Logistik: Eine Einführung in Ökonomie und Nachhaltigkeit (German Edition)
Companies in Germany which currently carry out profit and equity participation schemes are doing so on a large scale and offer profit participation for 62 per cent of their employees and equity participation for 46 per cent of their employees. These facts and the recent British example can be interpreted in brief: It is economically feasible and beneficial to change the unacceptable present situation in Germany as well — if government and trade unions were ready. These enterprises that practice capital participation successfully are to a large extent examples of competitive as well as profitable enterprises in a new social market economy.
In addition to the aforementioned laws on labour and co-determination see section 3. The situation in practice in Germany seems to be paradox and in opposition to the legal situation. Legal grounds of employee participation are — as it has been pointed out — missing, incomplete or ineffective. This is one of the reasons why Germany, in spite of being the leading economic power in Europe in this field, is far behind many other EU countries.
However, the relatively small number of 4,, i. What is lacking is a relevant dimension of these attempts to bring about measurable economic and social results. These ten different legal frameworks grant either different rights or no rights at all to participate in information and decision-making provided by labour law and, with regard to the last four cases mentioned, also by company law. Both have to be coordinated with optional organs representing the interests of employees as co-investors or co-owners by the participation schemes.
The different legal forms of capital investment by the employees also grant different degrees of participation in shareholder value and dividends or, instead of this, give only the right to annual provision or interest rates which also can be and normally are modified by the different participation schemes.
With regard to the aforementioned risk of loss of capital see section 3. In the four last forms of direct participation in capital mentioned above, the normal risk of an owner of capital can be and should be limited or even marginalised by additional guarantee agreements see section 3. This is one of the points where additional support by the legislature is needed in insolvency legislation.
In spite of or even because of its deficits, this broad and flexible legal framework gives room for the development of numerous contract-based participation schemes in practice. In of these companies, about 1. This, along with the unsatisfying dimensions in comparison with other European states and the fact that most jobs in Germany are created by smaller enterprises, means that improvement cannot be expected without legislative initiative.
The list of names of enterprises with participation schemes is long and not to be laid out here. The Law on Participation in Capital of — contents and critical remarks.
It is not a new act of legislation, but, apart from the totally failed fund concept, it is the continuation of tax-relieving prescriptions of the Income Tax Law EStG , the Capital Formation Law, the Investment Law and the Investment Tax Law in the form of an article law, which is barely comprehensible for the common reader. A law of such acknowledged significance impulse, ; Menrad, is lacking in formulated legal targets  , definition norms, conditions of application and clarifications relating to labour law for example, BEtrVG, MitbestG, TVG; see Waas, , corporate law and insolvency law.
The Law on Participation in Capital of is not a substantial law but only an enumerative law referring to other laws. Therefore, this law has no special legislative relevance on its own. It does not define any legislative aims or put existing normative rules into a context. Thus, it can hardly serve as argument for interpretative attempts to improve or develop the juridical basis of capital sharing of employees by jurisdiction. Differences between the socio-political necessity for regulation, juridical-political declarations of intent and legislative measures do occur very often, but rarely have they been greater than in the case of this law, which barely deserves to be called a law: the Law on Participation in Capital MKBG.
In promoting capital participation, the lawmaker has actually hit the key structural problem, i.
16 count Aida Dirty
The requirement for voluntariness has been left out, but in many cases it is argued for, and it also meets European recommendations European Commission, ; European Economic and Social Committee, ; Menrad, ; The Council of the European Communities, This does not keep national lawmakers from implementing the requirement anyway. In Germany, progress can also only be expected if material participation as well as immaterial co-determination is given a compulsory framework.
A legal obligation for companies to offer appropriate.
Specific restrictions are immanent to economic capital property BVerfGE 50, Among those are deadlines for the duration of participation and other restrictions on utilisation and disposition. Without an appropriate limit on time and content, major mutual participation targets will never be achieved. In the current regulations, the holding periods vary between two and ten or more years.
Opponents of the introduction of a legally.
This restrictive regulation would have excluded many other offered and accepted forms of capital sharing. The new regulation creates space for collective agreements, especially in case of financial problems or even insolvency of the enterprise. Employees now may contribute by way of loans or temporary renunciation of parts of their wages or holiday pay to be compensated by shares in capital. This is among the lowest rates in comparable EU member states and can hardly be expected to show any impact Rosinus, Austria offers tax privileges for capital transfers from enterprise to employee which are to be re-invested in the enterprise are four times higher than in Germany.
The major influence of taxation laws on the development of employee participation is proved by the examples from the US Rosen et al. The recent support of the British legislature in the form of raising the tax allowance considerably to encourageparticipation in capital through double fiscal incentives recently led to the highest rate of employee shareholding ever in the UK European Federation of Employee Share Ownership [EFES], Employee participation fulfils a balancing function in the case of transferring state- or community-owned property, i.
The economic policy was well aware of this correlation in the beginning years of social market economy, when about half a century ago, partial privatisation of large state-owned companies  began. This welfare-state context of privatisation has been abandoned. The MKGB lacks the obligation of state and community owners to offer their employees a minimum capital share five per cent for instance in France at a preferential price in case of privatisation. The extension of employee participation could pave the way to an achievement-oriented society of co-owners in a market-economic welfare state whose burden is increasingly relieved by flexible participation of the employees.
Neither the current legal instruments nor the MKBG can actually achieve this. Its offerings were not accepted  to the extent expected Rosinus, and soon had to be adjusted, first in  , and then againin see section 8. The only new feature of the MKBG, i. Therefore, the legislature decided to abandon  this collective form of financial participation which was introduced mainly at the request of the Social Democrats and the German trade unions but completely failed.
Experiences from the US and recently again from the UK but also from France, Austria and other countries confirm a direct positive effect of supporting tax and other legislation on the development of financial participation, especially of sharing of capital Steinhaus, To summarise the critical remarks on the Law on Participation in Capital of With regard to other comparable EU member states, this law has discriminatory effects. Ahrens, K. Walter Ed. Althaus, D. A GP-Forum. Apitzsch, W. Betriebs-Berater Specia l , 6 4 1 , 1.
Bach, S. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschicht e , , 15— From bottom to top: The entire income distribution in Germany, Review of Income and Wealt h , 5 5 2 , — Effective taxation of top incomes in German y No. Discussion Paper s. DIW Wochenberich t , 8 2 8 , — Barczak, T. Mindestlohngesetz und Verfassung. Recht Der Arbei t , — Beck, K. Bellmann, L. Materielle Mitarbeiterbeteiligung. IAB Kurzberich t , Die Betriebe in Deutschland haben Nachholbedarf. Beyer, H. AGP-Mitteilunge n , 1 , 3. Employee financial participation in Germany - Current developments and challenges. Biewen, M. Review of Income and Wealt h , 5 8 4 , — Bispinck, R.
Kapitalbeteiligung und Bezahlung nach Gewinn. WSI-Mitteilunge n , 6 , — Blasi, J. Industrial and Labor Relations Review , 50 1 , In the company of owners: The truth about stock options and why every employee should have them.
New York: Basic Books. Boeri, T. Executive remuneration and employee performance-related pay: A transatlantic perspectiv e. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borchert, J.
Program - BIM World MUNICH
Brentano, L. Arbeitseinstellungen und Fortbildung des Arbeitsvertrag s. Lebenslagen in Deutschland.
- Current Aircraft in the US Naval Aviation; T-44A King Air.
- Sign Levels: Language and Its Evolutionary Antecedents (Philosophical Studies Series).
- Zwei Wünsche zu Weihnachten (German Edition).
- Frog Prince 3D!
- Guide Logistik: Eine Einführung in Ökonomie und Nachhaltigkeit (German Edition).
- Lesson Plans Running Blind.
Der vierte Armuts- und Reichtumsbericht der Bundesregierun g. Die Gewinnbetheiligung. Cavadino, M. Penal systems: A comparative approac h. Deutschlands Zukunft gestalten. Legislaturperiod e. Regierungsprogramm CDU-Bundesvorstand Beschluss des Commission of the European Communities Commission of the European Communities. Bericht zur regionalen Armutsentwicklung in Deutschland 4. Der Spiegel a. Arm durch Arbeit. Der Spiegel b. Deutschland zwischen Mindestlohn und Spitzeneinkommen.
Der Stern , December Der Tagesspiegel a, October Der Tagesspiege l.