Longcol Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 According to G4S's company history it had grown into a massive worlwide concern belonging to the Sophus Falck and the Phillip-Sorenson family as late as the 1990's, afterwhich it becomes more difficult to track. Don't you just mean the shareholding has got more diverse with the biggest shareholder owning 15% of the company? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloom Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 Emma got set up by daddy just at the time Labour were looking to throw millions at the likes of A4e so she's an exception. G4S is the result of countless mergers of dozens and dozens of companies over many many decades hence it's the third largest private employer on the planet. The idea it has a "founder" who is sitting making most of the cash is rather silly. There are people at the top in all private concerns, there always are - CEO's and of course the Directors, and the 'Adviser's - often MPs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 Don't you just mean the shareholding has got more diverse with the biggest shareholder owning 15% of the company? "Jorgen Philip-Sorenson who died in 2010 was one of the world's richest individuals." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 There are people at the top in all private concerns, there always are - CEO's and of course the Directors, and the 'Adviser's - often MPs. Yes - but that doesn't mean CEO's and Directors own the company. BTW you'll find there are people "at the top" in all public sector organisations and voluntary organisations as well as private ones. It's how things get done. ---------- Post added 15-06-2013 at 00:31 ---------- "Jorgen Philip-Sorenson who died in 2010 was one of the world's richest individuals." Probably sold most of his shares to an insurance company then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloom Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 Yes - but that doesn't mean CEO's and Directors own the company. No, they often do a lot better in terms of salaries. the top" in all public sector organisations and voluntary organisations as well as private ones. It's how things get done How deals get done, whilst the workers on dire pay get the job done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 Yes - but that doesn't mean CEO's and Directors own the company. BTW you'll find there are people "at the top" in all public sector organisations and voluntary organisations as well as private ones. It's how things get done. ---------- Post added 15-06-2013 at 00:31 ---------- Probably sold most of his shares to an insurance company then. "Mr Jorgen Philip-Sorenson was Chairman of the board of Directors until June 2006 and remained its major shareholder and President Emeritus until his death in 2010" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 No, they often do a lot better in terms of salaries. How deals get done, whilst the workers on dire pay get the job done. I've worked in many different organisations - all ultimately need somebody to make decisions. The workers co-op I worked in failed largely because no-one could make difficult decisions. The history of the "News on Sunday" is another classic of how a "democratic" organisation failed big style. I think the differentials now between the top and bottom in organisations are ludicrous to the point of obscene - however that doesn't mean the structure is wrong - you're still going to need CEO's, Directors etc. ---------- Post added 15-06-2013 at 00:46 ---------- "Mr Jorgen Philip-Sorenson was Chairman of the board of Directors until June 2006 and remained its major shareholder and President Emeritus until his death in 2010" Yes - we've established he's dead and no longer a shareholder. Well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloom Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 I've worked in many different organisations - all ultimately need somebody to make decisions. The workers co-op I worked in failed largely because no-one could make difficult decisions. The history of the "News on Sunday" is another classic of how a "democratic" organisation failed big style. I think the differentials now between the top and bottom in organisations are ludicrous to the point of obscene - however that doesn't mean the structure is wrong - you're still going to need CEO's, Directors etc. Sure. But is it right that our paid and elected represenatives are also paid 'Advisers' for large private companies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvp82 Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 No one person or organisation owns G4S outright. A quick google search shows the largest shareholders as of June 6 in G4S are Invesco 15.03% Prudential. 6.33% Tweedy, Brown Company LLC 5.06% Harris Associates 4.93% William H. Gates III 3.2% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 Emma got set up by daddy just at the time Labour were looking to throw millions at the likes of A4e so she's an exception. G4S is the result of countless mergers of dozens and dozens of companies over many many decades hence it's the third largest private employer on the planet. The idea it has a "founder" who is sitting making most of the cash is rather silly. This is the point I was aiming to dispute. I think I have succeeded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.