即使员工不那么看重自己的这些权利，他们也可能不愿接受非现金的、以股权支付的形式。对于非上市公司而言，员工不清楚自己能将所持股票出售给谁。在很多情况下，公司创始人将是唯一的买方，他们完全有动机故意压价。

There is also a danger in linking employee share ownership with the surrender of employment rights. Share ownership has played a positive role in increasing workers’ engagement with their companies. The risk is that employees would begin to associate this with greater vulnerability rather than more responsibility.

将员工持股权与放弃劳动者权利联系起来还存在一大隐患。一直以来，员工持股在增进员工对公司业务的投入方面起到了积极作用。新合同的风险在于，员工可能把这些股权与更大的不确定性、而非更大的责任感联系在一起。

Mr Osborne is right to look at whether the UK’s labour law needs to be updated. Industrial tribunals are expensive and the process should be reformed. But the question of how to liberalise the labour market should be kept separate from that of how to encourage employee share ownership. Neither objective will benefit from mixing the two.

奥斯本审视英国劳动法规、从中寻找需要改进之处的做法是正确的。劳资法庭的费用昂贵并且审理流程应当进行改革。但是，如何放开劳动力市场，与如何鼓励员工持有企业股权，两个问题应分隔开来。将两者混在一起对任何一个目标都没有好处。

【FT社评：英国新型劳动合同不可行】相关文章：

★ FT社评：希腊经济忧中带喜

★ FT社评：印度不应过度监控互联网

★ FT社评：金正恩的危险野心

★ 英国全民打赌：谁为准王妃凯特做嫁衣

★ 英国应向加拿大学什么？

★ 普京与辛格在新德里举行会谈

★ FT社评：欧盟追究微软是对的

★ 美国务卿因因肠胃病毒推迟中东之行

★ 美国共和党松动对富人增税的立场

★ FT社评：意大利需要蒙蒂