Benefits for striking low-paid workers to be axed
Discussion
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.
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.
EFAHowever you look at it, that's the way it will be seen by the ignorant.
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?
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.
EFAHowever you look at it, that's the way it will be seen by the ignorant.
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?
So, what's a 'living wage' and what would be the net cost of forcing it onto all employers?
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 jobPerhaps 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 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.
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...
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...
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 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...
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.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...
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.
EFAHowever you look at it, that's the way it will be seen by the ignorant.
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?
So, what's a 'living wage' and what would be the net cost of forcing it onto all employers?
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.
EFAHowever you look at it, that's the way it will be seen by the ignorant.
For the "ignorant"
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Edited by Mojocvh on Sunday 17th June 15:35
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff