: No. Why would you think that? I believe in a redistribution of wealth and that excessive disparity in wage is bad for society. a 90% tax rate for high salaries is a way to bring equality without harm. Everything up to £200k is taxed at whatever rate most people pay. Only earnings above 200k get taxed at 90% and then that money is used by the government to help all the people in society. Since you understand how tax works I don't see why you'd be so against this. I doubt it'd affect you negatively - only positively. It may affect Mike Ashley though. Because usually the people who do earn a very high salary in the corporate world do so because they have made something for themselves in life and are not a sponging gypo. I went to Uni for a long time, studied hard and got a good degree, i then started working and had to work damn hard with long hours to now earn a salary that is fecking awesome, it breaks my heart when i look at the size of the tax figure i pay because in reality my draw on the public purse is very little compared to some and it winds me up something rotten that quite a large percentage of UK born citizens sit there with their hands out expecting something for nothing. Has to be said there is no wonder tax haven use is so rife in this country.
Guest Posted 24 July 2016 Posted 24 July 2016 Just now, m4DD0gg said: Because usually the people who do earn a very high salary in the corporate world do so because they have made something for themselves in life and are not a sponging gypo. I went to Uni for a long time, studied hard and got a good degree, i then started working and had to work damn hard with long hours to now earn a salary that is fecking awesome, it breaks my heart when i look at the size of the tax figure because in reality my draw on the public purse is very little compared to some and it winds me up something rotten that quite a large percentage of UK born citizens sit there with their hands out expecting something for nothing. Has to be said there is no wonder tax haven use is so rife in this country. You seem to be suggesting that all the millions who (maybe go to uni) work hard with long hours and yet only earn about 25k don't deserve as good a life as you. I disagree with that suggestion. I have no problem with you earning 250K+ but to think you really deserve (or even need) to earn in excess of 10 times their wage for working just as hard and just as long is obscene. why not be happy with a little less and make the world a better place. And nowhere in my explanations have I spoken about "sponging gypos" or people wanting something for nothing. In fact I've pointed out that I don't agree with the abuse of the security system. however that is still a minority. It's the working/middle class that pay for everything and are abused not those of you earning £250K + Aren't you even embarrassed that those who helped educate you don't earn anything like the figures you earn? Or those who help you in times of medical need or just to have clean areas to pass through or live in?
m4DD0gg Posted 24 July 2016 Posted 24 July 2016 1 hour ago, FIF said: You seem to be suggesting that all the millions who (maybe go to uni) work hard with long hours and yet only earn about 25k don't deserve as good a life as you. I disagree with that suggestion. I have no problem with you earning 250K+ but to think you really deserve (or even need) to earn in excess of 10 times their wage for working just as hard and just as long is obscene. why not be happy with a little less and make the world a better place. And nowhere in my explanations have I spoken about "sponging gypos" or people wanting something for nothing. In fact I've pointed out that I don't agree with the abuse of the security system. however that is still a minority. It's the working/middle class that pay for everything and are abused not those of you earning £250K + Aren't you even embarrassed that those who helped educate you don't earn anything like the figures you earn? Or those who help you in times of medical need or just to have clean areas to pass through or live in? Of course i am not embarrassed why should i be? If an individual chooses to teach in a higher education establishment that is there choice no one else's and to be honest a lot of higher education staff are failed professionals......or so they say haha - joke. It is most certainly not obscene to earn those sums of money either, you get one life so make the most of it from a financial perspective is something i find quite an obvious thing to do but thats just me. So why therefore should i be penalised so heavily to carry others. In this country there are so many opportunities for people to make a real decent amount of cash hence my 'sponging gypo' comment a lot simply cannot be arsed and expect way too much on a plate. I dont earn anywhere near 200-250K per year but if i did i would ensure that i could make the most effective use of as much of that amount as possible, the government make it far too easy to exploit their weak control systems. Look at IR35 as an example, any decent accountant can easily by pass that through a number of legal methods.
Guest Posted 24 July 2016 Posted 24 July 2016 4 minutes ago, m4DD0gg said: Of course i am not embarrassed why should i be? If an individual chooses to teach in a higher education establishment that is there choice no one else's and to be honest a lot of higher education staff are failed professionals......or so they say haha - joke. It is most certainly not obscene to earn those sums of money either, you get one life so make the most of it from a financial perspective is something i find quite an obvious thing to do but thats just me. So why therefore should i be penalised so heavily to carry others. In this country there are so many opportunities for people to make a real decent amount of cash hence my 'sponging gypo' comment a lot simply cannot be arsed and expect way too much on a plate. I dont earn anywhere near 200-250K per year but if i did i would ensure that i could make the most effective use of as much of that amount as possible, the government make it far too easy to exploit their weak control systems. Look at IR35 as an example, any decent accountant can easily by pass that through a number of legal methods. So in your own words you make awesome money but not £200K. So you actually agree with me that you don't need £200k to live well. It also means you wouldn't be taxed the 90% I was suggesting - just the same as every other pleb who earns less than that amount. Do you think that the financial perspective is the most important in your "only" life? Are you really happy to sacrifice all those other perspectives including social ones that can help others to have a good life - and I'm talking here about the hard working "non-sponging gypo" types that put in as many hours as you and as much effort and sweat. Personally I realise that I put myself in a financially secure position due to my intelligence (as well as hard work) and also down to a certain luck such as being in the right place at the right time, being born in the right country at the right time, having a governmental and societal system that helped me to end up where I am. Others may genetically not have my intelligence (or good looks and wit) and may have been less fortunate to be able to exploit the possibilites (or maybe they were nicer people). I don't think that people should be punished for that. Especially in the only life they have. btw I became a teacher to help people, I was earning a lot more from my own business before I decided to work for the state to help people like yourself. So I don't feel I'm a "failed professional" and whilst it's true that it was "my choice". Do you think my choice to help the state and it's people should be "punished" while fat cats with no conscience (as you seem to suggest you are) benefit from my "hard work"?
leicsmac Posted 24 July 2016 Posted 24 July 2016 34 minutes ago, m4DD0gg said: Of course i am not embarrassed why should i be? If an individual chooses to teach in a higher education establishment that is there choice no one else's and to be honest a lot of higher education staff are failed professionals......or so they say haha - joke. It is most certainly not obscene to earn those sums of money either, you get one life so make the most of it from a financial perspective is something i find quite an obvious thing to do but thats just me. So why therefore should i be penalised so heavily to carry others. In this country there are so many opportunities for people to make a real decent amount of cash hence my 'sponging gypo' comment a lot simply cannot be arsed and expect way too much on a plate. I dont earn anywhere near 200-250K per year but if i did i would ensure that i could make the most effective use of as much of that amount as possible, the government make it far too easy to exploit their weak control systems. Look at IR35 as an example, any decent accountant can easily by pass that through a number of legal methods. Last time I checked, when rich people are lying on their deathbeds their recorded words don't tend to be about how much money they made through their lives. There are much more important things.
Guest Posted 24 July 2016 Posted 24 July 2016 5 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Last time I checked, when rich people are lying on their deathbeds their recorded words don't tend to be about how much money they made through their lives. There are much more important things. At least they have nice beds to die in.
m4DD0gg Posted 24 July 2016 Posted 24 July 2016 15 minutes ago, FIF said: At least they have nice beds to die in. exactly. No of course money is not the most important thing in life but it damn well helps contribute to a happy life.
Webbo Posted 24 July 2016 Posted 24 July 2016 3 hours ago, FIF said: No. Why would you think that? I believe in a redistribution of wealth and that excessive disparity in wage is bad for society. a 90% tax rate for high salaries is a way to bring equality without harm. Everything up to £200k is taxed at whatever rate most people pay. Only earnings above 200k get taxed at 90% and then that money is used by the government to help all the people in society. Since you understand how tax works I don't see why you'd be so against this. I doubt it'd affect you negatively - only positively. It may affect Mike Ashley though. Didn't Hollande try that in France?How did that work out? Has France got a happier society than us? Is their economy out performing ours, unemployment etc?
Guest Posted 24 July 2016 Posted 24 July 2016 1 hour ago, Webbo said: Didn't Hollande try that in France?How did that work out? Has France got a happier society than us? Is their economy out performing ours, unemployment etc? No.
Guest Posted 24 July 2016 Posted 24 July 2016 1 hour ago, Webbo said: Didn't Hollande try that in France?How did that work out? Has France got a happier society than us? Is their economy out performing ours, unemployment etc? I think they've just moved ahead of the UK - due to Brexit of all things.
Guest Posted 24 July 2016 Posted 24 July 2016 You might be getting all sorts of things. But what are you getting?
Webbo Posted 24 July 2016 Posted 24 July 2016 2 minutes ago, FIF said: I think they've just moved ahead of the UK - due to Brexit of all things. The fall in the pound means the size of the economy has been downsized. We've still got half the unemployment of France.
Guest Posted 24 July 2016 Posted 24 July 2016 22 minutes ago, Webbo said: The fall in the pound means the size of the economy has been downsized. We've still got half the unemployment of France. Not sure what you're trying to prove here? I was just answering your question as you seemed to think that the UK had a bigger economy than France when the trend is going the other way. Is it that England have a smaller economy despite France having twice the unemployment? What does that say about efficiency? When the employment figures change do you reckon the UK will go back into the position they held under the last Labour govt.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.