KEEP programme to attract and keep key employees

[Purple]

Oh I agree. I'm just pointing out that the UK scheme would appear to include all employees of qualifying companies (I'm open to correction), instead of limiting it to 'key' employees.
There may be a valid reason to limit it to certain employees, I'm not sure what those reasons are, or if those reasons would actually make sense.

If the employer is forced to either offer the scheme to all employees or offer it to none then most will offer it to none.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I'm just pointing out that the UK scheme would appear to include all employees of qualifying companies (I'm open to correction), instead of limiting it to 'key' employees.

The UK EMI scheme is targeted at key employees.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

Who in God’s name would want to award share options to non-key employees?

Why doesn’t the legislation provide for the award of share options to vagrants or OAPs?

Why isn’t life fair?

How dare those corporate overlords look to lock down key employees?

 

[TheBigShort]

The UK EMI scheme is targeted at key employees.

I stand corrected so. Although the definition of 'key' employee would be interesting.
One reason why a company won't offer share options under this scheme to all employees is that it won't pay low income earners to take up the option
If the option of €1,000 worth of shares are offered with a 33% CGT, then a PAYE rate of 20% would be preferential.

 

[TheBigShort]

If the employer is forced to either offer the scheme to all employees or offer it to none then most will offer it to none.

Who said anything about forcing anyone to do anything?
I merely suggesting that if a company wishes to, if it qualifies under the scheme, that it should be allowed to offer the benefits of the scheme to all its employees. It doesn't have to, but I am suggesting that the scheme sounds like a good idea, but that the legislation could broaden the definition of 'key' employee to effectively mean 'all' employees.

 

[TheBigShort]

Who in God’s name would want to award share options to non-key employees?

Start-up SME's with cash flow problems.

Why doesn’t the legislation provide for the award of share options to vagrants or OAPs?

Because that be the work of buffoons. Only a buffoon, with an inability to follow simple comments on a discussion forum would try to divert to the topic into such nonsense.

Why isn’t life fair?

It's tough I know, I saw a non-contributory old age pensioner in Insomnia today with a latte and cherrybakewell tart. That must make you pull your hair out?

How dare those corporate overlords look to lock down key employees?

What are you ranting on about now?

Here again, for third time, is my first comment on this topic

It sounds useful, not sure what is meant as 'key' employee. Ideally, extend it out to all employees in my view. Nothing like having an stake in ownership to appreciate the value of something.

What is it about that comment that you don't understand?

 

[Gordon Gekko]

Big Short, yet again you are trolling.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence would realise why the share option idea is aimed at key employees.

 

[TheBigShort]

Big Short, yet again you are trolling.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence would realise why the share option idea is aimed at key employees.

Gekko, anyone with a modicum of intelligence would be able to follow the thread.
I know why share options are aimed at 'key' employees. What I'm asking is, why not extend it to all employees?
This would provide qualifying companies with the greatest flexibility in using the scheme.
I'm not exactly sure how a 'key' employee is defined, but perhaps I could benefit from your worldly wisdom and you could define it for me?

 

[TheBigShort]

@Gekko

Here is a report about an Irish company, and others, offering a share option scheme to all of its employees.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/firms-offer-employees-a-share-of-the-action-1.158114

 

[losttheplot]

Take a technology or healthcare startup. The key employees are the scientists and engineers developing the product. If they leave they take the technical expertise with them. The receptionist, no matter how good, is not key to developing the product. There is nothing preventing the company giving the receptionist shares. They just won't be under the keep scheme.

 

[TheBigShort]

Take a technology or healthcare startup. The key employees are the scientists and engineers developing the product. If they leave they take the technical expertise with them. The receptionist, no matter how good, is not key to developing the product. There is nothing preventing the company giving the receptionist shares. They just won't be under the keep scheme.

Yes, all of that is understood. And as I've pointed out above, an employee earning a wage that is subject only to 20% PAYE would not benefit from a share scheme that charges 33% CGT.
However, anyone who pays tax at the marginal rate would benefit from such a scheme. And rather than complicate the matter by having the State define who is and who isn't a 'key' employee, I am suggesting that the proposed legislation be flexible and apply to all employees of qualifying companies. Thereafter, the company, can decide who it thinks are 'key' employees and offer the scheme accordingly. So even in a tech company or healthcare start-up, where an SME could use the cash flow, the company can offer the security guard, the shift-worker, the assembly line worker the share options. If these workers pay tax at the marginal rate, then they, and the company may benefit from this scheme.
If these employees leave, it's true they are not taking any product expertise with them, but they are causing disruption to the business operations.
Providing share options, at favourable tax rates, where cash flow is tight may provide greater loyalty, greater productivity etc.
It's just a hunch, that's all. It is my view that having a vested interest in something, in the form of ownership, can provide increased appreciation of its value.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

So even in a tech company or healthcare start-up, where an SME could use the cash flow, the company can offer the security guard, the shift-worker, the assembly line worker the share options

Perhaps in your fantasy world, where every thread represents an opportunity to advance spurious arguments for your own amusement.

However, back in the real world security guards, shift-workers, and assembly line workers tend to prefer actual wages rather than the ability to buy shares at some future point. For them, share options are probably up there with magic beans and IOUs.

And their employers tend to recognise that security guards, shift-workers, and assembly line workers are relatively easy to find, whereas “key” employees (e.g. revenue generators) are harder to find and retain.

 

[TheBigShort]

However, back in the real world security guards, shift-workers, and assembly line workers tend to prefer actual wages rather than the ability to buy shares at some future point

Well one way to find out is to offer the share option scheme to them. After all, if they don't want it, then they get paid a wage. If they do take up the offer then the company benefits via greater cash flow into production and distribution etc, and the employee benefits from a favourable tax rate.

And their employers tend to recognise that security guards, shift-workers, and assembly line workers are relatively easy to find.

True, but first you need to understand why the scheme is being introduced. Once you understand that you can make a more informed judgement as opposed to the general blathering you consistently spew.

I'm not sure if you think that share options can't be or shouldn't be offered to all employees, but not understanding what you are about simply goes with the territory at this point.

 

[Sophrosyne]

And rather than complicate the matter by having the State define who is and who isn't a 'key' employee, I am suggesting that the proposed legislation be flexible and apply to all employees of qualifying companies.

The legislation will define issues such as the nature of the companies that can avail of the programme and it might place a limit on the shareholding available to key employees, but, obviously, it will not and could not define "key employee" as that it up to the individual company concerned.

As both myself and Losttheplot have commented, there is nothing to prevent a company from having more than one employee share scheme, one of which may be available to all employees on equal terms, such as an approved share option scheme, which will give them the vested interest of which you speak.

Common sense dictates that not all employees are indispensable to product creation and development.
KEEP allows the target companies to incentivise those employees who are.

It is high time that we started to appreciate our own highly talented, creative and far-sighted people.
We have been haemorrhaging them for decades through emigration and head-hunting.

It has been said many times that there is a global war on for talent.

Any measure that allows us to keep our best and brightest, that assists Irish SMEs to start up and grow and to compete in the cut and thrust of globalization, that creates high quality employment and that reduces our over-dependence on multi-nationals is good in my book.

I would like to see more done, but I think KEEP is a good first step, which has been universally welcomed by the target SMEs.

 

[TheBigShort]

Perhaps in your fantasy world, where every thread represents an opportunity to advance spurious arguments for your own amusement.

I'm not presenting an argument. You need to be able to follow a discussion in order to contribute meaningfully. You need to learn grammar and understand the language.

I'm presenting an idea. A suggestion. I haven't read one comment that would convince me that it is a bad idea or suggestion.

 

[TheBigShort]

The legislation will define issues such as the nature of the companies that can avail of the programme and it might place a limit on the shareholding available to key employees, but, obviously, it will not and could not define "key employee" as that it up to the individual company concerned.

Exactly my point. My bad for getting caught up with the word 'key'. As it was published by Dept of Fin I assumed that the legislators were attempting to define 'key' employee.
But as you have clarified, 'key' employee will be decided by the company itself. In effect, that could actually mean all of the qualifying company's employees.

Any measure that allows us to keep our best and brightest, that assists Irish SMEs to start up and grow and to compete in the cut and thrust of globalization, that creates high quality employment and that reduces our over-dependence on multi-nationals is good in my book.

I totally agree.

I would like to see more done, but I think KEEP is a good first step, which has been universally welcomed by the target SMEs.

As I have welcomed it too, from my very first post.

There appears to be a train of thought that suggests I am opposed to the scheme.
The only thing I was opposed to was limiting it to an undefined notion of 'key' employee.

 

[torblednam]

Exactly my point. My bad for getting caught up with the word 'key'. As it was published by Dept of Fin I assumed that the legislators were attempting to define 'key' employee.


There appears to be a train of thought that suggests I am opposed to the scheme.
The only thing I was opposed to was limiting it to an undefined notion of 'key' employee.

I told you about ten posts into the thread, that it would be up to employers to decide who is and isn't "key".

Common sense alone should tell you it would be completely impracticable to prescribe in law what constitutes a key employee.

You know what they say about common sense though...

Still, you got there eventually. Rome wasn't built in a day.

In fact, there's an idea, share options (for employees with) common sense, SOCS...

 

[TheBigShort]

I told you about ten posts into the thread, that it would be up to employers to decide who is and isn't "key".

Yes you did. To which I responded in kind with

You could be right. I just took it from the notice above "...to attract key employees..." that that was intended to distinguish from all employees.

Which I thought explained my position, without much fuss, until;

Who in God’s name would want to award share options to non-key employees?

So thank you @Sophrosyne, for you patience and information supplied on this matter. And thanks also @torblednam for your common sense view, which I share, that the KEEP scheme will, in effect, be open to ALL employees in qualifying companies, that those companies deem to be 'key'. Which in effect, could be anyone and everyone.

 

[Sophrosyne]

And thanks also for more or less confirming that the KEEP scheme will, in effect, be open to ALL employees in qualifying companies.

Big Short,

Many people, not just posters, read AAM for informational purposes.

I would certainly not want to create an expectation among employees of unquoted SMEs that each and every employee would be included in KEEP as I think that would be highly irresponsible.

 

[torblednam]

Big Short,

Many people, not just posters, read AAM for informational purposes.

I would certainly not want to create an expectation among employees of unquoted SMEs that each and every employee would be included in KEEP as I think that would be highly irresponsible.

WOOHOO, SHARES FOR EVERYONE!

Tell your friends Sarenco said so!!