Benefits for striking low-paid workers to be axed

[Jackleman]

Good news, who says the Tory party are going downhill..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18476504

[172ff]

Tories keeping the poor.. Poor.

We're all in this together? Right?

[Jackleman]

172ff said:

Tories keeping the poor.. Poor.

We're all in this together? Right?

Get real, there are plenty of low paid people who are not in trade unions, who, I am sure would prefer the little tax they pay to be spent on more useful and productive things.

[0a]

Quite right, if you want to make a political point by striking don't expect the rest of us to top up your income with tax credits.

[turbobloke]

172ff said:

Tories keeping the poor.. Poor.

That wasn't mentioned in the article afaics.

Article said:

Workers on up to £13,000 a year can currently claim working tax credits to top up their income even when they take part in industrial action.

Article also said:

Low-paid workers who take strike action will no longer have their wages topped up by the state, ministers say...the fact that the current benefit system compensates workers and tops up their income when they go on strike is "unfair and creates perverse incentives"

So a top-up for working people is no longer to be paid if they're not working, because they're striking.

Not paying 'striking tax credits' seems reasonable to me.

How is this keeping poor people poor? Striking will do that, as there is no longer going to be a 'striking tax credit'. Good. Alternatively, for the real deal on increasing poverty, the country could vote in another Labour government.

[colonel c]

Same old Tory story. Give tax cuts to the wealthy and stamp on the low payed.

However you look at it, that's the way it will be seen by many.

[Jackleman]

colonel c said:

Same old Tory story. Give tax cuts to the wealthy and stamp on the low payed.

However you look at it, that's the way it will be seen by the ignorant.

EFA

[colonel c]

Jackleman said:

colonel c said:

Same old Tory story. Give tax cuts to the wealthy and stamp on the low payed.

However you look at it, that's the way it will be seen by the ignorant.

EFA

Either way it's not likely to help the Tories ailing popularity is it. For what? How many low paid workers even go on strike anyway.
Perhaps we should be asking why should the tax payer be subsidising employers that don't pay their workers a living wage. How much is that costing us?

[Apache]

Are striking workers on less than £13000 a year such a drain? it's strange how they don't address real money saving initiatives

[0000]

Only sensible that if you're not working you don't get the benefits of working. That's inconsequential to the rich, if anything it's looking after the low paid workers who are otherwise supporting those who aren't working.

[turbobloke]

colonel c said:

Jackleman said:

colonel c said:

Same old Tory story. Give tax cuts to the wealthy and stamp on the low payed.

However you look at it, that's the way it will be seen by the ignorant.

EFA

Either way it's not likely to help the Tories ailing popularity is it. For what? How many low paid workers even go on strike anyway.
Perhaps we should be asking why should the tax payer be subsidising employers that don't pay their workers a living wage. How much is that costing us?

That's a reasonable question to ask, as long as you define 'living wage' and can accurately cost the total impact of forcing it onto all employers regardless of everything else.

So, what's a 'living wage' and what would be the net cost of forcing it onto all employers?

[Negative Creep]

colonel c said:

Either way it's not likely to help the Tories ailing popularity is it. For what? How many low paid workers even go on strike anyway.
Perhaps we should be asking why should the tax payer be subsidising employers that don't pay their workers a living wage. How much is that costing us?

Indeed. When was the last time you heard of people on minimum wage (which is around 13k a year) going on strike? Normally it's public sector workers on at least double that, or of course the monthly tube driver walkout when they don't get paid a bonus to do their fking job

[EDLT]

Apache said:

Are striking workers on less than £13000 a year such a drain? it's strange how they don't address real money saving initiatives

Strikes don't last very long, so they'd lose one or two days of tax credits which would then be swallowed up (along with a bit more) in administration.

Difficult decisions.

[davepoth]

It's not about the money.

Think about it this way. Lots of people who work in the public sector work part time due to the exceptionally flexible working arrangements available to civil servants. A large proportion of them will be on less than £13k even if they are at quite a high pay grade, and the civil service is home to our most militant unions.

On the assumption that quite a lot of them are working to supplement the main household income it's a safe bet that they need the money; so this is going to make them think quite a bit harder before striking...

[Apache]

davepoth said:

It's not about the money.

Think about it this way. Lots of people who work in the public sector work part time due to the exceptionally flexible working arrangements available to civil servants. A large proportion of them will be on less than £13k even if they are at quite a high pay grade, and the civil service is home to our most militant unions.

On the assumption that quite a lot of them are working to supplement the main household income it's a safe bet that they need the money; so this is going to make them think quite a bit harder before striking...

I tend to think this is the real reason behind it too.....perhaps this is the Government preparing for some major civil service shake up

[colonel c]

davepoth said:

It's not about the money.

On the assumption that quite a lot of them are working to supplement the main household income it's a safe bet that they need the money; so this is going to make them think quite a bit harder before striking...

Correct me if I'm wrong but if someone was working to supplement the main household income they would not be claiming tax credit.

[colonel c]

turbobloke said:

colonel c said:

Jackleman said:

colonel c said:

Same old Tory story. Give tax cuts to the wealthy and stamp on the low payed.

However you look at it, that's the way it will be seen by the ignorant.

EFA

Either way it's not likely to help the Tories ailing popularity is it. For what? How many low paid workers even go on strike anyway.
Perhaps we should be asking why should the tax payer be subsidising employers that don't pay their workers a living wage. How much is that costing us?

That's a reasonable question to ask, as long as you define 'living wage' and can accurately cost the total impact of forcing it onto all employers regardless of everything else.

So, what's a 'living wage' and what would be the net cost of forcing it onto all employers?

Tricky isn't it. On the one hand, anyone working full time should be able to support themselves without benefits and tax credits etc. On the other some employers would not be able to compete if they had to pay a 'living wage'. Arguably that don't apply to all companies that pay low wages.

[Lost soul]

0a said:

Quite right, if you want to make a political point by striking don't expect the rest of us to top up your income with tax credits.

[Mojocvh]

Jackleman said:

colonel c said:

Same old Tory story. Give tax cuts to the wealthy and stamp on the low payed.

However you look at it, that's the way it will be seen by the ignorant.

EFA

For the "ignorant"

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Edited by Mojocvh on Sunday 17th June 15:35

[DSM2]

172ff said:

Tories keeping the poor.. Poor.

We're all in this together? Right?

Seems to me it's the unions that keep the strikers poor.