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.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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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
And their employers tend to recognise that security guards, shift-workers, and assembly line workers are relatively easy to find.
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.
Perhaps in your fantasy world, where every thread represents an opportunity to advance spurious arguments for your own amusement.
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.
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.
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".
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.
Who in God’s name would want to award share options to non-key employees?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?