Minimum Wage,£7 an hour
Poll: Minimum Wage,£7 an hour
Total Members Polled: 313
Discussion
otolith said:
The only way you will make that happen in reality is to withdraw in-work benefits. That won't happen for a number of reasons.
That is exactly what needs to happen and what I have been blabbering on about. As the Nation strives to re-adjust to a more competitive level with Europe and the Pacific Basin we are going to end up as we were thirty years ago. That is plunging tax payers money into business as a form of subsidy. Its illegal under EU regulations of course so our Government calls it by chipping in with a second pay packet to the workers, just so they have a living wage.Thought we had left subsidies behind with our old coalfields and heavy industry, it didn't work then and as sure as eggs are eggs this latest scheme will result in failure, imo.
matsoc said:
I think I could manage to live with that income if I had to, as long as I don't have any kids.
I am not saying that £7 for 1 hour is much, it is a very low wage, I would flush all the monthly pay in few days with my current lifestyle but on the other hand most of my expense are superfluous things. And I am not talking about cars which are priced correctly for what they offer if you compare them with fancy clothes for instance, or good wine.
Yes good point, as a consumer society the less disposable income available to the masses, well the less to spend in shops and support the economy.I am not saying that £7 for 1 hour is much, it is a very low wage, I would flush all the monthly pay in few days with my current lifestyle but on the other hand most of my expense are superfluous things. And I am not talking about cars which are priced correctly for what they offer if you compare them with fancy clothes for instance, or good wine.
P.S. good to hear that U.K. manufacturers are coming 'home' from China setting up their businesses back here
crankedup said:
otolith said:
The only way you will make that happen in reality is to withdraw in-work benefits. That won't happen for a number of reasons.
That is exactly what needs to happen and what I have been blabbering on about. As the Nation strives to re-adjust to a more competitive level with Europe and the Pacific Basin we are going to end up as we were thirty years ago. That is plunging tax payers money into business as a form of subsidy. Its illegal under EU regulations of course so our Government calls it by chipping in with a second pay packet to the workers, just so they have a living wage.Thought we had left subsidies behind with our old coalfields and heavy industry, it didn't work then and as sure as eggs are eggs this latest scheme will result in failure, imo.
I’m in 2 minds if it’s a good thing or not. As the owner of a Nursery employing 21 staff with most of them just above the minimum wage it will significantly increase our costs as salaries are around 55-60% of our turnover Thefore an increase of this percentage would mean a decrease in the profit we make and as we make only a small profit in any case we will have to pass this on entirely to the parents.
As for the staff, they all work extremely hard and absolutely deserve an increase in pay, however has been mentioned on here before they have to be careful as to how much they earn as it can have a direct impact on the benefits they can receive and we have already had staff turn down extra hours etc to keep their earnings under a certain level to prevent this.
This means that the direct effect of an increase in the minimum wage means an increase in child care costs for the parents and potentially not a significant benefit for at least some of the staff.
It’s not an easy one to call.
As for the staff, they all work extremely hard and absolutely deserve an increase in pay, however has been mentioned on here before they have to be careful as to how much they earn as it can have a direct impact on the benefits they can receive and we have already had staff turn down extra hours etc to keep their earnings under a certain level to prevent this.
This means that the direct effect of an increase in the minimum wage means an increase in child care costs for the parents and potentially not a significant benefit for at least some of the staff.
It’s not an easy one to call.
cerbfan said:
I’m in 2 minds if it’s a good thing or not. As the owner of a Nursery employing 21 staff with most of them just above the minimum wage it will significantly increase our costs as salaries are around 55-60% of our turnover Thefore an increase of this percentage would mean a decrease in the profit we make and as we make only a small profit in any case we will have to pass this on entirely to the parents.
As for the staff, they all work extremely hard and absolutely deserve an increase in pay, however has been mentioned on here before they have to be careful as to how much they earn as it can have a direct impact on the benefits they can receive and we have already had staff turn down extra hours etc to keep their earnings under a certain level to prevent this.
This means that the direct effect of an increase in the minimum wage means an increase in child care costs for the parents and potentially not a significant benefit for at least some of the staff.
It’s not an easy one to call.
How many of your staff are in receipt of working tax credit?As for the staff, they all work extremely hard and absolutely deserve an increase in pay, however has been mentioned on here before they have to be careful as to how much they earn as it can have a direct impact on the benefits they can receive and we have already had staff turn down extra hours etc to keep their earnings under a certain level to prevent this.
This means that the direct effect of an increase in the minimum wage means an increase in child care costs for the parents and potentially not a significant benefit for at least some of the staff.
It’s not an easy one to call.
crankedup said:
What I would like to see, and I say again, is private businesses paying a decent living wage to those at the foot of the ladder. To the extent that , we, the tax payer is not subsidising those wages. Why should tax payers help bolster private Company profits??
What do you consider to be a decent living wage?Provided the minimum wage is only paid to those at the foot of the ladder, with pay progression available to those who warrant it, I'm not sure it has to be particularly high. I wouldn't expect someone to be able to raise a family and buy a house by flipping burgers at McDonalds, but as a short term job for a young person, or a second wage for a household, it's fine.
RYH64E said:
crankedup said:
What I would like to see, and I say again, is private businesses paying a decent living wage to those at the foot of the ladder. To the extent that , we, the tax payer is not subsidising those wages. Why should tax payers help bolster private Company profits??
What do you consider to be a decent living wage?Provided the minimum wage is only paid to those at the foot of the ladder, with pay progression available to those who warrant it, I'm not sure it has to be particularly high. I wouldn't expect someone to be able to raise a family and buy a house by flipping burgers at McDonalds, but as a short term job for a young person, or a second wage for a household, it's fine.
johnS2000 said:
Surely the minimum wage is a pointless exercise in this day and age with the advent of 0 hour's work contract's !!!
£7 an hour is not £280 a week when agencys / employer's give their workers 1 or 2 day's work a week!!!
outside of retail or where people are in the 'third division' of a agency's staff on contract how often is this actually the case ... £7 an hour is not £280 a week when agencys / employer's give their workers 1 or 2 day's work a week!!!
in one place i've worked agency staff / directly employed casuals worked longer than full timers in many cases ( although that was due to the heavily unionised full timers and no interest from the union in casuals or agency staff... ( also the the 'random' search policy seemd to consits of searching agency staff 4 days a week and full timers once in a blue moon).
due to the employer being less than entirely truthful over the amount of work for agency staff the agency had over recruited - therer was a definite pecking order of people who got shifts - a 'premier league' of hard working often 'over qualified' staff who got 5 days a week, a first division of hard workers who got 4 or 5 days a week , and a 2nd dividsion of people who regualrly got some work each week but variable days
In another place i've worked agency staff underpin the whole operation and most agency staff are gettign 45 hours a week week in week out same as the employed full timers ...
there's another workplace that agencies regualr adveritse for near me and that states ' none optional additional hours of work will be required at busy times'
If you are working you should be able to live, not talking nice cars and holidays.
When the minimum wage doesn't even cover the rent it's too low.
Every working person should be able to attain a minimal standard of living. A one bedroom flat, enough to heat and light it and buy basic food.
That's not unreasonable. s
t i sound like a socialist...
In our street you can't find anywhere to park, most families have working kids in their 20's who still are living at home. This shouldn't be the case. Especially when the unemployed have paid for housing and better standards of life.
When the minimum wage doesn't even cover the rent it's too low.
Every working person should be able to attain a minimal standard of living. A one bedroom flat, enough to heat and light it and buy basic food.
That's not unreasonable. s
t i sound like a socialist...In our street you can't find anywhere to park, most families have working kids in their 20's who still are living at home. This shouldn't be the case. Especially when the unemployed have paid for housing and better standards of life.
einsign said:
crankedup said:
Do you find it acceptable to see tax payers subsidising private businesses?
I have not read the entire thread but what are you on about here? There is a theme of attacking private businesses for some reason, have you ever run a business yourself, what do you do?Edited by crankedup on Wednesday 22 January 08:56
mph1977 said:
johnS2000 said:
Surely the minimum wage is a pointless exercise in this day and age with the advent of 0 hour's work contract's !!!
£7 an hour is not £280 a week when agencys / employer's give their workers 1 or 2 day's work a week!!!
outside of retail or where people are in the 'third division' of a agency's staff on contract how often is this actually the case ... £7 an hour is not £280 a week when agencys / employer's give their workers 1 or 2 day's work a week!!!
in one place i've worked agency staff / directly employed casuals worked longer than full timers in many cases ( although that was due to the heavily unionised full timers and no interest from the union in casuals or agency staff... ( also the the 'random' search policy seemd to consits of searching agency staff 4 days a week and full timers once in a blue moon).
due to the employer being less than entirely truthful over the amount of work for agency staff the agency had over recruited - therer was a definite pecking order of people who got shifts - a 'premier league' of hard working often 'over qualified' staff who got 5 days a week, a first division of hard workers who got 4 or 5 days a week , and a 2nd dividsion of people who regualrly got some work each week but variable days
In another place i've worked agency staff underpin the whole operation and most agency staff are gettign 45 hours a week week in week out same as the employed full timers ...
there's another workplace that agencies regualr adveritse for near me and that states ' none optional additional hours of work will be required at busy times'
I retired a few month's ago but due too my excessive spending on my hobby's felt that a part time job may be a good idea and keep "er indoor's " happier by not asking for subsidies all the time .
It soon become apparent that with my particular skill set and my age , a part time job paying £50k a year was a bit of a long shot .
After a lot of time spent surfing the jobsites , marvelling at the massive choice of minimum wage job's on offer , most by agency's , I signed up to one agency .
The first week with this agency I got 3 day's work ! The second week I got 2 day's work !
Do you see where this is going ?
In all , in 2 month's , I managed to work not quite 2 week's !!
Further investigation amongst the long term agency workers on this particular contract revealed that from September to march ( approx ) average hours per week are about 9!!!
I signed up with another agency that had a very high profile on all the local websites , advertising all types of jobs from driving and manufacturing jobs to fruit picking !
The first 2 weeks I worked both weeks, however , it's " gone a bit quiet since xmas " to quote them .
So , as far as I'm concerned , all the time you have agency's and employer's getting around the minimum wage by using 0 hour type contract's paying per hour is pointless .
This is a relevant question to which I would like an answer !!
A previous poster stated that his staff had to be careful not to work too many hour's in case they lost benefit entitlement !!
To me this means they are working and receiving handouts therefore subsidising the profits of that business .
A previous poster stated that his staff had to be careful not to work too many hour's in case they lost benefit entitlement !!
To me this means they are working and receiving handouts therefore subsidising the profits of that business .
johnS2000 said:
This is a relevant question to which I would like an answer !!
A previous poster stated that his staff had to be careful not to work too many hour's in case they lost benefit entitlement !!
To me this means they are working and receiving handouts therefore subsidising the profits of that business .
Why? If the employee only does 16 hours so as not to lose benefits another person will have to do the extra hours at a cost to the company so how is that helping the bottom line?A previous poster stated that his staff had to be careful not to work too many hour's in case they lost benefit entitlement !!
To me this means they are working and receiving handouts therefore subsidising the profits of that business .
P.S only as an hour on hour basis not going into NI and HP.
crankedup said:
What is so difficult in understanding my comment you have highlighted, its quite straight forward and to the point. Put your argument up against it, why you seem to think its attacking private businesses and why, presumably, you think its OK for private business to be subsidised by tax payers. Put another way, discuss!
So what do you think would be an appropriate level for a minimum wage?johnS2000 said:
This is a relevant question to which I would like an answer !!
A previous poster stated that his staff had to be careful not to work too many hour's in case they lost benefit entitlement !!
To me this means they are working and receiving handouts therefore subsidising the profits of that business .
My lowest paid employee earns about £9.50 per hour for a 40 hour week and I struggle to get any of them to work overtime because of the reduction in whatever tax credits they get. They don't have a principled objection to overtime as evidenced by them saying they'll work it if I pay cash in hand, which I won't do.A previous poster stated that his staff had to be careful not to work too many hour's in case they lost benefit entitlement !!
To me this means they are working and receiving handouts therefore subsidising the profits of that business .
crankedup said:
What is so difficult in understanding my comment you have highlighted, its quite straight forward and to the point. Put your argument up against it, why you seem to think its attacking private businesses and why, presumably, you think its OK for private business to be subsidised by tax payers. Put another way, discuss!
But they are not subsidising private business they are subsidising the worker unlike the fact the taxpayer is subsidising private sector pensions to the tune of billions!Edited by crankedup on Wednesday 22 January 08:56
The_Burg said:
Could you manage? My mortgage is quite low and i owe nothing. Cars are all sheds, (have quite a few but even total would not be a lot).
Not sure if i read this right, but if i have you're an arse.There are plenty of people that have no choice but to.
if you were in their situation you would HAVE to manage also.
f
king pathetic poll. Idiot.RYH64E said:
crankedup said:
What is so difficult in understanding my comment you have highlighted, its quite straight forward and to the point. Put your argument up against it, why you seem to think its attacking private businesses and why, presumably, you think its OK for private business to be subsidised by tax payers. Put another way, discuss!
So what do you think would be an appropriate level for a minimum wage?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff