Trade union and socialist coalition party
Discussion
Du1point8 said:
According to some of the people writing on this thread, that company deserves to fail as they are not supposed to run a business like that and if it takes all your profit to give people a good wage then the CEO and shareholders should just suck it up.
Agreed, people also don't understand that its a very tiny % of businesses that make obscene amounts of money, many are just holding their heads above water.The media is screwing this country by the perception of politicians and business in completely the wrong way. 80% of the population is brainwashed.
BGARK said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
So using this logic, if an major hotel chain ups its min wage from £6.70 to £10, the CEO has to move from £2m to £3m a year? Why?
Most firms don't have the structure you describe. I agree you may have to move those currently on £10/hour forward a bit, and perhaps those on £12 or £13. But that'll be it. If someone on £30/hour moans that the cleaner got a 50% increase so they want one, just say no.
You're talking complete tripe.
Very simple example:Most firms don't have the structure you describe. I agree you may have to move those currently on £10/hour forward a bit, and perhaps those on £12 or £13. But that'll be it. If someone on £30/hour moans that the cleaner got a 50% increase so they want one, just say no.
You're talking complete tripe.
£6.70 hour is approx £13,500 / year.
£10.00 hour is £20,240 / year
This is £6,740 in additional wages.
For a company with 150 staff this is an extra £1 million pounds a year the company would need to find to cover the increase in wages.
This money would need to come from "profit", not "turnover", depending on the type of business this means they would need to sell/earn ~ £3-5 million pounds worth of business to cover the wage increase.
Where does the money come from?
When I go away on business I need a hotel room. If the lowest price is £35 in a Travelodge then I'll stay there. If the lowest price is £50 in a Travelodge, I'll stay there.
sidicks said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
So using this logic, if an major hotel chain ups its min wage from £6.70 to £10, the CEO has to move from £2m to £3m a year? Why?
Most firms don't have the structure you describe. I agree you may have to move those currently on £10/hour forward a bit, and perhaps those on £12 or £13. But that'll be it. If someone on £30/hour moans that the cleaner got a 50% increase so they want one, just say no.
You're talking complete tripe.
What business are you in?Most firms don't have the structure you describe. I agree you may have to move those currently on £10/hour forward a bit, and perhaps those on £12 or £13. But that'll be it. If someone on £30/hour moans that the cleaner got a 50% increase so they want one, just say no.
You're talking complete tripe.
Can you answer my point. Why does the CEO need to move from £2m to £3m because the chambermaid goes from £6.70 to £10/hour?
BGARK said:
Agreed, people also don't understand that its a very tiny % of businesses that make obscene amounts of money,
But only a small % of people on NMW work for small business, and most work for huge businesses and multinational chains that are making very healthy profits, and paying shareholders decent dividends. I'm a share holder in some blue chip firms, and I like dividends, but if they drop a little to pay low level staff an acceptable living wage, I can live with it.
I earn more in dividends in a year for doing nothing than someone on £6.70 / hour will earn in a year for a 35 hr week.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
sidicks said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
So using this logic, if an major hotel chain ups its min wage from £6.70 to £10, the CEO has to move from £2m to £3m a year? Why?
Most firms don't have the structure you describe. I agree you may have to move those currently on £10/hour forward a bit, and perhaps those on £12 or £13. But that'll be it. If someone on £30/hour moans that the cleaner got a 50% increase so they want one, just say no.
You're talking complete tripe.
What business are you in?Most firms don't have the structure you describe. I agree you may have to move those currently on £10/hour forward a bit, and perhaps those on £12 or £13. But that'll be it. If someone on £30/hour moans that the cleaner got a 50% increase so they want one, just say no.
You're talking complete tripe.
Can you answer my point. Why does the CEO need to move from £2m to £3m because the chambermaid goes from £6.70 to £10/hour?
Of course there will need to be a cut off somewhere and then you will still have unhappy employees as X got 50% pay rise, whilst Y who is on a higher basic only got 40% pay rise.
I see the prices of going to hotels going through the roof or even closing down as smaller independent hotels will not be able to cover the costs and make a profit, as they only have a finite amount of rooms and days to fill them, you however will see that their prices have risen, whilst the local travel lodge who can accommodate the costs better have not... You no doubt will go to the travel lodge instead of the independent as its the cheaper one thus making their situation worse as you just said you will go to the cheapest one in the area.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
One where no one earns below £10/hour. And we still manage to make money.
That deliberately avoided the question. I wonder why.TwigtheWonderkid said:
Can you answer my point. Why does the CEO need to move from £2m to £3m because the chambermaid goes from £6.70 to £10/hour?
No one (apart from you) is suggesting any such nonsense!oyster said:
If you move someone's pay from £6.70 to £10.00 (50%) then you'll also need to increase the pay by 50% to all those earning £7, £8, £9, £10, £11, £12, £13, £14, £15, £16, £17, £18, £19, £20 and so on.
oyster suggested it. See the words "and so on" at the end of the above sentence.But I'm sure you won't apologise!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But only a small % of people on NMW work for small business
Wrong.And are you aware that over 99% of business in the UK are SME size.
http://www.fsb.org.uk/stats
BGARK said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But only a small % of people on NMW work for small business
Wrong.And are you aware that over 99% of business in the UK are SME size.
http://www.fsb.org.uk/stats
and which SME definition are you using ? under 50 FTE or under 250 FTE ?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But only a small % of people on NMW work for small business, and most work for huge businesses and multinational chains that are making very healthy profits, and paying shareholders decent dividends.
When I was a kid, the local supermarket employed this old veteran to shepherd the trolleys abut the site. I don't know his story - whether he'd suffered shellshock, or what - but he was not quite the full ticket. He'd really not hold what one might call a 'regular', average wage job, but he did sterling service in the post he was in for many years.Sadly, IMHO, there are today a lot fewer such posts and people like this chap are deemed too complicated and costly to employ so no longer play any part in regular, working society and are reliant solely on handouts rather than being allowed to earn their living. There are unintended consequences of any legislation and, unfortunately, given the state of the UK education system, it is not only ill or handicapped people who are likely to suffer if the NMW is set too high.
I'd agree a lot of employers (large or otherwise) take the piss, but it is also fantasy to think so blunt an instrument as NMW is the solution.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
oyster suggested it. See the words "and so on" at the end of the above sentence.
But I'm sure you won't apologise!
Who said anything about increasing the CEO wage by 50%?But I'm sure you won't apologise!
Can you not really see not that by increasing wages at the bottom that necessarily has significant repercussions for employees up the line?
BGARK said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But only a small % of people on NMW work for small business
Wrong.And are you aware that over 99% of business in the UK are SME size.
http://www.fsb.org.uk/stats
sidicks said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
oyster suggested it. See the words "and so on" at the end of the above sentence.
But I'm sure you won't apologise!
Who said anything about increasing the CEO wage by 50%?But I'm sure you won't apologise!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Their rivals would be faced with a similar increase in wage roll. Therefore there would be scope for an increase in the sales price of their product without becoming uncompetitive.
When I go away on business I need a hotel room. If the lowest price is £35 in a Travelodge then I'll stay there. If the lowest price is £50 in a Travelodge, I'll stay there.
But using that logic - that prices will necessarily increase to cover the wage increase - the employees receiving the wage increase will no longer be better off because... all the prices have increased to cover their wage increase?When I go away on business I need a hotel room. If the lowest price is £35 in a Travelodge then I'll stay there. If the lowest price is £50 in a Travelodge, I'll stay there.
iphonedyou said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Their rivals would be faced with a similar increase in wage roll. Therefore there would be scope for an increase in the sales price of their product without becoming uncompetitive.
When I go away on business I need a hotel room. If the lowest price is £35 in a Travelodge then I'll stay there. If the lowest price is £50 in a Travelodge, I'll stay there.
But using that logic - that prices will necessarily increase to cover the wage increase - the employees receiving the wage increase will no longer be better off because... all the prices have increased to cover their wage increase?When I go away on business I need a hotel room. If the lowest price is £35 in a Travelodge then I'll stay there. If the lowest price is £50 in a Travelodge, I'll stay there.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
iphonedyou said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Their rivals would be faced with a similar increase in wage roll. Therefore there would be scope for an increase in the sales price of their product without becoming uncompetitive.
When I go away on business I need a hotel room. If the lowest price is £35 in a Travelodge then I'll stay there. If the lowest price is £50 in a Travelodge, I'll stay there.
But using that logic - that prices will necessarily increase to cover the wage increase - the employees receiving the wage increase will no longer be better off because... all the prices have increased to cover their wage increase?When I go away on business I need a hotel room. If the lowest price is £35 in a Travelodge then I'll stay there. If the lowest price is £50 in a Travelodge, I'll stay there.
Or would that be an enforced pay rise that the company are being made to make regardless of what the employee does or how good they are?
Slightly different in the two scenarios there.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Their rivals would be faced with a similar increase in wage roll. Therefore there would be scope for an increase in the sales price of their product without becoming uncompetitive.
When I go away on business I need a hotel room. If the lowest price is £35 in a Travelodge then I'll stay there. If the lowest price is £50 in a Travelodge, I'll stay there.
This is comedy gold!When I go away on business I need a hotel room. If the lowest price is £35 in a Travelodge then I'll stay there. If the lowest price is £50 in a Travelodge, I'll stay there.
You want a 50% increase in the NMW and freely admit that it will raise costs by the same amount.
What good is earning 50% more when things cost 50% more ?!!!!
Du1point8 said:
Or would that be an enforced pay rise that the company are being made to make regardless of what the employee does or how good they are?
Slightly different in the two scenarios there.
If the employee is no good, get shot of them. But if they are good, then they deserve at least £10/hr, regardless of how unskilled their job is. Given than unskilled work is some of the most physically demanding.Slightly different in the two scenarios there.
I certainly wouldn't fancy being behind the counter in a fast food restaurant, a cleaner or a hotel chambermaid. Too much like hard work.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Du1point8 said:
Or would that be an enforced pay rise that the company are being made to make regardless of what the employee does or how good they are?
Slightly different in the two scenarios there.
If the employee is no good, get shot of them. But if they are good, then they deserve at least £10/hr, regardless of how unskilled their job is. Given than unskilled work is some of the most physically demanding.Slightly different in the two scenarios there.
I certainly wouldn't fancy being behind the counter in a fast food restaurant, a cleaner or a hotel chambermaid. Too much like hard work.
People say they should be paid this, they should be paid that, if they are good they are entitled to it.
Im sorry thats not how a business works, if you are running a cleaning company, or a hotel, there is only so much you can do until you are unaffordable (priced to high) or making no profit (wages too high)...
We in the real world do not run our companies like Labour run the company, I don't run part of a company at a loss to keep people employed if they can't bring in the work or work fast enough to make paying their wages worth it. So if you are making me pay £10 a hour, they better be making me £16-20 an hour otherwise they are not worth £10 an hour.
The only time I see a necessary expense is if its something that can't be automated, but I would never run a services company and have a cleaning section running at a loss and being propped up by the other sections/departments.
I would either drop the cleaning department all-together or bring in a 3rd party and they can deal with it running at a loss or pay people what they want.
Even worse would be that these MW demands mean I would have to cut costs and customer service from somewhere else.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff