On this specific case: Mayr-Melnhof Group made "118.7 million + 7,5 % above previous year" in 2011. That means a "Dividend increase from 1.95 EUR auf 2.10 EUR / Share".

I assume the profit quoted is in euros too.

[url=http://www.mayr-melnhof.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Englisch/Media_/Powerpoint/Annual_Results_2011_english.pdfAnnual results here.[/url

So this company was hardly having to make cuts in order to stay in business.

I think it's all about keeping shareholders happy...

just because you are making a profit does it mean the company is worth keeping

When a company is not in trouble, should the workforce not be a major consideration?

There's something really morally wrong if one says: 'Well, we made increased profit last year and were able to increase the dividend as a result, but we could make even more if we sacked a few people.'

Greed is good. And any sense of responsibility to staff or even the wider community/economy is utterly unimportant – to the extent that anyone who challenges this view is condemned, as we have seen in the opening post on this very thread. By someone who did not, apparently, even bother to find out what the financial state of the company was.

i'm afraid when it comes down to business the workforce seems to be the last thing the company will be thinking of - if sacking people means higher profits or less losses then so be it - I know from personal experience and realised a long time ago that honesty and scruples have no place within the vast jungle of the business community - it's money that counts,not human beings unfortunately

Indeed – but that's what I'm saying is immoral.

It isn't a universal – you only need look at a hugely successful company like John Lewis to see a different model working very well.

But as has been touched on in a number of different threads recently, and by different posters, one of the other problems with this approach is that service has declined, together an ethos of actually really helping the customer. It's almost as though repeat trade is not desirable any more.

You never knew my uncle, he was wa-aaay to the right of Margaret Thatcher and regarded his closed-shop union membership as anyone would regard dog dirt on their shoes.

Never stopped him enjoying the high rates of pay and restrictive working practices though.

Who said they're making profits? Some businesses report heavy LOSSES, and you simply cannot run a business that way or you will run out of money and go bust.

This is nothing to do with Tories, or Labour, or Greens, or Moster raving fecking looney party. It's about being being able to generate enough money to keep everyone employed. If you cannot do that, then people have to go.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Errrrrrrrmmmmmmmmm from the previous page

So the contrast between the approaches of private companies and those listed on the stock market went right on by did it?

There is a big difference between how public companies react to problems and even if they do have enough money to keep everyone employed they will more often than not lay people off. They will react to bad figures by making people redundant to pacify the omnipotent markets who they dare not cross. In large public companies it is not a simple set of sums as you seem to think.

A few years ago HSBC announced profits in the billions but they were less than forecast. Reaction? They sacked 1000 people (nice round number that). They could clearly afford not to do that and yet chose to pacify the markets.

As to the company in question they sound right out of the sack 'em first think later school of management.

There have been numerous cases in history of companies making swathes of employees redundant, only to find on an upturn, they are suffering a skills shortage. They then usually turn to the government of the day and blame them for not training people sufficiently.

The Japanese car manufacturers based in the UK are a prime example of how it should be done when business drops off (as opposed to vanishes). Honda put staff on short weeks, then extended paid leave, with the provison that when business picked up again, the staff would then work extra, unpaid days to square the balance sheet. All this was done with the full co-operation of the unions involved.

Well that can't be true. As plenty of experts have frequently made clear here, unions have one aim in mind – to destroy the British economy and the jobs that go with it.

depends on which union you are talking about

me and the good lady were lucky enough to be in fairly non militant unions in the uk who actually tried to help their members by negogiation without confrontation - we didn't always get what we wanted but compromises were reached and all parties were pretty satisfied

You could turn that around.

Possibly you were fortunate enough to be working for employers who could see the benfit of trade unions and thought it would be better to work with them instead of confronting them?

that certainly was the case - there has to be give and take something past union Sec Gens refused to respect thus losing the sympathy of the majority

unions in general had more punch in the 70s but the over reaction by many union leaders did a lot to damage the union power and reduce the union mandate - Maggie saw to that and it seems to have gone downhill ever since....

Again, I'll turn it around.

Mention was made earlier about the Wilson government's "beer & sandwiches" at No. 10. That wasn't simply as a thank you to the unions for financial support, that was very much about giving them the lay of the land. Most industrial disputes owed as much to pig-headed, or simply incompetent management as it did to pig-headed trades unionists. Most large industries were happy with a number of unions, rather than one big one. Conversely, in Germany the motor industry was under one main union IG Metal. If pushed, IG Metal could have given Red Robbo and Jack Dash a run for their money in terms of militancy. The German employers however saw it was wise to keep them close and involve them (or give them the impression of being involved) in strategic planning. Most British companies preferred the mushroom principle.

Thatcher basically emasculated the unions. Some may consider that a good thing, I and many other don't. There were better ways to bring the unions on-side and it could have been achieved without all the loss to the economy that ensued. We'd also probably still have a greater manufacturing base than we currently enjoy, with the concomitant benefits to the economy.

Whenever an ideological drive to reduce headcount takes place there is a very real cost to the nation. Not only does the exchequer see a drop in revenue from income tax & NI, it also has to start shelling out benefits. Those on benefits tend to spend less than those in work, so in a service-driven economy, the service providers experience a drop in revenue, resulting in further losses to the exchequer.

This is where Gideon has got his austerity strategy totally wrong. The only way our economy can grow is through consumer spending, in order for consumers to spend more, they will need to borrow more. Which is exactly the scenario that led us into the current situation.

Some very valid and interesting points. It must also be considered that we as a country are part of a global economy where transportation is relatively cheap. MMP will have similar production sites all over Europe, production in the UK only makes sense if the unit cost of production + transport is cheaper to a UK destination than the equivalent from a factory in Europe. One of the problems will be a falling demand and uncompetitive production cost in the UK.

We all want to stimulate manufacturing within the UK but to do this we need to be competitive, otherwise what is the point? Companies are not charities and this is where unions need to take a reality check. Unite is particular are scared of conceding in one chapel in case it leads to a feeding frenzy in other places - the unions Unite in particular - think companies have loyalty to factories, they don't. When they say they will close plants if unit costs of production cannot be reduced they mean it. Often it is the only way to get the unions to play ball - Polestar's facility at Colchester and Wynedham' Heron site are two recent examples within print. Unions need to embrace change accept new machinery and differing work patterns are required to remain competitive. The choice is simple either adapt or die.

An example - we produce a big catalogue for a DIY chain, this needs to delivered to mid England and because of its size it needs to produced Gravure. In the UK there are only 2 Gravure sites Prinovis in Liverpool and Polestar in Sheffield. This is a huge job well into 7 figures, the cheapest place to get it produced Monadori in Italy and that includes the transport from Verona to mid England. So if all three sites were owned by the one company which one would you definitely keep open? That is the decisions companies are making all the time as demand for some products shrinks.

As an economy we cannot expect commercial enterprises to take an altruistic view on loss making plants because it help the UK economy - it will not happen. We need to ensure our manufacturing cost base is competitive within its sector - this is where the Unions need to wake up and smell the coffee. It may well mean that some will see a reduction in their overtime but if it keeps the whole in work that must be a positive.

Beer and sandwiches was just to give the unions the lay of the land or to say thanks for the financial backing? Nothing to do with the unions telling the government what they wanted? These being the unions that at the time set Labour Party policy by block vote and controlled selections for parliamentary candidates? A tad naive methinks.

FWIW I think most unions today are far more clued into economic reality than they have ever been before, and there's generally more flexibility on both sides.

The problem is that the workers in the weakest positions such as healthcare non-professionals often aren't and can't be helped much by unions. That's why I can't agree with any attempt to remove minimum wages and conditions. That sort of legislation may not be perfect but it at least provides protection for the people who by nature of the work they do have absolutely no power at all - they could strike for a year and have no impact. They'd just get replaced by someone more desperate.

To balance things out, as I've suggested before, bosses of any company/institution should be limited in salary (or any other form of compensation) to a maximum multiple of the earnings of the lowest paid employee. That would mean the bosses and workers are all in the same boat, (albeit allowing the CEO to earn 20 times more than the lowest paid or whatever the multiple should be) and directly incentivise bosses to increase wealth across their business.

The argument that the top bosses would all f*ck off to America or somewhere is cobblers - British bosses as far as I can tell aren't really rated at all, and even if they were, the next generation of eager wannabees would soon take their place. I don't agree with a lot of the left-wing diatribes on here, and there are certainly exceptions to the 'greedy bosses' mantra, but executive compensation and its inherent unfairness needs to be addressed at some stage.

And neither are the workforce.

They have to live – at a time when there the cost of living is rising.

And only an economic illiterate would not also realise the link between having an economy that is 3/4 based on the service sectors – and the need for people to have disposable income in order to keep that economy even just ticking over.

And the unions aren't even asking for a pay rise – simply for some staff in a company that is increasing profits and dividends not to lose their jobs.

Perhaps is the kind of rampant greed an utter irresponsibility that sees companies sack workers even when the company is not remotely doing badly or at risk were controlled it'd be better for everyone, eh?

A lot of people are missing the point on (or ignoring, most likely) a very simple question.

What if the company concerned cannot AFFORD to keep employees on?

It's all very well going on about HSBC making people redundant because of lower than expected profits. If you think that is TYPICAL of 'private business' then you're way out. And no, I don't think the HSBC example is any way to do business, before any of you start.

Similarly it's all very well going on about great big Japanese companies keeping employees on in exchange for longer hours in the future. That is completely subject to said company having cash reserves to do it. What if you don't have that luxury?

For a start where did I say the drivers are asking for a pay rise? - you need to learn to read before spouting your diatribe. I also said no one should should ever be compromised on H&S - again you should at least read what other people write. If the company want to achieve greater efficiency it should be their job to streamline the processes to facilitate said efficiency savings - once again if you had actually read what I wrote you might save yourself from looking quite so stupid - LOVE.

Yes the economy needs more spending to stimulate it - where is that spending going to come from? increased public sector jobs - maybe we could have people licking hospitals clean!! Maybe we can increase further the service sector!! or just maybe we can increase our manufacturing base? Unlike the service sector to do that we have to be competitive, especially within the EEC - this is where the unions need compromise. Perhaps if they were prepared to do appropriate local deals rather running scared of the affect on other chapels that might be a start.

You seem to think bosses actually care - the company I work for - a PLC - we haven't had a pay rise in 4 years, this year the bosses awarded themselves 250k each in bonuses and closed 6 factories. Life isn't fair in the real world. Before you ask our staff turnover is virtually zero.

Unite performance within the print sector is terrible, they are completely impotent and as the OP shows they often cause more problems when they get involved. In the last three years I have seen a dispute where they have got involved where they have managed to get a decision reversed. In the end they do what they are told because companies will simply close factories if they cannot manage them the way they want - that is the real world as the OP has shown.

Obviously not typical indeed – just as this company was making increased profits and paying increased dividends ...

I got confused between your varied rants over many threads, and others' anti-union claptrap. Hence my removing the bit about drivers from this thread when I realised my confusion – before you posted.



So what's your excuse for posting screeds of bilious rubbish?



Hey, ducky wucky – I removed that bit. If only you'd checked before posting, eh?

But then you managed this illiterate cobblers:

"Also have Unite the barmiest union around involved will hinder this no end."

There's a reason Coddy told you to stick to paper and not comment on transporting hazardous materials.



I didn't mention the public services. Perhaps you need to take your advice and read things properly.

But if more people are made redundant, that will be less tax revenue for the exchequer, more paid out in benefits – and less disposable income that goes into local economies – meaning that more businesses will be lost and more people will become unemployed etc etc etc.

Of course the long-term aim has to be to change the proportion of the national economy to a greater amount that we are producing, but that will not happen overnight. It will take time for people to create and develop new products, then get them into production and find markets. In the meantime, the economy needs people to have disposable income – and if they don't, then things will get worse.

That's really straightforward and simple to understand.




Aw diddy widdums. Perhaps if you got off your whinging backside and organised with your colleagues, you could change that situation, instead of just bending over backwards and accepting it – and then expecting everyone else to do the same.

Nobody's suggested they should "care" as some sort of altruistic matter.

So the point, then, is to make them value you properly. And you are a damned sight better equipped to do that when you do so with others.



Yes dear. We know. All managements are wonderful and always right – or they just don't care and you'll readily bend over for your daily sodomising without raising a whimper except to lecture others about how they should do the same because that's "the real world".

Enjoy it.

But the way some people go on, you would think that all management ever do in any company you care to name, is squeeze employees in order to line their own pockets. As management myself, and as one who doesn't do that, I find that assertion very offensive.

As I'm sure anyone with union affiliation would find other peoples' assertion that all unions ever do in all cases is take everyone out of work.

I think the distinction between publicly quoted and private companies has been made and mostly agreed upon. A private company is not beholden to institutional investors, who in the main are accounts-minded. Private companies have other pressures certainly but are less likely to make decisions based purely on a need to reduce overhead, simply to increase dividends.

The owners and managers of private companies are usually closer to the actual operation, in all apects and tend to make decision on what is best for all concerned. The German Mittelstand being prime examples.

So a company which has a division running at a sizeable loss should keep that division going at any cost as long as the bottom line of the group overall is showing a profit?

That's a remarkably simplistic view to take. If I have six factories in six different countries, five of which are making £1m in profits a year each and one making a £2m loss every year, should I feel obliged to keep the loss making one open just so I don't adversely impact the economy in the area in which it is based?