|
COG
|
EFES Discussion |
|||||||||
| |
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: EFES: Collective Employee Ownership
Mark, Thought I'd share this comment I sent to David & Shann regarding related correspondence. David Binns David & Shann, Let me jump in to add another perspective on internal market liquidity in an employee-owned company. David's concerns about the liquidity demands for repurchasing shares assumes that the company is the sole provider of liquidity. That is indeed the case in most employee-owned companies, including most privately-held ESOPs. That "repurchase liability" can cause serious cash-flow concerns over time, particularly for companies that realize substantial increases in the value of their shares. But a number of companies have developed more sophisticated internal market mechanisms in which employees themselves and their benefit plans serve as net buyers for the shares. This almost always requires that the shares be registered with the securities and exchange authorities (limited exceptions to full securities registration are sometimes available here in the US) which means a fairly substantial investment in most cases. Companies must therefore typically be fair large -- at least 500 employees in most cases -- for such a system to be both affordable and sufficiently diverse to provide liquidity. The basic way it works is that the company itself (or a firm retained for that purpose) acts as a broker-dealer to facilitate trades among employees and their benefit plans. Trading is done based on a pre-established valuation conducted by an independent appraiser (updated quarterly, semi-annually or annually). Buy offers from individual employees (including those exercising stock options), as well as from employee benefit plans (including ESOPs, 401(k) savings plans, qualified stock purchase plans), are matched with sell offers from other employee shareholders. The company steps in to make the market whole by either purchasing additional shares or issuing new shares for sale to meet demand. The plans are typically structured so that the company may -- but is not obliged -- to enter the market. Sometimes sales or purchases are prorated so that only a certain percentage of the sale offers are fulfilled in a given trade. These plans vary in cost and complexity and don't completely get a private company off the hook for making a market in the shares. But a growing number of larger firms are implementing such plans without having to rely on a collective trust -- which at any rate isn't possible to do here in the US. Additional information can be found in the following archived article from our website: http://www.fed.org/onlinemag/april96/2E-Providing-Liquidity.html David Binns Foundation for Enterprise Development -----Original Message----- From: David Erdal [mailto:david@erdal.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 8:42 AM To: efes@cog.kent.edu Subject: Re: EFES: Collective Employee Ownership Mark Yes - 100% emnployee ownership where the shares are held individually IS the problem. One solution is to put a large proportion in a collective holding which never needs to be sold, so it minimises the liquidity problem - that was my point. Some companies run internal markets with the prices varying according to the demand to buy and sell. I think that is dangerous: often the people with more knowledge will end up with large holdings. The trust is an excellent vehicle to give the internal market liquidity: and cash passed from the company to the trust needs to be tax free, to enable it to carry out that role. In these situations, it seems to me best to have an independent valuation each time trading is allowed. yours David >David, > >your point on the liquidity of internal market is very interesting. I >experience this is as one of the major challenges in our practice with non >listed companies. > >We often try to commit the major shareholders to to keeping the internal >market liquid. I don't believe that 100% employee ownership is the obvious >solution for that. On the contrary, my experience is that the problem of >liquidity and the % of share issued to the employees correlate.... > >In France you see banks on stock exchange acting as 'animators' to keep the >market liquid for a specific company. It would be interesting to investigate >wheather such a solution is possible for the internal market for non-listed >companies. > >Mark van Beusekom > > >PS Participation Solutions B.V. > >Bezoekadres: Koninginnegracht 35 >Postbus 85580, 2508 CG 's-Gravenhage > >Tel: +31 (0) 70 322 98 00 >Fax: +31 (0) 70 322 97 55 > >Mobiel: +31 (0) 6 21 57 59 62 >E-mail: mark.vanbeusekom@psps.nl >Website: www.psps.nl > >Dit bericht bevat vertrouwelijke informatie welke uitsluitend bestemd is >voor geadresseerde. Indien bovenstaand emailbericht niet aan u gericht is, >verzoeken wij u vriendelijk doch dringend het emailbericht te retourneren >en het origineel en eventuele kopien van uw systeem te verwijderen en te >vernietigen. > >This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the >individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not >disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender >immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete >this e-mail from your system. >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Erdal" <david@erdal.net> >To: <efes@cog.kent.edu> >Sent: dinsdag 23 oktober 2001 11:05 >Subject: RE: EFES: Answer to Shann Turnbull > > >> Marc and Rainer >> This is an important point. If employee share ownership is not to be >> a relatively short-lived phenomenon, then there has to be a >> sustainable internal market for employees' shares. If the employee >> holding is significant and all the shares are held individually, then >> the internal market cannot be kept liquid - it takes too much >> cash.This is what led to the collapse of employee shareholding at >> National Freight, for example. The solution lies in making a large >> part of the employee holding COLLECTIVE. In the UK this is achieved >> through a trust. The really successful very long-lived employee owned >> companies (John Lewis, Ove Arup, Scott Bader) are in fact owned 100% >> by trusts for their employees. >> >> The co-operative is another way of achieving the same effect: the >> ownership does not need to be re-financed. In Poptel, for example, > > the operating company is owned 51% by a co-operative of which all the > > employees are members. This has allowed them to sell 49% of the > > company to venture capitalists to enable them to develop and launch >> '.coop' as a top level domain name on the internet. >> >> So the measures in the EU need to include support for COLLECTIVE >> holdings, whether through a trust, or a co-operative, or other things >> - an institute, or a charity etc. >> >> yours >> David >> >> >Dear Marc, >> >I agree 100% with you on the positive link between financial >> >participation and participative management. We need to insist on > > >this aspect. Just one remark, are we sure that the concept employee >> >share ownership covers co-operative forms of ownership ? If not, >> >wouldn't it be better and broader to speak about employee ownership >> >in general? >> >Rainer Schlter >> > >> >-----Message d'origine----- >> >De : Marc Mathieu [mailto:marc.mathieu@pi.be] >> >Envoy : lundi 22 octobre 2001 17:18 >> > : efes@cog.kent.edu >> >Objet : Re: EFES: Answer to Shann Turnbull >> > >> >Dear Shann, >> > >> >Thank you very much for your contribution. I think that we agree >> >with you on "participation". >> > >> >We had a deep discussion in EFES in 1999: should we support just >> >"financial participation" or participation as a whole. We chose >> >"participation" as a whole. We are not an association for financial >> >participation but well for "employee ownership and participation". >> >If you look back to the preamble to our statutes, I think this is >> >deeply explained (see the page "mission" on the web site). >> > >> >Now in the draft opinion for the consultation organized by the >> >European Commission", we write. >> >Would you please read it again and let me know if something should be >added: >> > >> > "EFES thinks that it is employee share ownership and participation >> > which should be the subject of a Community initiative, rather than >> >"financial participation". >> >The concept of financial participation is too general: many studies, >> >among which some supported by the Commission or the Dublin >> >Foundation, have shown that financial participation can have all its >> >social and economic benefits only if it is associated with a >> >participative management. It is thus necessary to speak, as EFES >> >suggests, of employee share ownership and participation, rather than >> >of financial participation. >> >This difference is very significant. Indeed, the concept of >> >"financial participation" had its originality and its relevance at >> >the end of the 80's. Since then however, practices and research >> >have shown that the concept of financial participation, covering >> >even contradictory multiple practices, is now largely obsolete. >> >Indeed, the concept of financial participation used by the >> >Commission covers three categories of practices: >> > profit-sharing; >> > employee share ownership; >> > stock options. >> >Research shows that employee share ownership and participation have >> >a positive impact on productivity, on economic and social dynamics >> >in general and on the volume of activity and employment: >> > When all-employees share ownership schemes are >> >connected to participative management, the impact is particularly >> >positive. >> > When share ownership does not include all >> >employees, but is targeted at certain categories only (as is often >> >the case in stock options schemes), the impact is positive but by >> >far lower than the preceding case. >> > Lastly, profit-sharing has little impact, or >> >even a negative one. >> >Consequently, the conclusion should be drawn: one cannot any more, >> >as at the end of the 80's, to include in the same plan these various >> >or contradictory practices. >> >It is indeed "employee share ownership and participation" which >> >should be the purpose of a specific support, rather than the former >> >obsolete concept of "financial participation". This difference was >> >already the subject of several deepened debates, in particular >> >within the framework of the European Workshop of April 1999. >> >In addition, the working paper of the Commission staff understates >> >the effects of employee share ownership, when it states that >> >"employee share ownership provides for employee participation in >> >enterprise results in an indirect way, i.e. on the basis of >> >participation in ownership, either by receiving dividends or the >> >appreciation of employee-owned capital after the selling of the >> >shares... ". >> >Here still, the practice differed from concepts of the late 80's. >> >Employee share ownership has been shown to be effective and > > >significant, not only as participation in the financial results, but >> >especially as a factor of commitment in ownership, motivation, >> >company decision and management. This is also why the connection >> >with participative forms of management has been shown to be a key >> >element. >> >Let us repeat, it is the combination of employee share ownership and >> >participation which has proved particularly beneficial. It is that >> >which the Community actions should encourage. >> >We observed on this point a great convergence between our >> >organizations of employee share ownership and the analysis made by >> >trade unions." >> >Best regards >> >Marc >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: <mailto:sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu>Shann Turnbull >> >To: <mailto:efes@cog.kent.edu>efes@cog.kent.edu >> >Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 3:10 PM >> >Subject: Re: EFES: EFES DRAFT OPINION ON EC CONSULTATION ON >> >FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION >> > >> >Marc >> > >> >Your report is to the point and hard hitting as other have commented >> >upon. However, I am concerned that it often uses the word >> >"participation" without explaining that this applies to management >> >and/or control and not just to finance or ownership. >> > >> >You clearly make the important distinction between financial >> >participation and employee ownership but do not consistently make >> >the equally important need to associate ownership with control >> >and/or management. >> > >> >This problem is shared by the COG mission statement which ignores >> >the need to spread control with ownership. >> > >> >Australia has a wider spread of share ownership than any other >> >country but control is getting more highly concentrate in management >> >through the use of share trusts and by pension funds being centrally >> >managed. So spreading ownership can be counter productive unless >> >control is also distributed. This is the subject of some of my >> >articles. The most relevant is Reforming capitalism with worker >> >owners >> >><http://cog.kent.edu/lib/Turnbull-ReformingCapitalismWithWorkerOwners.htm> >> >This points out that workers become second class citizens with >> >ownership is spread through share trusts like they are force to be >> >in the UK. >> > >> >Best regards >> > >> >Shann >> > >> > >> >At 06:04 AM 20/10/2001, you wrote: >> > >> >>Here our draft opinion on the European Commission staff >> >>consultation on employee financial participation: >> >> >> >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = >"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> >> >>DRAFT >> >>October 19, 2001 >> >> >> >> >> >>OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP >> >>on the COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER >> >>on " Financial participation of employees in the European Union " >> >>(Document SEC(2001)1308 of the 26.7.2001) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Synopsis: >> >>1. About EFES >> >>2. EFES? opinion - synthesis >> >>3. Method and collected opinions >> >>4. Employee share ownership and participation, key elements of a >> >>European strategy for employment >> >>5. The concept of financial participation is obsolete; it is >> >>advisable to substitute for it employee share ownership and >> >>participation >> >>6. The program of the European Commission >> >>7. An adequate funding >> >>8. To set up a "permanent working party" and a European >> >>institute for employee share ownership and participation >> >>9. Conclusion >> >> >> >>1. ABOUT EFES >> >>EFES ?" the European Federation of Employee Share Ownership was >> >>constituted following the decision taken in May 1998 in Brussels, >> >>by a conference which brought together 250 participants from 28 >> >>countries. The Federation was quickly organized, under the statute >> >>of a not-for-profit international organization approved by the >> >>Belgian Government. >> >>EFES? objective is to act as the umbrella organization of >> >>employee owners and all persons, companies, trade unions, experts, >> >>researchers, institutions looking to promote employee share >> >>ownership and participation in Europe. >> >>This ambition is being carried out. EFES counts members in the >> >>majority of the European countries, as well in the European Union > > >>as in the candidate countries. Among the members of EFES, there >> >>are individuals, companies, associations, trade unions, experts, >> >>researchers and national federations. The Board of Directors of >> >>EFES counts 22 representatives of 14 countries, and its Executive >> >>Office 7 people, who meet monthly. >> >>?/? >> >> >> >> >> >>2. EFES? OPINION - SYNTHESIS >> >>In substance, EFES? opinion is as follows: >> >>Yes, the European Commission should plan for a Community initiative >> >>aiming on employee share ownership and participation. >> >>We speak well about "employee share ownership and participation", >> >>rather than of "financial participation". This distinction is >> >>significant. Indeed, the concept of "financial participation" had >> >>its originality and its relevance at the end of the years ' 80. >> >>Since then, the practices and research showed that it is now >> >>largely obsolete. Among the practices gathered under the concept >> >>of "financial participation", some appeared beneficial and the >> >>other negative ones. The practices of employee share ownership >> >>joined to participative management were characterized by their >> >>positive impact on economic and social dynamics. >> >>Actions should be taken in the European Union, and also in the >> >>candidate countries. >> >>It is necessary to lay down general principles at European level to >> >>encourage greater and more efficient recourse to employee share >> >>ownership and participation schemes. >> >>The general principles and the actions which the Commission should >> >>include in its next Communication and its Action Plan are those >> >>defined in the "European Action Programme" of the European >> >>Federation of Employee Share Ownership. >> >>This programme is based on the Resolution of the European >> >>Parliament of January 1998 and it was written in conclusion of a >> >>workshop which had joined together, within the European Parliament >> >>in Brussels, the whole European institutions, as well as the social >> >>partners and the organizations of employee share ownership. >> >>This action programme awaits the European Commission particularly: >> >>· to set up a permanent working party; >> >>· to implement a programme with an adequate funding; >> >>· to set up a European institute for employee share ownership >> >>and participation. >> >>This action programme is joined in its entirety to the present >> >>opinion, of which it forms integral part. >> >> >> >>3. METHOD AND COLLECTED OPINIONS >> >>To prepare its opinion, EFES met and consulted a broad range of >> >>people and organizations: representatives of governments, members >> >>of the European Parliament, trade-union representatives at European >> >>level, employers? organizations, organizations promoting employee >> >>share ownership, etc. >> >>EFES also organized a web forum on the topic of the consultation >> >>organized by the Commission. Some characteristic collected >> >>opinions are reproduced in appendix. >> >>The reactions which we collected from a broad range of actors have >> >>the same general tonality: >> >>One can only be delighted by the will affirmed by the Commission >> >>staff "to relaunch the debate on financial participation at >> >>European level, associating all the players concerned". >> >>There are many positive aspects in the document, but one omission >> >>in the general principles and a glaring lack of proposals for >> >>action. >> >>The good points are: >> >>The Commission staff precisely affirms the preference for all >> >>employee schemes. >> >>The Commission staff highlight the fact that financial >> >>participation boosts productivity. This is the argument with the >> >>widest appeal, as productivity is associated with competitiveness, >> >>profitability and higher salaries and/or more leisure time. >> >>The Commission staff shows that financial participation is being >> >>recognized widely as important. >> >>The Commission staff also shows why it is necessary to take >> >>initiatives at the European level, not just the national level. >> >>This is important. >> >>The general principles stated by the Commission staff contain a > > >>major omission. Indeed, many studies show conclusively that >> >>financial participation only really works strongly when it is >> >>situated in a regime of participative management. The document >> >>emphasises clarity and transparency, which are aspects of >> >>communication by managers, but not involvement and consultation of >> >>employees in the management process of the business. >> >>However with this argument we can win over trade union support, >> >>which is generally lacking, and which is necessary if we are to >> >>make progress in Europe in this field. >> >>At side of the positive aspects, in a general way, the reactions >> >>and the comments express perplexity as for the intentions and the >> >>steps taken by the Commission, impression of an unexplainable >> >>timidity, disappointment, this one expressing itself sometimes even >> >>on a sharp tone (cf opinion reproduced in appendix: "consultation >> >>or funeral??) >> >>Within the European Federation of Employee Share Ownership itself, >> >>the impression which prevails is that of a disappointment compared >> >>to the past action of the Commission and waiting of a firmer and >> >>stronger action in the future. >> >>Indeed, EFES observes that the Summit of Lisbon put the point at >> >>the European social agenda. EFES meets a listening and growing >> >>support from the governments. As regards the European Parliament >> >>also, the supports for employee share ownership and participation >> >>were strengthened. From the European Commission too, a better >> >>support is awaited. >> >>Among the questions and the reactions collected, let us note >particularly: >> >>Why to have awaited the 1st of August to launch this consultation? >> >>A worse date would be difficult, on full holiday. Why such a short >> >>deadline for reply (until October 30). All that discourages rather >> >>the reactions and hinder a real consultation. Furthermore, you >> >>don?t see, in the document, which could have prevented from >> >>diffusing it 6 months or even a year before. >> >>Of the Resolution of the European Parliament of January 1998, the >> >>working paper of the Commission staff retains only a general >> >>sentence, observing that "?the Parliament... made a number of >> >>calls on the Commission... It requested the Commission in >> >>particular to promote the exchange of information and best practice >> >>at transnational level, to study the impact of financial >> >>participation schemes on employment and wage flexibility, and >> >>develop pilot projects for financial participation in public >> >>undertakings in the CEECs in connection with privatisation". >> >>However, the Parliament?s Resolution addressed to the Commission >> >>a whole of concrete, precise, practical requests. Not only these >> >>requests were not met by the Commission since 1998, but the >> >>document of consultation of the Commission omits them. >> >>Lastly, it is strange that the document of consultation does not >> >>make mention anywhere of trade-unions. Difficult to understand such >> >>main omission. >> >> >> >> >> >>4. EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION, KEY ELEMENTS OF A >> >>EUROPEAN STRATEGY FOR EMPLOYMENT >> >>Employee share ownership and participation should be in good place >> >>in a European strategy for employment. It is still not the case. >> >>There is an awakening which yet did not gain the political decision >> >>makers. >> >>Indeed the development of employee share ownership and >> >>participation positively influences economic and social dynamics >> >>and employment. This is not negligible, since it is estimated at >> >>1% a year additional growth of the GDP. In terms of employment in >> >>Europe, that potentially represents million additional jobs after a >> >>few years. >> >>In the document of consultation of the Commission, this factor is >> >>precisely highlighted (pages 8 and 9). >> >>In the opinion of EFES, this is a key point of the question. >> >>Much remains to be made to carry the conviction of governments and >> >>European decision makers in this direction. The document of the >> >>Commission indicates rightly that the general principles set forth > > >>in the PEPPER Reports have not been adequately incorporated into >> >>national policies. >> >>However, during these last years, EFES developed its relations with >> >>many governments and those show more and more their interest for >> >>employee share ownership and participation. >> >>In Belgium, the Belgian section of EFES was, at the sides of the >> >>Belgian Government, an active craftsman of a step which appears >> >>exemplary to us. Indeed, under the terms of a dialogue which fully >> >>associated the social partners, a good new legislation was adopted, >> >>directly inspired by PEPPER principles. >> >>With the support of the Belgian Presidency of the European Union, >> >>EFES organizes an international conference on November 23 2001 in >> >>Brussels. The aim is to encourage the European Union and the >> >>European States to promote employee share ownership and >> >>participation. >> >>We hope well that the European Commission will join the >> >>organization and the holding of this event. >> >> >> >> >> >>5. THE CONCEPT OF FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION IS OBSOLETE; IT IS >> >>ADVISABLE TO SUBSTITUTE FOR IT EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP AND >> >>PARTICIPATION >> >>EFES thinks that it is employee share ownership and participation >> >>which should be the subject of a Community initiative, rather than >> >>"financial participation". >> >>The concept of financial participation is too general: many >> >>studies, among which some supported by the Commission or the Dublin >> >>Foundation, showed that financial participation can have all its >> >>social and economic benefits only if it is associated with a >> >>participative management. It is thus necessary to speak, as EFES >> >>suggests, of employee share ownership and participation, rather >> >>than of financial participation. >> >>This difference is very significant. Indeed, the concept of >> >>"financial participation" had its originality and its relevance at >> >>the end of the years '80. Since then however, the practices and >> >>research showed that the concept of financial participation, >> >>covering even contradictory multiple practices, is now largely >> >>obsolete. >> >>Indeed, the concept of financial participation used by the >> >>Commission covers three categories of practices: >> >>· profit-sharing; >> >>· employee share ownership; >> >>· stock options. >> >>Among the practices covered by the concept of "financial >> >>participation", some appeared beneficial and the other negative >> >>ones. The practices of employee share ownership joined to >> >>participative management were characterized by their positive >> >>impact on the productivity and economic and social dynamics. >> >>Research show that employee share ownership and participation have >> >>positive impact on productivity, on economic and social dynamics in >> >>general and on the volume of activity and employment: >> >>· When all employees share ownership schemes are >> >>connected to participative management, the impact is particularly >> >>positive. >> >>· When share ownership are not all employees >> >>schemes, but targeted at certain categories only (as it is often >> >>the case in stock options schemes), the impact is positive but by >> >>far lower than the preceding case. >> >>· Lastly, profit-sharing has little impact, or >> >>even a negative one. >> >>Consequently, the conclusion should be drawn: one cannot any more, >> >>as at the end of the years '80, to put on the same plan these >> >>various or contradictory practices. >> >>It is well "employee share ownership and participation" which >> >>should be the purpose of a specific support, rather than the former >> >>obsolete concept of "financial participation". This difference was >> >>already the subject of several deepened debates, in particular >> >>within the framework of the European Workshop of April 1999. >> >>In addition, the working paper of the Commission staff is, on the >> >>point of employee share ownership, exaggeratedly reducing, when it >> >>states that "employee share ownership provides for employee > > >>participation in enterprise results in an indirect way, i.e. on the >> >>basis of participation in ownership, either by receiving dividends >> >>or the appreciation of employee-owned capital after the selling of >> >>the shares... ". >> >>Here still, the practice differed with concepts of the late years >> >>'80. Employee share ownership appeared effective and significant, >> >>not only as participation in the results, but especially as a >> >>factor of commitment in ownership, motivation, company decision and >> >>management. This is also why also, the connection with >> >>participative forms of management appeared to be a key element. >> >>Let us repeat it, it is the combination of employee share ownership >> >>and participation which proved particularly beneficial. It is that >> >>which the Community actions should encourage. >> >>We observed on this point a great convergence between our >> >>organizations of employee share ownership and the analysis made by >> >>trade unions. >> >> >> >> >> >>6. THE PROGRAM OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION >> >>In its Resolution of January 1998, the European Parliament >> >>requested from the Commission "an adequately financed programme". >> >>That the actions of the Commission answer a programme, appears >> >>indeed to us a significant condition of transparency and >> >>effectiveness. >> >>It also appears very significant to us that the results of the >> >>actions taken or supported by the Commission would be published and >> >>made available. >> >>The Commission precisely stresses through its various actions the >> >>importance of the exchanges of information in Europe. It would be >> >>desirable that the Commission itself takes fully part in these >> >>exchanges and supports the communication between the actors. The >> >>Commission herself has information which should be accessible to >> >>these actors, in particular on the studies, conferences and other >> >>initiatives that she finances or causes, including through the >> >>European Foundation for the improvement of the living and working >> >>conditions. >> >>The purpose of this communication and this information on behalf of >> >>the Commission on financed actions, will be in particular: >> >>· To support the exchanges and co-operation between >> >>actors, carrying projects. >> >>· To establish criteria and righter, equitable and >> >>transparent procedures of selection. >> >>· To support the complementarity of projects. >> >>In addition, in practice, the Commission finances currently only >> >>conferences, whereas the budgetary heading B3-4000 intended to >> >>finance actions aiming at the promotion of financial participation >> >>speaks " to support actions of promotion of good examples and >> >>networks as well as studies and measures of occupational >> >>qualification ". >> >>The means are not adequate, but also, the Commission did not >> >>propose a true program. This one should support: >> >>· Research, studies, surveys, analyses. >> >>· Training (this concept being much broader than that of >> >>"measures of occupational qualification"). >> >>· Conferences, seminars, meetings (as it is currently the >case). >> >>· Actions of information and communication supplementing >> >>what precedes: publications, periodicals, web sites, reports and >> >>any action intended to disseminate the results of the studies and >> >>surveys and to make known by the public and the actors various >> >>aspects of employee share ownership and participation in Europe >> >>(stakes, obstacles, experiments and practices...) >> >>· Web portals, catalogues... allowing to have an overall >> >>picture of the state of research and current debates, not only in >> >>the EU, but also in other countries. Currently, it the web portal >> >>opened by EFES (www.efesonline.org ) which answers this function >> >>best, but with too limited means. >> >> >> >> >> >>7. AN ADEQUATE FUNDING >> >>It appears significant to us that a policy of promotion of employee >> >>share ownership and participation should have a well dedicated >> >>budgetary heading. >> >>It is in this direction that the European Parliament in its > > >>Resolution of January 1998 went, by requesting from the Commission >> >>an adequate financing. >> >>When EFES was constituted, the first PEPPER Report went already >> >>back to some 10 years and many participants were astonished to note >> >>that the Commission still did not have dedicated budgetary means. >> >>How indeed could we speak about policy or actions, if no means are >> >>implemented to? >> >>After the Resolution of the European Parliament of January 1998 and >> >>after the European Workshop organized by EFES at the European >> >>Parliament in April 1999 (workshop in which took part the >> >>Commission), one was still more astonished to see that no >> >>initiative seemed to be taken to assign means to the budget 1999. >> >>The astonishment was even larger, seeing the draft budget 2000, >> >>which did not provide for anything either. Fortunately, EFES could >> >>discuss with a number of Members of the Parliament, and the draft >> >>budget was amended, by dedicating a share from the B3-4000 line >> >>"social dialogue" to assign it to the promotion of financial >> >>participation (and the situation reproduced for budgets 2001 and >> >>2002, since again, no initiative came from the Commission). >> >>Force is to note that the assignment of a fraction of the B3-4000 >> >>line to financial participation is a lame solution, which still >> >>does not give the "adequate? financing for a program aiming at >> >>the promotion of employee share ownership and participation. >> >>Indeed, to reduce the promotion of employee share ownership and >> >>participation in a simple facet of social dialogue is exaggeratedly >> >>reducing. >> >>Secondly, to put actions promoting employee share ownership out of >> >>balance with the promotion of social dialogue, it is to cause >> >>arbitrations which do not take place to be. >> >>Lastly, it is still not to recognize the promotion of employee >> >>share ownership and participation its specific value. >> >> >> >>8. TO SET UP A "PERMANENT WORKING PARTY" AND A EUROPEAN INSTITUTE >> >>FOR EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION >> >>The points exposed here are still in the wire of the Resolution of >> >>the European Parliament of January 1998 and the European Action >> >>Programme of EFES, namely: >> >>To develop indeed actions or a policy, one needs not only "an >> >>adequately financed programme", as the Parliament asked. It is >> >>also necessary to indicate bodies of execution and persons in >> >>charge. Without that, nothing organized will be done and, at best, >> >>things will remain in state. >> >>To take in hands the execution of a Community action or a policy, >> >>the European Parliament suggested the setting-up of a "permanent >> >>working party" associating all main interested parties: >> >>representatives of both sides of industry, of employee share >> >>ownership organizations, Members of the European Parliament and >> >>Commission experts. >> >>In the prolongation of this working party, what is wished is the >> >>installation of a European institute for the promotion of employee >> >>share ownership and participation. >> >>At the time of the European Workshop of April 1999, all interested >> >>parties decided for the creation of such a working party (except >> >>the notable exception of the Commission representatives, who gave a >> >>report on hesitations). >> >>In fact, the Parliament?s Resolution did not receive any >> >>continuation and the defect of body of execution explains certainly >> >>to a great extent, trampling observed these last years. >> >> >> >> >> >>9. CONCLUSION - EFES? OPINION >> >>As a conclusion, EFES? opinion is as follows: >> >>1. Yes, the European Commission should plan for a Community >> >>initiative aiming on employee share ownership and participation. >> >>We speak well about "employee share ownership and participation", >> >>rather than of "financial participation. Among the practices >> >>gathered under the concept of "financial participation", some >> >>appeared beneficial and the other negative ones. The practices of >> >>employee share ownership joined to participative management were >> >>characterized by their positive impact on economic and social > > >>dynamics. >> >>2. Yes, actions should be taken in the European Union, and also in >> >>the candidate countries. >> >>3. Yes, it is necessary to lay down general principles at European >> >>level to encourage greater and more efficient recourse to employee >> >>share ownership and participation schemes. >> >>4. The general principles and the actions which the Commission >> >>should include in its next Communication and its Action Plan are >> >>those defined in the "European Action Programme" of the European >> >>Federation of Employee Share Ownership. >> >>This programme is based on the Resolution of the European >> >>Parliament of January 1998 and it was written in conclusion of a >> >>workshop which had joined together, within the European Parliament >> >>in Brussels, the whole European institutions, as well as the social >> >>partners and the organizations of employee share ownership. >> >>5. This action programme awaits the European Commission particularly: >> >>· to set up a permanent working party; >> >>· to implement a programme with an adequate funding; >> >>· to set up a European institute for employee share ownership >> >>and participation. >> >>This action programme is joined in its entirety to the present >> >>opinion, of which it forms integral part. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>For EFES, >> >>Marc Mathieu >> >>Secretary General >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>In appendix : >> >>Appendix 1: « European Action Programme » of EFES, adopted as the >> >>conclusion of the European Workshop of 30 April 1999 at the >> >>European Parliament in Brussels ; the programme gives an appendix >> >>reproducing the Resolution of the European Parliament of January >> >>1998 and other reference documents. >> >>Appendix 2: Some typical opinions collected through the forum on the >web. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Marc Mathieu >> >>Secretary General >> >>EFES - EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF EMPLOYEE SHAREOWNERSHIP >> >>FEAS - FEDERATION EUROPEENNE DE L'ACTIONNARIAT SALARIE >> >>Avenue Voltaire 135, B-1030 Brussels >> >>Tel/fax: +32 (0)2 242 64 30 >> >>E-mail: <mailto:marc.mathieu@ping.be>marc.mathieu@ping.be >> >>See our web site: <http://www.efesonline.org>http://www.efesonline.org >> >>EFES' objective is to act as the umbrella organization of employee >> >>owners and all persons, companies, trade unions, experts, >> >>researchers, institutions looking to promote employee ownership and >> >>participation in Europe. >> >> >> > >> >Shann Turnbull Ph.D. >> >P.O. Box 266 Woollahra, Sydney, Australia, 1350 >> >Ph: +612 9328 7466 office; +612 9327 8487 home; Fax: +612 9327 1497; >> >Life long E-mail: sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu >> >Alternate:sturnbull@optusnet.com.au >> >http://members.optusnet.com.au/~sturnbull/index.html >> >Papers at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=26239 >> >with other papers & book at http://cog.kent.edu/library.html >> >> -- >> Baxi Partnership Ltd >> West Court, Hepburn Gardens, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9LN >> tel 01334 479 101 mobile 07884 188 364 fax 01334 473 129 >> email david@erdal.net >> -- Baxi Partnership Ltd West Court, Hepburn Gardens, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9LN tel 01334 479 101 mobile 07884 188 364 fax 01334 473 129 email david@erdal.net
|