zakon o radu, posledice, kritike i (retke) pohvale

[bergasa19]

Na neke nepovoljne elemente ugovora sa Gaspromom je ukazivala i sadašnja ministarka energetike. Tu je i ova klauzula da će NIS plaćati rudnu rentu po starom do 2023. Međutim, treba imati u vidu da je kada je Gasprom preuzeo NIS uplata rudne rente iznosila 422 miliona dinara, dok za 2012. iznosi 2,8 milijardi. Na drugoj strani imamo RTB Bor, koji je u rukama države i koji ne plaća ništa, a ipak troši. Ne treba izostaviti tu činjenicu da ima i privatnih rudnika koji duguju za rudnu rentu.Osim toga NIS je izašao na berzu, cena akcija raste, a isplaćuje se i dividenda.Pohvalio bih i ministarku koja je javno iznela kakva je politika države po pitanju NISa i time stavila do znanja da država i dalje ima značajan udeo u ovom preduzeću.Nego, mi još uvek ne znamo da li je NIS ta "mamutska kompanija" koju Aleksić pominje.

Odgovorio sam na tvoju tvrdnju da NIS puni budžet.

[hazard]

ok. ako je pametnije privatizovati postu, zasto to recimo nisu uradile sjednijene americke drzave?

Verovatno zato sto postoji politicki otpor da se to uradi. Kao sa bilo kojim velikim drzavnim preduzecem, bilo gde.Inace, Englezi su vecinski privatizovali postu:http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/10/economist-explains-9

The Economist explains Why is the Royal Mail being privatised? Oct 10th 2013, 23:50 by C.R.

ON October 11th the British government will sell around 60% of its stake in the Royal Mail, the state-owned postal service, via a flotation on the London Stock Exchange. Unlike other former state-owned businesses such as telecoms firms, energy providers and the railways, Royal Mail has so far avoided privatisation. Previous attempts failed due to backbench revolts by wayward MPs. Even Margaret Thatcher, who as prime minister started Britain’s sell-off of public assets, was “not prepared to have the Queen’s head privatised”, a reference to the iconic stamps which bear a motif of the bejewelled monarch. So why is the Royal Mail being privatised now?The British government claims privatisation will give the company access to private capital and improve its competitiveness. The need for more investment is urgent. Changing demand for postal services have transformed its business model. Parcel volumes are increasing because of the boom in internet shopping, but the numbers of letters sent daily fell from 82m in 2004 to just 58m in 2013. The government says it cannot afford to invest itself to help Royal Mail cope with this shift. It has already ploughed £3 billion ($4.7 billion) into modernising the Post Office’s network of 11,500 branches, which are not included in the sale. Last month George Osborne, the chancellor, said that public-sector spending cuts may last until 2020. Tapping the stockmarket is seen as the only way of ensuring sufficient investment over the next few years. The government notes that the injection of private capital into postal services seems to have worked elsewhere. Belgium’s postal service returned to profitability soon after its part-privatisation in 2006 and it now enjoys profit margins of 17%. Similar increases in productivity and profitability can be seen at Austria Post and at Deutsche Post. Both companies have profit margins double that of Royal Mail.

Ceo clanak:

ON October 11th the British government will sell around 60% of its stake in the Royal Mail, the state-owned postal service, via a flotation on the London Stock Exchange. Unlike other former state-owned businesses such as telecoms firms, energy providers and the railways, Royal Mail has so far avoided privatisation. Previous attempts failed due to backbench revolts by wayward MPs. Even Margaret Thatcher, who as prime minister started Britain’s sell-off of public assets, was “not prepared to have the Queen’s head privatised”, a reference to the iconic stamps which bear a motif of the bejewelled monarch. So why is the Royal Mail being privatised now?The British government claims privatisation will give the company access to private capital and improve its competitiveness. The need for more investment is urgent. Changing demand for postal services have transformed its business model. Parcel volumes are increasing because of the boom in internet shopping, but the numbers of letters sent daily fell from 82m in 2004 to just 58m in 2013. The government says it cannot afford to invest itself to help Royal Mail cope with this shift. It has already ploughed £3 billion ($4.7 billion) into modernising the Post Office’s network of 11,500 branches, which are not included in the sale. Last month George Osborne, the chancellor, said that public-sector spending cuts may last until 2020. Tapping the stockmarket is seen as the only way of ensuring sufficient investment over the next few years. The government notes that the injection of private capital into postal services seems to have worked elsewhere. Belgium’s postal service returned to profitability soon after its part-privatisation in 2006 and it now enjoys profit margins of 17%. Similar increases in productivity and profitability can be seen at Austria Post and at Deutsche Post. Both companies have profit margins double that of Royal Mail.Privatisation also offers the government other benefits. A privately owned Royal Mail would mean that future disputes with the Communications Workers Union over postmen’s pay and conditions might cause less political damage to ministers. The sale will also help Mr Osborne meet his deficit-reduction targets; this week’s sale will produce up to £2 billion for the Treasury. A privatised Royal Mail would be less likely to be a liability in the future, as it would be harder to justify a public bail-out if it got into financial difficulties. Political motivations may play a role too. The coalition government privately hopes that a large sale of discounted shares to the public will bring back positive memories of the popular sell-offs of the 1980s, boosting its flagging poll ratings.But it is doubtful whether floating Royal Mail as a public company, rather than selling it to a single buyer, is the best way to achieve some of these aims. New research suggests that private companies invest more in the long term than publicly listed ones, which tend to focus on short-run profitability. Private companies are more able to absorb the financial costs associated with breaking intransigent unions and making big long-term investments, problems Royal Mail will face in the coming years. A private buyer might also make more money for the government than a flotation. Analysts at Canaccord Genuity, a bank, have suggested that Royal Mail is worth as much as 80% more than the value the government is floating it at. As Harold Macmillan, a former prime minister, once suggested, the British government may well find it is selling off the family silver too cheaply and to poor effect.

Inace, i Deutsche Post je privatizovan, drzava je vlasnik oko 20% (informacija iz 2005.).

Ovdje nema postanskih sanducica u kucama vec po mallovima. Mene je isprva nerviralo al mislim da je to prilicno efikasan sistem - posti treba mnogo manje osoblja, stedi se para i na poste itd. Za bitnije posiljke dobijes SMS ili e-mail "you got a mail!".

Sto rece rajka:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canada-post-delivery/article15868531/

Canada Post phasing out home mail delivery, raising ratesAn iconic slice of Canadian life – the postal worker dropping letters through the door – is slipping into the past as financially troubled Canada Post scrambles to find its footing in the Internet age.Faced with a persistent decline in letter-mail and a massively underfunded pension plan, the money-losing federal Crown corporation announced drastic measures on Wednesday designed to get back to profitability and ensure its survival.The changes include the phase-out of home delivery for the five-million Canadian households that still get it and moving them to community mail boxes over the next five years, and hiking the cost of stamps by more than one-third to 85 cents from 63 cents, effective March 31.The post office, which is expected to lose $1-billion a year by 2020, will also privatize more postal stations and cut 6,000 to 8,000 jobs as workers retire.

Elem, zato mislim da Postu Srbije treba privatizovati dok je jos uvek profitabilna, tj. kada se za nju moze naci dobar kupac.Naravno, dobar inostrani kupac koga zanima taj biznis a ne neki domaci tajkun u sprezi sa vlasti ili neki narkobos koji pere pare (@Filipenko). No, to se valjda podrazumeva (@Filipenko).

[rajka]

u vezi renterijera: zaposljeavanje u javnom sektoru nije fer zato sto posao mahom dobijaju oni koji imaju vezu ili da plate. osim toga da renta postoji vidimo iz toga sto ljudi placaju za radno mesto; cim placaju znaci da ocekuju da ce dobiti vise nego sto ce uloziti samim radom. obicno po internetu se spominje da je cena za posao u skoli 5k evra, za posao u klinickom centru 10k. ako je to tacno, onda je renta (za tih 30 or so godina koliko neko ocekuje da radi) otprilike jedna godisnja ( neto) plata.

[Аврам Гојић]

i jel mogu ja da platim da postanem neurohirurg ili je tu potrebna jos neka sitnica?

[rajka]

pa nije to pitanje, nego ako ima 10 hirurga, a posao dobio 1, kako je dobio bas taj, a ne ovaj drugi. mislim da i sam znas odgovor na to.

[hazard]

Potrebno je da platis dovoljan broj ispita na medicinskom fakultetu.I takodje, bilo bi pozeljno da ti je mata ili tata lekar, ili profesor.(naravno da nije svaki neurohirurg dosao na radno mesto placanjem, ali ti si pitao za ove sto jesu)

[Muwan]

Neurohirurg je ekstreman primer. Radna mesta u državnoj službi uglavnom kupuju niže kvalifikovani službenici (radna mesta u administraciji) a "tržište" je najrazvijenije u organima lokalne uprave.

[Аврам Гојић]

naravno da je ekstreman, ali Brkic se nije libio da djuture proglasi lekare rent seekerima. pretpostavicu da je pisao tekst u posebnom stanju duha i da nje bas odmeravao svaku rec.

[rajka]

naravno, poenta je da ljudi placaju zato sto racunaju da ce dobiti pozitivan ROI, a to znaci da postoji surplus u odnosu na ulozen rad - plata, od najmanje od onoliko para koliko plate.ipak, mnogo veca steta od eventualne rente je negativna selekcija koja se desava.

Edited January 11, 2014 by rajka

[Aion]

Nije mi jasno kako neko moze da se u Srbiji solidarise sa zaposlenima u zdravstvu, skolstvu i drzavnoj administraciji (o drzavnim prozvodjacima traktora, neki drugi put). U stvari, ajde za skolstvo i administraciju i nekako da shvatim, nemamo svi decu u skolskom uzrastu (a ima i onih koji smatraju da je normalno da se deci placa dodatna nastava), a vecina realno nije ni imala prilike da se sretne sa drzavnom administracijom.Medjutim, tesko mi je da poverujem da ima ucesnika u ovoj diskusiji koji zive u Srbiji, a nisu imali prilike da se sretnu sa horor pricom koja se zove srpsko zdravstvo. I nije toliko bitan onaj deo koji se tice nedostatka lekova i opreme, pa cak i nestrucnosti lekara, bitan je krajnje nehuman odnos prema pacijentima i shvatanje profesije koje je ocisceno od bilo kakvog pojimanja morala. I nema ovde price: "nisu svi takvi". Mozda svi nisu takvi, ali vecina jeste, a sto je jos gore prakticno svi su spremni da se javno solidarisu sa svojim kolegama za koje se postavi pitanje licne odgovornosti. Mislim da bi neki ovde trebalo da procitaju malo i temu na ovom forumu o stanju u zdravstvu.

[Аврам Гојић]

ok, neka bude da su svi lekari ustve. mozda su profesionalci na koje sam prosle godine naleteo nekakav izuzetak, mada mi je cudno da se moje iskustvo bas toliko razlikuje od stereotipa.a sta cemo sa cistacicama u skolama, posto Brkicu i one smetaju?

Edited January 11, 2014 by Marko M. Dabovic

[Anduril]

naravno, poenta je da ljudi placaju zato sto racunaju da ce dobiti pozitivan ROI, a to znaci da postoji surplus u odnosu na ulozen rad - plata, od najmanje od onoliko para koliko plate.ipak, mnogo veca steta od eventualne rente je negativna selekcija koja se desava.

Jos jedna mogucnost je da ljudi prosto placaju da dobiju posao jer inace ne bi dobili nikakav posao sto i ne cudi u drzavi sa 30% nezaposlenosti. Dakle, izbor je izmedju placanja i nikakvog posla. Na slican nacin radnici kod privatnika placaju losim uslovima jer 5 drugih ceka na posao. Glavni problem je dakle nezaposlenost usled kartelizacije privrede.

[rajka]

Jos jedna mogucnost je da ljudi prosto placaju da dobiju posao jer inace ne bi dobili nikakav posao sto i ne cudi u drzavi sa 30% nezaposlenosti. Dakle, izbor je izmedju placanja i nikakvog posla. Na slican nacin radnici kod privatnika placaju losim uslovima jer 5 drugih ceka na posao. Glavni problem je dakle nezaposlenost usled kartelizacije privrede.

pa naravno da placaju da bi dobili posao i kada bi posla bilo vise nego ljudi da ljudi ne bi placali posao, nego bi poslodavci placali sign on bonuse. to niko ne spori. u uslovima u kojima je danas srbija drzavni posao vredi vise od privatnog, zato su ljudi spremni da plate da ga dobiju.

[Аврам Гојић]

Jos jedna mogucnost je da ljudi prosto placaju da dobiju posao jer inace ne bi dobili nikakav posao sto i ne cudi u drzavi sa 30% nezaposlenosti.

ili se iz istih razloga uclanjuju u stranke i ponizavaju se u njima. no, to su finese iz tzv. realnog zivota, kojim se moralna gromada Misa Brkic ne bavi. Edited January 11, 2014 by Marko M. Dabovic

[rajka]

naravno, true villains su tu direktori tih ustanova koji uzimaju pare. njih prvo u zatvor, pa onda resavati problem negativne selekcije i preko veze zaposlenih.