I am against any further changes in Unemployment laws, also I am against increasing taxes, why to do so? I am against redistribution of wealth.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
On the earlier topic of private security for hospitals. So far the only bid I have is from Dr. Voshkod's Operational Security firm. Nothing from Renard Rouge or anyone else. I am beginning to think I will award them the contract as it would help promote more competition between private security firms since Markinson/Renard Rouge has sewn up so much of the contracts throughout EUtopia.
Sounds good.
It is also exciting, I think, to see some progress being made on figuring out who is behind these organ attacks. I applaud the cooperation between MILE and MHES in continuing to investigate these activities.
It is also exciting, I think, to see some progress being made on figuring out who is behind these organ attacks. I applaud the cooperation between MILE and MHES in continuing to investigate these activities.
Yes you did a good job but we must not think it's over, one arrest doesn't means anything if it's whole gang.
The_Hawk said:
Well the fact that the corporation would have sole right to repairs would be incentive enough. Think about the money they would make, and the fact that demand would never die down. A government contract is quite an appatizing offer.
"Sole right" is a little bit heavy... after all, that implies monopoly, which implies they can charge whatever they want... so why did we privatize Maritcon to begin with?
In any case, the trouble at the moment appears that no one is interested in buying, and the latest reports to my office suggest that the situation is growing more dire -- so much so that it may be impinging upon our operations. Is there a time limit on the Privatization Bill, if there continues to be little interest?
What if we suggested forming a sort of union whereby the workers of these facilities buy equal shares in the operation of the business -- sort of like a credit union? Then we could guarantee purchasers, but keep the privatization plan in place. Plus, it would probably help to smooth the feathers of Mayor Creatin and the people of Rochefort.
Also, Per Talbott, could I get you, in your capacity as MDIA, to sign off on the use of naval bases by Coast Guard forces until we can get some sort of permanent solution hammered out?
In any case, the trouble at the moment appears that no one is interested in buying, and the latest reports to my office suggest that the situation is growing more dire -- so much so that it may be impinging upon our operations. Is there a time limit on the Privatization Bill, if there continues to be little interest?
What if we suggested forming a sort of union whereby the workers of these facilities buy equal shares in the operation of the business -- sort of like a credit union? Then we could guarantee purchasers, but keep the privatization plan in place. Plus, it would probably help to smooth the feathers of Mayor Creatin and the people of Rochefort.
Also, Per Talbott, could I get you, in your capacity as MDIA, to sign off on the use of naval bases by Coast Guard forces until we can get some sort of permanent solution hammered out?
Addendum:
What does everyone think of the possibility of contacting the U.S. Navy at Farpoint and seeing if we can utilize their facilities for the Coast Guard? I know it's a bit radical, and not really in my purview, but it could supplement our own naval bases, and show the U.S. that we're willing to work together. Plus, I have a hunch that the number of Topa involved in the recent foiled organ theft means that the ring is operating through or out of the W.E.T. More patrols offshore in that area could give us the break we need.
Thoughts?
What does everyone think of the possibility of contacting the U.S. Navy at Farpoint and seeing if we can utilize their facilities for the Coast Guard? I know it's a bit radical, and not really in my purview, but it could supplement our own naval bases, and show the U.S. that we're willing to work together. Plus, I have a hunch that the number of Topa involved in the recent foiled organ theft means that the ring is operating through or out of the W.E.T. More patrols offshore in that area could give us the break we need.
Thoughts?
>>What if we suggested forming a sort of union whereby the workers of these facilities buy equal shares in the operation of the business <<
Sounds like something I can certainly endorse.
Josephus
Sounds like something I can certainly endorse.
Josephus
I do like the idea of the workers giving a chance to own the Maritcon assets. In fact, if possible to help with this I think we should offer an 'incentive', if possible. Like we would for a brand new business being created. Since it is likely to be expensive for workers to buy, such might help them be able to buy, modernize, and continue operations.
Because, unfortunately, not many EUtopian companies have the wherewithal or skills to take over shipbuilding facilities. Which leaves foreign companies. Having the workers buy the facilities leaves it in EUtopian hands, which would be a good thing.
Because, unfortunately, not many EUtopian companies have the wherewithal or skills to take over shipbuilding facilities. Which leaves foreign companies. Having the workers buy the facilities leaves it in EUtopian hands, which would be a good thing.
I think the idea of a worker buyout is great. Josephus since you have good ties with the dock workers would you like to help them arrange this purchase?
-Dr. Jonathan Glasser
President of Eutopia
-Dr. Jonathan Glasser
President of Eutopia
Yeah. I'll work with them.
I have to admit my failings in math and practical (as opposed to theoretical) economics.
So, how does this work? Assume the company is worth $1 million and there are 1,000 workers. So each worker pays $1,000 and receives 1/1000 share.
Is that, more or less, all there is to it?
Josephus Locke Sergei
I have to admit my failings in math and practical (as opposed to theoretical) economics.
So, how does this work? Assume the company is worth $1 million and there are 1,000 workers. So each worker pays $1,000 and receives 1/1000 share.
Is that, more or less, all there is to it?
Josephus Locke Sergei
Question: Who would run it? Would they elect some sort of chairman? And what happens if a worker chooses not to buy any stock?
All good questions Vilms.
I think before I approach the workers with this; we should set up---dare I say it---a small commission to figure out the answers to Vilms's questions and others. This is an important, historic thing we're doing and could be the blueprint to future government selloffs. So, let's get this right.
Here is my answers to Vilms' questions. I could be wrong.
1. The company would continue to be run--that is managed---by the current managers. I envision, too, a board made up of worker reps/ management to make managerial decisions. The worker reps can be elected, say one rep for every 100 workers or something.
2.) The board elects a CEO, like any other corporation.
3.) He gets taken out and shot? :wacko: No, I don't have an answer to this. We can't force them to buy shares. So my guess is unclaimed shares can be sold to workers who want more than one?? There is a nasty problem with this scenario though whereby richer workers buy out the shares of those that need the fast cash and slowly but surely the net worth is owned once more by a few hands.
Josephus Locke Sergei
I think before I approach the workers with this; we should set up---dare I say it---a small commission to figure out the answers to Vilms's questions and others. This is an important, historic thing we're doing and could be the blueprint to future government selloffs. So, let's get this right.
Here is my answers to Vilms' questions. I could be wrong.
1. The company would continue to be run--that is managed---by the current managers. I envision, too, a board made up of worker reps/ management to make managerial decisions. The worker reps can be elected, say one rep for every 100 workers or something.
2.) The board elects a CEO, like any other corporation.
3.) He gets taken out and shot? :wacko: No, I don't have an answer to this. We can't force them to buy shares. So my guess is unclaimed shares can be sold to workers who want more than one?? There is a nasty problem with this scenario though whereby richer workers buy out the shares of those that need the fast cash and slowly but surely the net worth is owned once more by a few hands.
Josephus Locke Sergei
I am opposed to any sort of commission simply because they take too much blasted time and I would like the sale to continue to go forward.
I know the scenerio you describe in part 3 isn't great, but it still acomplishes the key component of keeping the shipyard running and in the hands of Eutopians (as opposed to foreigners). Perhaps we can put a provision about owning no more than 5% of the company into effect for say the first 5 years? That would gaurentee at a minimum 20 owners which while not as great as 100 would still probabally be a pretty diverse group.
-Dr. Jonathan Glasser
President of Eutopia
I know the scenerio you describe in part 3 isn't great, but it still acomplishes the key component of keeping the shipyard running and in the hands of Eutopians (as opposed to foreigners). Perhaps we can put a provision about owning no more than 5% of the company into effect for say the first 5 years? That would gaurentee at a minimum 20 owners which while not as great as 100 would still probabally be a pretty diverse group.
-Dr. Jonathan Glasser
President of Eutopia
OK. I agree the Commission is a dumb idea. Why don't we just spend one or two more days hashing this amongs ourselves in here, just to be clear on what we're proposing. Then I'll take it to the workers right after we agree on something.
Josephus
Josephus
Regarding the worker's purchase, we have some different possibilities for a structure. I'd start with a base of a round lot per employee, so assume we've got 100 shares x a hypothetical 1000 employees = 100,000 shares.
So, a couple options:
1) Divide the value of Maritcon by the number of shares and then give shareholders a first right of refusal on 100 shares. This way, everyone starts out equal. People can opt out, but since presumably at least 50% of the workers will be interested, the majority business will remain in Eutopian hands. We then sell the remaining shares to the company, which sells them on the open market. This means the company starts out in debt, but we can also immediately offer them the Coast Guard contract, so they have something to borrow against.
Or, 2) we get a sense of the number of interested employees and then give them an initial estimate with the understanding that it will increase (Maritcon assets value divided by number of interested employees). They then have the freedom to opt out, in which case we recalculate the number of interested employees and give them a second figure. We repeat this process until everyone is satisfied. Each time the price per employee is going to go up as more employees opt out.
Number 1 has the advantage of lower cost per employee, but a larger body of non-employee shareholders. Number 2 has the reverse -- higher cost, but more (in fact, 100%) employee ownership. Both suffer from a preference for upper management, since they're more likely to have disposable income to spend on their shares. I prefer #1, because it minimizes this problem as much as is practicable.
So, a couple options:
1) Divide the value of Maritcon by the number of shares and then give shareholders a first right of refusal on 100 shares. This way, everyone starts out equal. People can opt out, but since presumably at least 50% of the workers will be interested, the majority business will remain in Eutopian hands. We then sell the remaining shares to the company, which sells them on the open market. This means the company starts out in debt, but we can also immediately offer them the Coast Guard contract, so they have something to borrow against.
Or, 2) we get a sense of the number of interested employees and then give them an initial estimate with the understanding that it will increase (Maritcon assets value divided by number of interested employees). They then have the freedom to opt out, in which case we recalculate the number of interested employees and give them a second figure. We repeat this process until everyone is satisfied. Each time the price per employee is going to go up as more employees opt out.
Number 1 has the advantage of lower cost per employee, but a larger body of non-employee shareholders. Number 2 has the reverse -- higher cost, but more (in fact, 100%) employee ownership. Both suffer from a preference for upper management, since they're more likely to have disposable income to spend on their shares. I prefer #1, because it minimizes this problem as much as is practicable.
#1 is fine. Someone earlier brought up the idea that the government helps the employees in purchasing the company. I have a suggestion, that if the cost of the shares is too high for some employees, we (the gov't) offers interest free loans with payment on the principle coming directly from their salaries over a multi-year period.
Josephus
Josephus