What happened to the workers wealth when Fletcher Jones reorganised?

if managment dont have cash to pay in money...the ability to dilute share worth..is of little value when the firm goes bust..[and you still lose extra money paying tax on the..'benifit'... just like it was real income...lol]

if you get only a share..[and no say]..the share deal can lead to a raw deal...how did enron shares work out for their share holders?

Anyone remember the sad situation and from memory suicides at the big farm machinery Company International Harvester .
That was back in the mid 1980's .
No employee Protection , Has the Law changed ?

Most employees are employees for a reason. They either don't want the hastle of running a business, or, they simply are not cut out for it. The 'up's and down's' I mean.

What a 'shared ownership' means is that you have to share 'everything'. The profits, the losses and the anguish that may come with ownership.

In my experience with others that have tried, all is good until you have a bad week or two.

Whether it be due to lack of communication, or lack of knowledge, most employees are simply not ready for the 'real world' when they go in to these arrangements.

Why is it that the Term of the contract has to be fixed , the apparent usefulness of the share ownership would remain if the contract was terminated every six months .
It would be up to the employee to reinvest if confidence prevailed .
How many Investors have their money locked into one entity , none I would suggest , a smart investor spreads cash among many companies confident they will not all go broke .

Tax laws could be changed to encourage Employees to reinvest either in Employers Company or some other Listed Company or moving their cash to their mortgage ; all scenarios advantage the Govt eventually .

I could list any number of benefits which accrue from employee share ownership both for the employer and the employee. I am not a member of one, personally but my daughter is and I would have no hesitation in belonging to one, had my employment path had followed a different course (as it is I am self employed and own all the shares in one company and half the shares in another company which I work for).

I would note, employees are entitled to own any public quoted share, even the company they work for.

Looking at exceptional circumstances like Enron, is like applying the “exception to the rule” mentality.

My observation to any Enron employee who had sunk all their retirement funds and savings into Enron would be the old “Eggs in Baskets” philosophy and not being wholly dependent on the success of the single Enron basket. Thus regardless the monetary investment be all in Enron or some other stock, the advise remains constant, a spread of investment represents a spread of risk and nothing should be considered so good as to be as a “zero risk”.

I am not sure fo the tax incentives or otherwise around these schemes.

A general rule would be: beware any government inducements and handouts, which can be used to manipulate financial / investment policy-
Simply because we have seen the history of the Governments knack of picking losers.

As to some of the comments in response and the down side of investing-
No employee share scheme is a guarantee… remember,

Employee Share Schemes make
“share holders” out of the “employees”,
They are not intended to make
“employees” out of the “share holders”.