Are not something I generally subscribe to, but I was very amused by a comic strip called "The Grizzwells" in which the lead character, Gunther Grizzwell (A Grizzly bear if you don't know the strip) makes a resolution that he's going to take up unicycling. When asked why he replies, "because he has no intention of keeping it ..."
I guess that's one way of looking at these "New Year Resolutions" - make one you know you won't keep. Then you won't feel guilty about not keeping it.
Another friend presented a list of ten things he wanted to achieve this year, with a list of ten things he didn't do last year. No. 6 on the second list caught my eye and my sympathy. "Ripping into some idiot who doesn't know the first thing about the subject he's talking about," is certainly one I can chalk up as a resolution to keep this year. I really do have to learn to walk away from those who make statements about climate, religion/faith and historical events with little more than the Daily Mail or the Guardian slanted abridged, edited and twisted version of any of them as a basis for their "knowledge" of the subject. People like that don't want to know the truth, they operate entirely with closed minds on the premise that "facts confuse me; my mind is made up and I don't want to know the facts."
OK, there's my resolution. I'm going to have to work hard on it ...
Sunday, 1 January 2012
Saturday, 31 December 2011
Friday, 30 December 2011
A different approach to company ownership ...
A report in today's newspaper got me thinking. The report itself concerned the change of Chairmanship of a large German company which produces a wide range of frozen foods, packaged food, baking materials and considerably more in related goods. The firm started out as an Apothecary business in the 1890's and was founded by one Dr. August Oetker. The remarkable thing is this, that it survived two world wars - after the second having to be almost rebuilt from scratch - and is now one of Germany's largest manufacturers and suppliers of food, but it is not a "public company" and doesn't trade on the stock exchanges. It is family owned and run ...
This seems to me to be one of the major differences between the UK and US approach to business. Where the German's start one they start out small and grow it. They keep control of it and develop it for their own and their workers benefit. Germany requires worker representation at Board level so the workers also have a stake in the business and the decisions. Where a company does sell shares, it is never more than 40% of the capital and that is monitored carefully. A "Trust" usually manages a small 'share' holding for the employees where one is set up and the 'family' own and run the majority of holdings. Another good example is BMW, but others include Ziegler Fire Equipment, Steiff (the Teddy Bear makers) and the Aldi chains.
As various founders have discovered, the UK and US models are very different and a company is very unlikely to remain under the control of the founder and his or her family. Examples include Body Shop and Eddie Stobart, both taken over in Boardroom coups after going public and finding themselves the target of asset strippers and the money men. Eddie Stobart in particular was a nasty affair, the founder having built a large haulage company, run on tight lines with hands on from the man himself. His drivers were hand picked, always neatly dressed and treated extremely well. Post being persuaded to sell a stake in his company, Mr. Stobart found himself being told how to manage and what he could do by a bunch of smart 'suits' with no knowledge of the trucking business. Eventually he was pushed out and off the Board - and died of heart problems shortly after. The company name survives, but it isn't the same efficient and caring organisation it was - and its had several changes of ownership and board members since. Eddie must be rolling in his grave since the "new" owners are an "offshore" holding company and Eddie was nothing if not patriotic.
While the US and UK seem to think that selling off everything including their staff and families is perfectly acceptable, the German view is very different. Here there is a deep pride in the part these companies play in the economic health of the nation. Suggesting to Dr Oetker's family that they should sell their controlling stake in the company would be likely to get you shown the door assisted by a pair of burly security men. They'd rather sell the family silver!
Does this system work? I'd have to say that in my view it certainly does. These family owned and run businesses don't have the staff turnover or industrial relations problems their "multi-national" competitors experience. That alone has to be saying something. There are industrial problems of course, it would be totally misleading to suggest there were not, but they tend to get resolved much more speedily and much more amicably than those I encountered in the UK. For one thing there is far less of the "them" and "us" at work here in trade union activity and again, it tends to be strongest in those industries where the "shareholders" are remote and have only a financial interest in the business.
I can't escape the feeling that if the UK and the US want to survive as major economic powers they need to rethink both management and ownership of their assets. Speculative buying and selling of commodities is one thing, but when it comes to speculating with hard assets such as jobs, manufacturing premises and the like, it becomes a very different ball game. It is this sort of speculation - encouraged by Whitehall and Westminster to a very large degree - that has seen almost all of Britain's major industries exported to "developing nations" and of course, the jobs went with the hardware - but not the workers.
Dare one, in the face of the hysterical reporting of the Daily Mail and others of the purported "recreation of Charlemagne's Empire" or "the Fourth Reich," suggest that a little less hysteria, a lot more calm thought and a good hard look at the manner in which the nations assets are traded, stripped and exported might be in order? Certainly the German model may not be perfect, but it certainly has a great deal to commend it!
This seems to me to be one of the major differences between the UK and US approach to business. Where the German's start one they start out small and grow it. They keep control of it and develop it for their own and their workers benefit. Germany requires worker representation at Board level so the workers also have a stake in the business and the decisions. Where a company does sell shares, it is never more than 40% of the capital and that is monitored carefully. A "Trust" usually manages a small 'share' holding for the employees where one is set up and the 'family' own and run the majority of holdings. Another good example is BMW, but others include Ziegler Fire Equipment, Steiff (the Teddy Bear makers) and the Aldi chains.
As various founders have discovered, the UK and US models are very different and a company is very unlikely to remain under the control of the founder and his or her family. Examples include Body Shop and Eddie Stobart, both taken over in Boardroom coups after going public and finding themselves the target of asset strippers and the money men. Eddie Stobart in particular was a nasty affair, the founder having built a large haulage company, run on tight lines with hands on from the man himself. His drivers were hand picked, always neatly dressed and treated extremely well. Post being persuaded to sell a stake in his company, Mr. Stobart found himself being told how to manage and what he could do by a bunch of smart 'suits' with no knowledge of the trucking business. Eventually he was pushed out and off the Board - and died of heart problems shortly after. The company name survives, but it isn't the same efficient and caring organisation it was - and its had several changes of ownership and board members since. Eddie must be rolling in his grave since the "new" owners are an "offshore" holding company and Eddie was nothing if not patriotic.
While the US and UK seem to think that selling off everything including their staff and families is perfectly acceptable, the German view is very different. Here there is a deep pride in the part these companies play in the economic health of the nation. Suggesting to Dr Oetker's family that they should sell their controlling stake in the company would be likely to get you shown the door assisted by a pair of burly security men. They'd rather sell the family silver!
Does this system work? I'd have to say that in my view it certainly does. These family owned and run businesses don't have the staff turnover or industrial relations problems their "multi-national" competitors experience. That alone has to be saying something. There are industrial problems of course, it would be totally misleading to suggest there were not, but they tend to get resolved much more speedily and much more amicably than those I encountered in the UK. For one thing there is far less of the "them" and "us" at work here in trade union activity and again, it tends to be strongest in those industries where the "shareholders" are remote and have only a financial interest in the business.
I can't escape the feeling that if the UK and the US want to survive as major economic powers they need to rethink both management and ownership of their assets. Speculative buying and selling of commodities is one thing, but when it comes to speculating with hard assets such as jobs, manufacturing premises and the like, it becomes a very different ball game. It is this sort of speculation - encouraged by Whitehall and Westminster to a very large degree - that has seen almost all of Britain's major industries exported to "developing nations" and of course, the jobs went with the hardware - but not the workers.
Dare one, in the face of the hysterical reporting of the Daily Mail and others of the purported "recreation of Charlemagne's Empire" or "the Fourth Reich," suggest that a little less hysteria, a lot more calm thought and a good hard look at the manner in which the nations assets are traded, stripped and exported might be in order? Certainly the German model may not be perfect, but it certainly has a great deal to commend it!
Thursday, 29 December 2011
Movies
Last night Mausi and the Monk treated themselves to a visit to the cinema in Mainz. Probably contrary to expectations, we chose to see the new Dreamworks film "Puss in Boots" in 3-D. I think I shall confine myself to saying it was spectacularly well done and very funny. There are a few fairy stories and nursery rhyme characters who will simply never again have quite the same image in my mind at least.
While the old fashioned 3-D was pretty good, the new digitised version is spectacular. You simply can't help yourself as things come straight at you out of the screen. You know its the movie, you know it's not 'real' but your reflexes move you anyway.
With 'Puss' based on the Shrek character you know he simply isn't going to be the version you know and love from Pantomimes. He certainly doesn't disappoint. He's sassy, he's bold as brass and does that thing with the big eyes and drooping ears every cat 'carer' knows and can't resist when he needs to. The ending is a bit of a surprise, but has a nice moral to it as a good fairy story/nursery rhyme should.
If you haven't seen it, you should.
While the old fashioned 3-D was pretty good, the new digitised version is spectacular. You simply can't help yourself as things come straight at you out of the screen. You know its the movie, you know it's not 'real' but your reflexes move you anyway.
With 'Puss' based on the Shrek character you know he simply isn't going to be the version you know and love from Pantomimes. He certainly doesn't disappoint. He's sassy, he's bold as brass and does that thing with the big eyes and drooping ears every cat 'carer' knows and can't resist when he needs to. The ending is a bit of a surprise, but has a nice moral to it as a good fairy story/nursery rhyme should.
If you haven't seen it, you should.
Wednesday, 28 December 2011
Freight traffic ...
Found some interesting figures today which I will have to explore a bit further. It appears that the rivers and canals in Germany carry far more freight than any other form of transport here. Everything from raw materials to finished goods is carried on the rivers with dangerous cargoes forming quite the largest part. I found myself wondering what all those so-called "Greens" will say if their "bunker fuel tax" for all these nasty polluting ships does come into force? I suspect they will not be happy with the resultant rise in the prices of everything, or with the move to put more of this freight on the roads.
As I said I need to look at this a bit more, but the figures I ran across in the newspaper suggest that over 100 million tons of goods is transported around and across Germany on the rivers and canals. One hundred million tons of freight would mean 25 MILLION more trucks on the roads ... OK, stop there for a moment. Now consider, most of those would be carrying oil, processed fuels, chemicals and other nasties currently carried in safety on the rivers.
Thinking a little laterally, this may be why the UK has such congested Motorways. The freight that used to travel by canal and river is now on the roads ... All of it in 40 ton juggernauts probably blocking two lanes of any given Motorway as I type.
Perhaps one day someone can tell me how they plan to keep our economies going when they keep shutting down or penalising the most efficient transport systems and replacing them with inefficiency and waste? Perhaps they can then also explain how our economies can continue to produce the money they keep demanding from us to pay for their beanos and jamborees and all the useless windfarms?
As I said I need to look at this a bit more, but the figures I ran across in the newspaper suggest that over 100 million tons of goods is transported around and across Germany on the rivers and canals. One hundred million tons of freight would mean 25 MILLION more trucks on the roads ... OK, stop there for a moment. Now consider, most of those would be carrying oil, processed fuels, chemicals and other nasties currently carried in safety on the rivers.
Thinking a little laterally, this may be why the UK has such congested Motorways. The freight that used to travel by canal and river is now on the roads ... All of it in 40 ton juggernauts probably blocking two lanes of any given Motorway as I type.
Perhaps one day someone can tell me how they plan to keep our economies going when they keep shutting down or penalising the most efficient transport systems and replacing them with inefficiency and waste? Perhaps they can then also explain how our economies can continue to produce the money they keep demanding from us to pay for their beanos and jamborees and all the useless windfarms?
Tuesday, 27 December 2011
Christmas Day 3
Christmas being a feast of 12 days this is technically the third day ... Many "major" feasts in the Christian calendar have an "Octave" - in other words they last for eight days - and Christmas is no exception. So how did it get twelve days?
That's an easy one. There are four "saints" days between Christmas and Epiphany, the day the "Wise Men" arrived in Bethlehem. The four additional feasts are a bit dependent on which calendar one is following, but St Stephen, The Holy Innocents, The Circumcision of Christ are three everyone agrees to. Anglicans also celebrate Thomas Beckett and other calendars include either him or another martyr.
Traditionlly St Stephen's Day, called Boxing Day in English speaking countries, is the day on which servants had a day off ad received "Boxes" from their employers. Sadly, these days, Messrs Sainsbury, Tesco, et al tend to follow the Scrooge line of thought when it comes to employees.
That's an easy one. There are four "saints" days between Christmas and Epiphany, the day the "Wise Men" arrived in Bethlehem. The four additional feasts are a bit dependent on which calendar one is following, but St Stephen, The Holy Innocents, The Circumcision of Christ are three everyone agrees to. Anglicans also celebrate Thomas Beckett and other calendars include either him or another martyr.
Traditionlly St Stephen's Day, called Boxing Day in English speaking countries, is the day on which servants had a day off ad received "Boxes" from their employers. Sadly, these days, Messrs Sainsbury, Tesco, et al tend to follow the Scrooge line of thought when it comes to employees.
Saturday, 24 December 2011
Christmas fun ...
One of the more fun bits of silliness at Christmas is the annual "NORAD Tracks Santa ..." fun and games usually reported on TV and Radio and sometimes even in the printed media. The Postulant sent me a link to the Wikipedia page that gives the background to this and that set me thinking...
The whole "NORAD Tracks Santa" event has its origins in a misprint in an advert inserted in a Colorado newspaper by the Sears department store. The intention was to let children talk directly to Santa (Their version of course, who could then encourage the kids to visit the stores Grotto ...). The accidental misprint gave the number instead for the Continental Air Defence System HQ - which found itself swamped with calls from children hoping top speak to Santa. The operators referred to their Commanding Officer, a Colonel in the USAF, who instructed the operators to "give the kids updates on where Santa is in the world distributing gifts ..." and so began the annual tradition of NORAD issuing minute by minute bulletins on Santa's whereabouts on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.
I would like to think that the Colonel's response to the mistake was typical of the military attitude when dealing with children in particular. A Bureaucrat probably would have told the operators to respond with "Sorry, you have a wrong number." By contrast the Colonel figured out what had happened, realised there were a lot of bitterly disappointed children calling - and took a decision which resolved the potential for tears.
Interestingly the whole operation is now run by volunteers on the NORAD staff. Sophisticated software is used to analyse the volume and type of calls each year and to determine how many and when the volunteers will be needed. Long may it continue.
The whole "NORAD Tracks Santa" event has its origins in a misprint in an advert inserted in a Colorado newspaper by the Sears department store. The intention was to let children talk directly to Santa (Their version of course, who could then encourage the kids to visit the stores Grotto ...). The accidental misprint gave the number instead for the Continental Air Defence System HQ - which found itself swamped with calls from children hoping top speak to Santa. The operators referred to their Commanding Officer, a Colonel in the USAF, who instructed the operators to "give the kids updates on where Santa is in the world distributing gifts ..." and so began the annual tradition of NORAD issuing minute by minute bulletins on Santa's whereabouts on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.
I would like to think that the Colonel's response to the mistake was typical of the military attitude when dealing with children in particular. A Bureaucrat probably would have told the operators to respond with "Sorry, you have a wrong number." By contrast the Colonel figured out what had happened, realised there were a lot of bitterly disappointed children calling - and took a decision which resolved the potential for tears.
Interestingly the whole operation is now run by volunteers on the NORAD staff. Sophisticated software is used to analyse the volume and type of calls each year and to determine how many and when the volunteers will be needed. Long may it continue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
