another nail in the tory coffin

[beorhthelm]

Right. So a company gets away with ridiculously low wages and taxpayer coughs up the difference. Christ. Think a little bit would you man.

think a little yourself. a company pays the market rate for labour, and the government pays some arbitary amount to some arbitary scheme that was setup as a political bribe a decade ago (Brown could have just raised the income tax threashold by a few grand for the same effect).

 

[mikeyjh]

grr Tiger here, sorry for being long in my reply, I had gone to work by the time you posted ..

you most certainly said a lot more than you admit to here ..

you made suggestion that employers do not work with anyone's elses welfare at heart ..

you made comment about me not paying a living or decent wage without bothering to find the facts on what I did actually pay.

I had originally quoted what was being paid some years back which was 17k

you inferred that was not decent

you went on to say that if we couldn't afford to pay a decent wage perhaps the business was not viable

I asked you what you did for a living, I wouldn't dare form an opinion let alone go onto a website making comment about someone else's circumstances without bothering to try and find out what they were , something that you have done though

you shied away from answering that though, not quite sure what you do that's so secretive, perhaps you work in the secret service.

when I asked what you deemed decent you said 15k upwards, is not 17k upwards of 15k? let alone the fact that staff salaries are now well above the 17k

you have the temerity to think you have the right to pass judgement on what I choose to pay myself, tell me TIger, what the hell has that got to do with you?

I doubt you are even capable of even contemplating that I gain more satisfaction doing what I can to create jobs, and keep jobs for other people and that pleasure outweighs the sum that I earn. Not that's its your business, but from a personal financial position I don't actually have the need to physically earn much at all.

So to based from your statements, if my business can't pay me a decent wage it's not viable. the point of my post was that your view is blinkered, it's a view taken without any consideration to individual cases, needs, markets and purposes. so let's look at the options.

If a business has grown well over several years, paid over the decent wage you suggest, creates more jobs, then through world wide economics it has to reduce its profit margins to a level where it can protect its employees jobs, and that means the owner considers his need for a wage is not as great as his employees, he therefore reduces his wages to a level below what you decide is not decent, you reckon this makes a business unviable?

So in that case what would your view be if I decided to use your rationale and shut the business because for the short term it's having a tough time, rather than hang on in there and ride out the downturn and make all my staff redundant?

Now I don't have a clue as to what it is you do, or what it is that makes you feel so well qualified to make the judgements that you do, because you won't tell. But all I say is I'm darn hopeful that you don't run many businesses or else your staff would have a very risky and delicate employment ... but that just my view.

as for your secondary post about changing your words, I couldn't care how you bother to phrase what you said, I'm just reminding of what you have posted, but that you seem to have forgotten at this stage

Grrr yours Tiger

Okay

 

[wellquickwoody]

I'm sure they would work to the best of their ability and as such should get the full rate.

A skivers charter, disabled or not.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Why not? I've never understood why the min wage is lower for the young. What's that about (apart from saving money)?.

Because educated or not, a new starter is not as effective as an experienced person in the same role. So if the experienced person is receiving the 'living wage' for a relatively low paid role, why should a wet-behind-the-ears 18 year old fresh out of 6th form get the same? Their living expenses are far, far lower.......

 

[A mex eyecan]

A skivers charter, disabled or not.

?? what is, you've lost me.
someone working to best of their ability, a skiver? how?

 

[wellquickwoody]

Different people have different levels of ability, or may claim to have, should a lazy person be paid the same as a pro active person?

 

[A mex eyecan]

Different people have different levels of ability, or may claim to have, should a lazy person be paid the same as a pro active person?

in principle no. however it appears that you are labeling a genuinely disabled person as being lazy, unless I'm completely mis reading your meaning, If I am I'm sorry.

 

[Tarpon]

Because educated or not, a new starter is not as effective as an experienced person in the same role. So if the experienced person is receiving the 'living wage' for a relatively low paid role, why should a wet-behind-the-ears 18 year old fresh out of 6th form get the same? Their living expenses are far, far lower.......

The Living Wage would be considered a minimum. A person more experienced and effective in a specific role would anticipate being paid more. Experience of work in general does not automatically make you more effective in a specific role. Experienced workers can be crap and quickly outperformed by new starters (especially in low / non skilled posts). If the role was skilled you'd expect to pay above the Living Wage. Not all 18 year olds are fresh out of 6th form. Why assume all 18 year olds living expenses are lower? Why assume everyone else's living expenses are higher? Are you going to pay older employees less because they have cleared their mortgage? What about older people who are the same age but have different living expenses? Why do living expenses only come into it if you are young?

If someone is appointed to a job the employer has decided they can and want them to do it. The entry pay rate should be the same irrespective of age. Anything else is just an excuse to exploit the young. IMHO like.

 

[wellquickwoody]

in principle no. however it appears that you are labeling a genuinely disabled person as being lazy, unless I'm completely mis reading your meaning, If I am I'm sorry.

No I am not labeling all disabled people as lazy, I am stating that a policy of paying the same wage to people that are 'doing their best' is open to abuse by the workshy, disabled or not.

 

[A mex eyecan]

glad to learn that you were not intending what your post could have been construed as labelling disabled = lazy. Sorry for misinterpreting you.

 

[wellquickwoody]

The Living Wage would be considered a minimum. A person more experienced and effective in a specific role would anticipate being paid more. Experience of work in general does not automatically make you more effective in a specific role. Experienced workers can be crap and quickly outperformed by new starters (especially in low / non skilled posts). If the role was skilled you'd expect to pay above the Living Wage. Not all 18 year olds are fresh out of 6th form. Why assume all 18 year olds living expenses are lower? Why assume everyone else's living expenses are higher? Are you going to pay older employees less because they have cleared their mortgage? What about older people who are the same age but have different living expenses? Why do living expenses only come into it if you are young?

If someone is appointed to a job the employer has decided they can and want them to do it. The entry pay rate should be the same irrespective of age. Anything else is just an excuse to exploit the young. IMHO like.

So what you really want is a big hike in the minimum wage? This would achieve absolutely nothing as other employees would likewise want a proportionate increase. This would push up business costs leading to increased prices for all. It just does not work.

I am not advocating pay determined on lifestyle and living expenses, I am saying that a living wage should be based upon an an average persons NEEDS, the needs of an average teenager are less than those of someone with a home to run and children to support. Any guideline has to be based upon averages not specifics.

 

[beorhthelm]

The Living Wage would be considered a minimum. A person more experienced and effective in a specific role would anticipate being paid more.

you've just highlighted the first issue with minimum/living wages. instant wage inflation. great from the low paid, not so great for business. maybe you dont care about business, but they create the jobs in the first place.

Why assume everyone else's living expenses are higher? Are you going to pay older employees less because they have cleared their mortgage? What about older people who are the same age but have different living expenses? Why do living expenses only come into it if you are young?

and you raise the second, bigger issue withn living wage. who's living wage is it anyway? the 20yo at home, the 25yo single mother, the 30yo father of two? in Brighton, Birmingham or Blackburn? its an economical unicorn created to make people feel like something can be done about something, but isnt enough for some while being more than enough for others.

 

[Chicken Run]

Okay

What do you do for a living?

 

[Tarpon]

So what you really want is a big hike in the minimum wage? This would achieve absolutely nothing as other employees would likewise want a proportionate increase. This would push up business costs leading to increased prices for all. It just does not work.

I am not advocating pay determined on lifestyle and living expenses, I am saying that a living wage should be based upon an an average persons NEEDS, the needs of an average teenager are less than those of someone with a home to run and children to support. Any guideline has to be based upon averages not specifics.

Erm...there's a clue in the name 'Living Wage'. Organisations have introduced the Living Wage without increasing other (higher) rates of pay (Brighton council being one). Plenty of businesses are currently creaming profits off low paid workers and can afford it. Your original post made direct reference to 'living expenses'.

Your other posts in this thread suggest you agree with payment by ability and productivity. But apparently that doesn't apply to teenagers because they don't need as much. So what happens when a worker's productivity drops as it will, on average, in many non and low skilled jobs as they get older (and we are all going to be working a lot longer) - will their pay drop below the LW then? What about their needs? The guidelines could become quite confusing.

 

[Tarpon]

you've just highlighted the first issue with minimum/living wages. instant wage inflation. great from the low paid, not so great for business. maybe you dont care about business, but they create the jobs in the first place.



and you raise the second, bigger issue withn living wage. who's living wage is it anyway? the 20yo at home, the 25yo single mother, the 30yo father of two? in Brighton, Birmingham or Blackburn? its an economical unicorn created to make people feel like something can be done about something, but isnt enough for some while being more than enough for others.

It's not that I don't care about business but you have to ask how much business cares back. Most businesses seek to generate a profit for their owners and shareholders etc. To do so many will actively seek to contain and manage down employee costs. A vulnerable, weak and surplus market of non and low skilled workers makes this easier without any regulation. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and one reason is the ver growing gap between the lowest and highest paid. The question of why the low paid receive so little has to be asked alongside that which asks why the high paid receive such a disproportionate amount more. But hey - let's just be grateful we have jobs even if a growing number cannot subsist on them without government support.

Who's minimum wage is it? Shall we do away with that too because as a minimum it may be of more value to young single Brenda living at home with her parents in Blackpool out on the piss with her mates on a Friday night than to middle aged single parent Bert in Brighton who has 3 kids at school? If that's the principle why not make businesses means test their pay too? (Setting aside the fact that Bert will be eligible for some other benefits). The fact that something does not work perfectly is not a reason to do away with it. You sound like it's in the too difficult box so don't bother while those reaping the benefits of the average working person piss themselves laughing. No offence intended.

 

[dingodan]

"Remember that the minimum wage law provides no jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result."

- Murray Rothbard