Dave is an auto mechanic in a major U.S. city. His employer, a well-known car dealer, provides free uniforms through a rental agreement with a uniform company known as Alsco. Dave’s shirts include the dealership’s logo embroidered on one breast pocket and a patch bearing his name on the other. Dave is having second thoughts about the wisdom of wearing his name on his shirt.
He was okay with it when he first started working for the dealership. But over the years, he has noticed that customers have become a bit too familiar. He is concerned that displaying his name invites customers to treat him like a family member or friend when he is, in fact, a total stranger. But Dave also realizes that the decision to display employee names on uniforms rests with his employer.
Whether or not to include names on uniforms is not as easy a decision as it sounds. There is a lot to consider. Even in cases when it is appropriate to display names, sometimes it’s better to use separate name tags or ID cards rather than incorporating names directly into uniforms by way of embroidery or patches.
Names and Company Image
Though the example of Dave and employer-provided uniforms is fictional, it is actually quite common for workers in certain industries to have names on their uniforms. Often times this is a matter of presenting a certain kind of public image. The auto mechanic example works well, so let’s run with it.
Auto mechanics do not necessarily have the best reputation. Thanks to a small number of unscrupulous mechanics that use their independent garages to take advantage of people, the entire industry suffers in the minds of customers. The point of putting names on mechanic uniforms is to present a more friendly and personable image that helps customers relax.
Companies sometimes use names on sales team uniforms for the same reason. Customers tend to feel more relaxed when they see an employee name because they can now address that worker on a first-name basis. This levels the playing field and makes for more fruitful discussions.
Names for Security Purposes
Another reason for considering employee names on uniforms is to improve security. Names make it a lot easier to identify workers when security concerns arise. Then again, perhaps a better way to go is with an official ID card that includes both a name and picture. Combining a photo ID and the employee’s name embroidered on his or her uniform is the best of both worlds.
Facilitating Better Communication
Business-to-consumer enterprises rely heavily on worker-customer relationships. It may be that putting employee names on uniforms facilitates better communication between them. For example, consider a company that offers carpet and upholstery cleaning. Think about the difference a name on a uniform could make when technician and customer first meet.
The technician is at a clear advantage because he knows the customer’s name. That could put the customer on the defensive. But if the technician’s name is on his shirt, any advantage he has automatically disappears. The customer now knows his name as well. This equal footing should facilitate more open, honest discussions.
Names or no names? That is up to employers to decide based on their own goals and circumstances. Sometimes it is appropriate to add employee names to uniforms, other times names are neither necessary nor the right call. And in some cases, the question of employee names is automatically settled with separate photo ID cards. The point is that there is no right or wrong answer. Each company must decide for itself what is best.
Puncturing of Business Shroud: In the Context of Lawful Obligations Cover-up
If a capitalist that recognize how to set up a company in HK, as well as after that to utilize a business to hide or manipulate lawful responsibility of any kind of various other individual or any kind of entity after that there is the arrangement to puncture the company shroud, adhering to the instance of Gilford Motors Carbon monoxide which is comparable to some instances for offshore incorporations HK ltd, where, Horne was the MD of the firm, called Gilford electric motors co that deals in the marketing of automobiles, their extra components and also maintenance of lorries. Horne surrendered from the firm and also developed his very own business dealing in marketing of automobiles as well as extra components. Firm was not subjective of the limiting contract, Horne was right into, yet shot of Piercing of Corporate Shroud on the procedures of firm was taken into consideration, due to the fact that of Horne s individual commitments to the business.
Whereas English legislation negates this concept and also does not think about the lenders of one firm to be responsible for the financial debts of the 2nd, also though the controller of both business is typical. Flaux J approved in this situation that company shroud can be punctured to qualify plaintiffs to look for the aid of court to proclaim transfer, null space rather of making an additional business accountable to pay for its moms and dad business s financial debts, for which that firm is not accountable neither its lenders.
Teaching of Piercing of Corporate is itself so perplexing that, based on its misuse, information as well as concepts should be detailed on the application of this teaching prior to you recognize how to establish a company in HK This post will certainly review this teaching in context of camouflage of lawful responsibilities.
Gilford Motors v Horne
If a financier that recognize how to set up a company in HK, and also after that to make use of a firm to hide or make use of lawful commitment of any kind of various other individual or any kind of entity after that there is the arrangement to puncture the business shroud, adhering to the situation of Gilford Motors Carbon monoxide which is comparable to some instances for offshore incorporations HK ltd, where, Horne was the MD of the business, called Gilford electric motors co that deals in the marketing of lorries, their extra components and also maintenance of cars. Horne surrendered from the firm and also developed his very own business dealing in marketing of automobiles as well as extra components. Business was not subjective of the limiting arrangement, Horne was right into, yet shot of Piercing of Corporate Shroud on the procedures of firm was thought about, due to the fact that of Horne s individual responsibilities to the business.
Jones v Lipman
In Jones v Lipman, the supplier as a non offshore incorporations HK ltd intended to side-line himself from the lawful commitment to move your home to the complainant buyer under the agreement. Court maintaining the instance of, Gilford Electric motor Carbon monoxide v Horne, purchased the firm to move the business to Mr. Jones, a complainant, Mr. Russell J held the proof therefore: firm was under the control of supplier as well as was obtained by the supplier as well as transfer of it was only based, to beat the complainant, he even more prolonged his judgment by claiming that: Firm was a mask behind his face to prevent the acknowledgment in regards to equity.
Describing the choices of over 2 instances also if they were non offshore incorporations HK ltd instances it can be presumed that court can release order versus the business also without the demand to conjure up Piercing of Corporate Shroud. In Gilford Electric motor v Horne, Court might purchase the firm to avoid from conflicting in the legal partnership in between the Gilford Motors as well as Horne without the requirement to pierce company shroud. In, Jones v Lipman, court might limit from conjuring up pierce of company shroud by dealing with business as an owner of residential property on the basis that it got the residential or commercial property prior to the fair passion of the complainant, in the residential or commercial property.
This situation was brought prior to the Hong Kong s court, where a business called Hung Tak, authorized an agreement with Liu Hon Ying in 1994 as well as was accountable to run a solution relevant to shipment of federal government kinds in between Hong Kong as well as Shenzhen, as per the agreement, complainant was qualified to get 38 % of the revenue, for the only 1st year of agreement, complainant was paid after than Hung Tak moved its company by developing one more business called, Hua Xin State Venture (Hong Kong) Ltd. Court of very first circumstances conjured up Piercing of Corporate shroud as company framework can not be utilized to hide lawful commitments.
In this situation, Linkwaters was took over by the Kelly Mckenzie Ltd with arrangement of permitting Linkwaters to wound up with the financial obligations continued to be overdue in favour of reasoning financial obligation to complainant. The court of charm verified test court s choice that: Company shroud should be punctured on the concept that firm can not be utilized to hide the lawful responsibilities hence all offenders remain accountable for the financial debt.
As the above 2 instances takes into consideration the transferee accountable for the transferor s financial debts, by puncturing the business shroud. Whereas English regulation negates this concept as well as does rule out the lenders of one firm to be responsible for the financial obligations of the 2nd, although the controller of both firms prevails. In the decision of Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd., court was prepared to make transferee accountable for the transferor financial obligations, yet this choice was overthrown by the English Court of Charm in the situation of Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd, where court observed truths to be non-compiled with the issue including property removing.
Prosecution of Linsen International Ltd v Humpuss Sea Transportation Pte Ltd
Flaux J approved in this instance that business shroud might be punctured to qualify plaintiffs to look for the aid of court to proclaim transfer, null space as opposed to making an additional firm reliant spend for its moms and dad business s financial debts, for which that business is exempt neither its financial institutions. Flaux J used the exact same strategy in Ord v Belhaven as well as stated that, last business can not be made responsible to spend for the cases of the plaintiffs based on underlying agreements, with puncturing of shroud.
It can be presumed that; aberration shows up pertaining to the concepts to conjure up piercing of company shroud, in between the techniques of English as well as the Hong Kong lawful system. English courts believe that transferee needs to not be made responsible for the transferor s financial debts whereas the Hong Kong courts considers them accountable, which is quite noticeable when it comes to Lee Sow Keng v Kelly Mckenzie Ltd.
Many British citizens dream of retiring abroad and swapping a cold climate for something a little warmer, maybe even tropical. One of the key things all those looking at retirement need to keep in mind is that their pension would need to last for the duration of their remaining years. There are a number of key investments which those entering retirement can look at with the most popular being QROPS.
Apart from the investment benefits of QROPS, retirees who wish to move abroad can save more money on their pension by selecting one of the top listed countries which not only offer ideal retirement surroundings but also low or no income tax on their pensions. If you want to avoid income tax on your pension, here are some of the best places for retirement. A key aspect to remember is that retirement abroad without QROPS can mean that your pension is taxed in the UK at around 20% – 45%. Additionally, you may be subjected to a further tax of 45% should you die after the age of 75. See this link for help and advice on this topic.
To avoid crippling pension taxes more and more retirees are opting to move their pensions to Qualifying Recognised Overseas Pension Scheme or QROPS. When setting up correctly and in the right country you might even find that you will pay no tax whatsoever on your pension. For those who do not want to move too far away from home, here is a list of the best countries for retirement in Europe. These countries also have the best QROPS benefits for retirees.
Not only does Portugal feature amazing coasts and beautiful beaches but retirees opting to make Portugal their new home will be delighted to discover that for the first 10 years of your stay in the country you will not pay income tax on your pension. Additionally, should you move your pension to a QROPS, you will also be able to avoid UK tax regulations.
Beautiful Andorra is perfectly situated between Spain and France. Although retirees will still be subjected to a 10% income tax payment on their pension, by opting to move their retirement funds to a QROPS, retirees will be able to avoid high UK taxes.
Residents of Monaco are not charged any income tax and if you as a retiree want to move to Monaco you will want to avoid being taxed back in the UK. To do this, you need to take up an investment through a QROPS.
The postcard-perfect Maldives situated off the southern tip of India is a dream retirement destination for anyone. If you’re looking for another great reason to move to the Maldives after your retirement you’ll be happy to know that there is no income tax in the country. If you move your pension to a QROPS you will also be able to avoid UK taxes.