Minimum Wage,£7 an hour

[pork911]

crankedup said:

pork911 said:

Funkycoldribena said:

Maybe minimum wage linked to company profit would stop such paltry wages being paid by certain supermarkets etc.

And those workers should share in the loses as well?

YES! its how a workers co-operative works and the 'John Lewis' model too. When you say workers that then means ALL workers from CEO to stacker.

Are you sure? Do such workers earn nothing, even pay in when there are losses?

[London424]

crankedup said:

pork911 said:

Funkycoldribena said:

Maybe minimum wage linked to company profit would stop such paltry wages being paid by certain supermarkets etc.

And those workers should share in the loses as well?

YES! its how a workers co-operative works and the 'John Lewis' model too. When you say workers that then means ALL workers from CEO to stacker.

No it isn't. Wages aren't linked to profit. Bonus (or profit share) is linked to profit.

Under your model if the company lose money in a year then wages get reduced for all employees.

Lets take General Motors (this is a care site after all).

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=5503957

So, a 15.5 billion loss in a single quarter. How much should an employee be expected to give back to the company?

[crankedup]

pork911 said:

crankedup said:

pork911 said:

Funkycoldribena said:

Maybe minimum wage linked to company profit would stop such paltry wages being paid by certain supermarkets etc.

And those workers should share in the loses as well?

YES! its how a workers co-operative works and the 'John Lewis' model too. When you say workers that then means ALL workers from CEO to stacker.

Are you sure? Do such workers earn nothing, even pay in when there are losses?

Usual form of incentive comes from bonus payments and /or shares designed to genuinely promote wholehearted loyalty and support for the Company. Plenty of Companies have been 'taken over' by a workers co-operative following the receivers being called in (I don't know what the success rates are though) Always been in favour of this form of employment and have never understood why more Companies do not operate similar models. Must be some strong reasons but I know not what they are.

[pork911]

crankedup said:

pork911 said:

crankedup said:

pork911 said:

Funkycoldribena said:

Maybe minimum wage linked to company profit would stop such paltry wages being paid by certain supermarkets etc.

And those workers should share in the loses as well?

YES! its how a workers co-operative works and the 'John Lewis' model too. When you say workers that then means ALL workers from CEO to stacker.

Are you sure? Do such workers earn nothing, even pay in when there are losses?

Usual form of incentive comes from bonus payments and /or shares designed to genuinely promote wholehearted loyalty and support for the Company. Plenty of Companies have been 'taken over' by a workers co-operative following the receivers being called in (I don't know what the success rates are though) Always been in favour of this form of employment and have never understood why more Companies do not operate similar models. Must be some strong reasons but I know not what they are.

So that's a no then?

[Rovinghawk]

London424 said:

(this is a care site after all).

Typo or wise insight?

[otolith]

crankedup said:

otolith said:

crankedup said:

otolith said:

crankedup said:

otolith said:

crankedup said:

Interesting play on words! it all boils down to one factor though : if the employer paid a living wage the Tax payer would not be offering handouts to the employees, raising their income to a minimum living wage. You think its right for tax payers to subsidise people like tesco employees because tesco pays low wages for example?

Do you think people who aren't capable of earning enough to stand entirely on their own two feet should not be allowed to work at all?

Is that a yes? If someone is incapable of earning enough to live in the standard you think appropriate, they shouldn't be working at all?

Its not a yes or no, frankly its a daft question you ask, hence my laughter. Come on you can do better than that.

Just pointing out the consequences of your policy and asking you whether they are intentional.

You object to a person working if they have to top their income up with benefits.

I think you imagine that what would happen if the minimum wage were raised to the point where anybody earning it gets no benefits is that all of those people would be paid more. That is not the case. Some of those jobs would cease to be viable at all. The people doing those jobs would then have to fall back on the taxpayer for all of their income, not just some of it. You would force them into complete benefit dependency.

Where have I said that 'I object to a person working if they have to top up their income with benefits'? No such thing from me and its not my stance!

However, thanks for setting out your stall in your second para'. You are clearly in favour of Government hand-outs to the low paid workers under certain circumstances. I take the opposite POV, for me its distorting the labour market and the economy, in addition it leaves employers a useful excuse to keep wage rates low perhaps when they can well afford to pay more. The real reason all this low pay and MW situation has arisen is down to the past 6 years of high unemployment and some employers taking advantage of this. As the economy recovers perhaps this trend will reverse, although with a continuing influx of cheap foreign labour perhaps not. Either way its a Government policy it seems to lower real wage levels making G.B. more competitive in Global terms. Seems to me that your POV will likely win out, so to speak, at the expense of ordinary working people continuing to see their living standards fall.

In this matter, I am a pragmatist. If some people are not capable of earning enough to support themselves, I would rather the state supplemented their income in part than that they were prevented from working and funded entirely by the state. I see that as subsidising individuals, not subsidising business.

[London424]

Rovinghawk said:

London424 said:

(this is a care site after all).

Typo or wise insight?

Crap...typo!

[crankedup]

London424 said:

crankedup said:

pork911 said:

Funkycoldribena said:

Maybe minimum wage linked to company profit would stop such paltry wages being paid by certain supermarkets etc.

And those workers should share in the loses as well?

YES! its how a workers co-operative works and the 'John Lewis' model too. When you say workers that then means ALL workers from CEO to stacker.

No it isn't. Wages aren't linked to profit. Bonus (or profit share) is linked to profit.

Under your model if the company lose money in a year then wages get reduced for all employees.

Lets take General Motors (this is a care site after all).

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=5503957

So, a 15.5 billion loss in a single quarter. How much should an employee be expected to give back to the company?

I went on to clarify the bonus payment stuff, see above posts. Of course workers remuneration in the form of regular wages cannot be sensibly linked to profit. Top marks for pouncing so quickly though
Both your post and mine must have been seconds apart, impressive.

[crankedup]

otolith said:

crankedup said:

otolith said:

crankedup said:

otolith said:

crankedup said:

otolith said:

crankedup said:

Interesting play on words! it all boils down to one factor though : if the employer paid a living wage the Tax payer would not be offering handouts to the employees, raising their income to a minimum living wage. You think its right for tax payers to subsidise people like tesco employees because tesco pays low wages for example?

Do you think people who aren't capable of earning enough to stand entirely on their own two feet should not be allowed to work at all?

Is that a yes? If someone is incapable of earning enough to live in the standard you think appropriate, they shouldn't be working at all?

Its not a yes or no, frankly its a daft question you ask, hence my laughter. Come on you can do better than that.

Just pointing out the consequences of your policy and asking you whether they are intentional.

You object to a person working if they have to top their income up with benefits.

I think you imagine that what would happen if the minimum wage were raised to the point where anybody earning it gets no benefits is that all of those people would be paid more. That is not the case. Some of those jobs would cease to be viable at all. The people doing those jobs would then have to fall back on the taxpayer for all of their income, not just some of it. You would force them into complete benefit dependency.

Where have I said that 'I object to a person working if they have to top up their income with benefits'? No such thing from me and its not my stance!

However, thanks for setting out your stall in your second para'. You are clearly in favour of Government hand-outs to the low paid workers under certain circumstances. I take the opposite POV, for me its distorting the labour market and the economy, in addition it leaves employers a useful excuse to keep wage rates low perhaps when they can well afford to pay more. The real reason all this low pay and MW situation has arisen is down to the past 6 years of high unemployment and some employers taking advantage of this. As the economy recovers perhaps this trend will reverse, although with a continuing influx of cheap foreign labour perhaps not. Either way its a Government policy it seems to lower real wage levels making G.B. more competitive in Global terms. Seems to me that your POV will likely win out, so to speak, at the expense of ordinary working people continuing to see their living standards fall.

In this matter, I am a pragmatist. If some people are not capable of earning enough to support themselves, I would rather the state supplemented their income in part than that they were prevented from working and funded entirely by the state. I see that as subsidising individuals, not subsidising business.

It is an interesting situation and not at all clear cut from either perspective. As the Government continue to cover low wages and the same time they close down Remploy. Its sometimes difficult to fathom sometimes! It was said that disabled could make their own way and also Remploy was undermining 'private'businesses.

[Blue Cat]

What a lot of people don't understand about working part-time and benefits is that you can work UP TO 16 hours a week (16 hours and more per week is considered full time working). However whatever you earn will deducted from your benefits less the first £5 per week.

So there is no real incentive for people to work as chances are once they have included travel costs etc, they will be worse off, plus all the documentation you have to provide to the benefit office of proof of hours worked - it is a major hassle.

[Amateurish]

You have to bear in mind how much state support someone will get on that kind of wage, especially if they have kids. I just did a benefits check (assuming £1k month rent). If I earned £7 per hour for a 37 hour week, I would get the following amounts weekly:

£230 net income
£149 tax credits
£34 child benefit
£155 housing benefit
£6 council tax benefit

Total net weekly income £574.

[mph1977]

Grandfondo said:

mph1977 said:

Grandfondo said:

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?

P.S only as an hour on hour basis not going into NI and HP.

For some people working more than 16 hours will eat into benefit entitlement , others will want to average slightly over 30 hours a week for working tax credit purposes ( especially if thery have kids or their spouse/partner is disabled - as these can increasde the amount of tax crredits you get / increase the cut off earnings quite substantially)

Having lots of part time staff is a way to avoid premium overtime rates ( as the NHS trick of no overtime but you can sign up to a second zero hour contract with the same employer or with NHS (un)Professionals to work extra hours in your own workplace ... doesn;t seem to have caught on in the privater sector)

Your first paragraph states that people don't want to be full time because it affects their benefits and the second states the employer wants part time workers to save on overtime rates!
So what's the answer because it looks like everyone is happy going by your assessment ?

everyone isn't happy - becasue the balance isn't achieved - also there is still a cultural expectancy that people will have a full time job with a substantive contract and over time freely available when needed ...

[mph1977]

crankedup said:

It is an interesting situation and not at all clear cut from either perspective. As the Government continue to cover low wages and the same time they close down Remploy. Its sometimes difficult to fathom sometimes! It was said that disabled could make their own way and also Remploy was undermining 'private'businesses.

remploy was costing significant sums of money and provided 'help' to a limited number of people.

Remploy had not developed corporately beyond the origins in 'sheltered workshop' type glorifed OT

the choice was cut Remploy's subsidy or cut the other Access to Work stuff ...

[Grandfondo]

mph1977 said:

Grandfondo said:

mph1977 said:

Grandfondo said:

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?

P.S only as an hour on hour basis not going into NI and HP.

For some people working more than 16 hours will eat into benefit entitlement , others will want to average slightly over 30 hours a week for working tax credit purposes ( especially if thery have kids or their spouse/partner is disabled - as these can increasde the amount of tax crredits you get / increase the cut off earnings quite substantially)

Having lots of part time staff is a way to avoid premium overtime rates ( as the NHS trick of no overtime but you can sign up to a second zero hour contract with the same employer or with NHS (un)Professionals to work extra hours in your own workplace ... doesn;t seem to have caught on in the privater sector)

Your first paragraph states that people don't want to be full time because it affects their benefits and the second states the employer wants part time workers to save on overtime rates!
So what's the answer because it looks like everyone is happy going by your assessment ?

everyone isn't happy - becasue the balance isn't achieved - also there is still a cultural expectancy that people will have a full time job with a substantive contract and over time freely available when needed ...

Make your mind up!

[crankedup]

mph1977 said:

crankedup said:

It is an interesting situation and not at all clear cut from either perspective. As the Government continue to cover low wages and the same time they close down Remploy. Its sometimes difficult to fathom sometimes! It was said that disabled could make their own way and also Remploy was undermining 'private'businesses.

remploy was costing significant sums of money and provided 'help' to a limited number of people.

Remploy had not developed corporately beyond the origins in 'sheltered workshop' type glorifed OT

the choice was cut Remploy's subsidy or cut the other Access to Work stuff ...

Yes thats how the politico's deemed it, there was another choice of course, upgrade Remploy!

[BlackLabel]

Good or bad for the economy?

I imagine business owners won't be very happy but on a positive note it will hopefully lead to a reduction in tax credits.

Ed Miliband pledges Labour will raise minimum wage to at least £8 an hour

[voyds9]

That's a headline figure would be more interesting to see if it makes much/any difference to take home after the benefits/tax situation have been taken into account.

[mph1977]

voyds9 said:

That's a headline figure would be more interesting to see if it makes much/any difference to take home after the benefits/tax situation have been taken into account.

it will reduce the amount paid out in LHA/HB and working tax credits

however unless it's also joined with reductions in corporate taxation ( which it won;t be if it's milibrain as PM) it will increase costsd

[Hoofy]

Wonder if it should be tiered. A small business might struggle to pay someone £8 an hour.

[johnS2000]

Will not make any difference whatsoever.

More employers will turn to agency and "0" hour contracts .