Share
3,799 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 515
clock Created with Sketch. 24/08/16
15:29
Share
Originally posted by KW
↑
I have heard that its the company culture to value long term employees, and hence they have not downsized staff or cut costs as much as others in this industry (most staff seem to have simply been transferred from Construction to Operations). While this is probably admirable if one was trying to get on the "best place in Australia to work" list, I question whether it is in the best interests of shareholders. Unlike other companies who are striving to cut costs, preserve margins, and deliver returns to shareholders, MND seems to be running the company for the benefit of its employees not its owners. Faced with declining revenues, lower margin projects, and greater competition I would prefer to see the company take the hard decisions and tighten the ship. In this respect, can it be said that MND is a better investment than the others in the industry who are managing for the interests of shareholders? After all, its not like the boom years when skilled labour was hard to find and companies were handing out 20% pay rises every 6 months just to retain staff. Labour is readily available, and at half the price. If MND is overstaffed, and staff are still receiving boom time pay rates, then that makes MND a bloated beast at a time it can least afford to be. As a holder, this is my concern.
Expand
Remember the MD and Chairman are signifcant shareholders. They would be acting in their interests.
(20min delay)