The legislation is not fit for purpose. It’s almost impossible to transpose because the authors have no clue on anything they’ve written . Job categories aren’t specified, nor are relevant factors like experience or tenure in role and they make it virtually impossible to measure pay as it includes benefits and long term equity incentives which vary hugely according to time stock market fluctuations and timing of both vesting and exercise. Impossible to measure, and what do you measure value at award/intention or value at liquidation. That’s why it’s impossible to write the transposition and impossible to enforce whatever is written. 90% of companies don’t have employe reps and cannot be compelled to create them. Your commentary is 100% correct. Even the consulting firms have given up building practices as they can’t sell solutions when they can’t articulate the requirements. Transparency about salaries would in itself have been sufficient regulation and good practice would have developed and proliferated.
Vance, as someone with previous, direct experience of looking at how to implement this law in a major multinational, you are speaking from firsthand experience of trying to make this work in practice and finding it impossible to do so. Lawmakers would be well advised to stop the clock on this and listen to people like you.
In considering the makeup of legislative bodies and their lack of experience at the coalface of employment relations there is a contradiction that is not easy to resolve. Experience has shown that those who climbed the greasy pole of working outside the political sphere before going into politics seldom make good politicians, much less ministers, in the UK at least. The only profession that seems to successfully bridge the gap are barristers, but their working life is not typical of other professions, notwithstanding the shortcomings as a politician of Keir Starmer.
I am not arguing that because someone is successful in business, they will be successful in politics; far from it. My point is really about the makeup of the European Parliament. We don't actually know its occupational makeup because it refuses to publish that data. Why not? It could be skewed towards political has-beens; political careerists; ex-NGO workers; far-right activists. Who knows? My point is that we should know these things.
Too many in politics have little experience of the world outside of politics. I well remember the days when the Tory benches in the UK were packed with lawyers and bankers, and the Labour benches with trade unionists. They brought real-world experiences to discussions.
I know these questions are not easy to resolve, but I am not persuaded that politics is a life-long, full-time occupation.
I'm all for transparency, but I don't think lawyers and bankers were particularly familiar with what went on outside their professional circle - criminal lawyers were perhaps an exception. And the days of someone like Alan Johnson, a grammar school boy, who had to leave school to become a postman, but rose through the ranks of the trade union movement to become a Cabinet minister, are long gone. Working for a TU after graduation is now a well trodden path for aspiring Labour politicians.
The legislation is not fit for purpose. It’s almost impossible to transpose because the authors have no clue on anything they’ve written . Job categories aren’t specified, nor are relevant factors like experience or tenure in role and they make it virtually impossible to measure pay as it includes benefits and long term equity incentives which vary hugely according to time stock market fluctuations and timing of both vesting and exercise. Impossible to measure, and what do you measure value at award/intention or value at liquidation. That’s why it’s impossible to write the transposition and impossible to enforce whatever is written. 90% of companies don’t have employe reps and cannot be compelled to create them. Your commentary is 100% correct. Even the consulting firms have given up building practices as they can’t sell solutions when they can’t articulate the requirements. Transparency about salaries would in itself have been sufficient regulation and good practice would have developed and proliferated.
Vance, as someone with previous, direct experience of looking at how to implement this law in a major multinational, you are speaking from firsthand experience of trying to make this work in practice and finding it impossible to do so. Lawmakers would be well advised to stop the clock on this and listen to people like you.
In considering the makeup of legislative bodies and their lack of experience at the coalface of employment relations there is a contradiction that is not easy to resolve. Experience has shown that those who climbed the greasy pole of working outside the political sphere before going into politics seldom make good politicians, much less ministers, in the UK at least. The only profession that seems to successfully bridge the gap are barristers, but their working life is not typical of other professions, notwithstanding the shortcomings as a politician of Keir Starmer.
I am not arguing that because someone is successful in business, they will be successful in politics; far from it. My point is really about the makeup of the European Parliament. We don't actually know its occupational makeup because it refuses to publish that data. Why not? It could be skewed towards political has-beens; political careerists; ex-NGO workers; far-right activists. Who knows? My point is that we should know these things.
Too many in politics have little experience of the world outside of politics. I well remember the days when the Tory benches in the UK were packed with lawyers and bankers, and the Labour benches with trade unionists. They brought real-world experiences to discussions.
I know these questions are not easy to resolve, but I am not persuaded that politics is a life-long, full-time occupation.
I'm all for transparency, but I don't think lawyers and bankers were particularly familiar with what went on outside their professional circle - criminal lawyers were perhaps an exception. And the days of someone like Alan Johnson, a grammar school boy, who had to leave school to become a postman, but rose through the ranks of the trade union movement to become a Cabinet minister, are long gone. Working for a TU after graduation is now a well trodden path for aspiring Labour politicians.