Trade union and socialist coalition party

[Du1point8]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Du1point8 said:

All I can see happen is that SME will reduce staff.



Many retail/fast food/small companies will go to the wall and simply close when they work out that now the owner is making so little money, they might as well shut up shop or go back to being an employee or a one man band.

Yet another way to fk over the SMEs with the current supply and demand in jobs, lots of supply = lower wages.

That's exactly what they said would happen in 1998 when the £3.60 NMW was introduced. The Earth would be sucked into the sun, millions of firms would go bust and it would be a catastrophe.

And that's what they said when they made fire extinguishers compulsory. And when they made employers liability insurance compulsory. In fact, it's exactly what they said to William Wilberforce when he muted the idea of abolishing slavery.

Its exactly whats happening currently in San Francisco at the moment.

[JensenA]

Du1point8 said:

All I can see happen is that SME will reduce staff.

Have 4 people currently, they all get a pay-rise to minimum of £10 an hour, so remove one person and make the others work harder for their new salary enforced on the company.

Many retail/fast food/small companies will go to the wall and simply close when they work out that now the owner is making so little money, they might as well shut up shop or go back to being an employee or a one man band.

Yet another way to fk over the SMEs with the current supply and demand in jobs, lots of supply = lower wages.

What utter bks. If the business go under because they have to pay their staff £30 a week more, then, as Twiggthewonder kid said, they don't deserve to be in business. Someone earlier on stated that fast food outlets are lergely franchises - as if we didn't know - and that they are struggling. Who says they are struggling? A franchise will cost you in excess of £100k, that's one of the major costs, they pay the minimum wage because they can get away with it. The outlet won't bat an eyelid when spending £100k on a refurbishment, and the boss spending £50k on his new BMW, but paying the workers an extra £30 quid a week will cause them to go bust? Really? I remember reading an article in my local press praising the local 'dynamic young entrepreneur' who had just bought a new Ferrari at the age of 25. He owned a couple of Pizza Franchises.
And no, I'm not a rabid left wing socialist, far from it, but neither am I a nasty greedy capitalist who would pay his workers the least I can get away with by Law. I'd just charge £2.20 for my burgers instead of £1.99, and I'd make damn sure I stayed in business because my burgers were better, and my staff were better - and happier. That's how you stay in business.

[Du1point8]

JensenA said:

Du1point8 said:

All I can see happen is that SME will reduce staff.

Have 4 people currently, they all get a pay-rise to minimum of £10 an hour, so remove one person and make the others work harder for their new salary enforced on the company.

Many retail/fast food/small companies will go to the wall and simply close when they work out that now the owner is making so little money, they might as well shut up shop or go back to being an employee or a one man band.

Yet another way to fk over the SMEs with the current supply and demand in jobs, lots of supply = lower wages.

What utter bks. If the business go under because they have to pay their staff £30 a week more, then, as Twiggthewonder kid said, they don't deserve to be in business. Someone earlier on stated that fast food outlets are lergely franchises - as if we didn't know - and that they are struggling. Who says they are struggling? A franchise will cost you in excess of £100k, that's one of the major costs, they pay the minimum wage because they can get away with it. The outlet won't bat an eyelid when spending £100k on a refurbishment, and the boss spending £50k on his new BMW, but paying the workers an extra £30 quid a week will cause them to go bust? Really? I remember reading an article in my local press praising the local 'dynamic young entrepreneur' who had just bought a new Ferrari at the age of 25. He owned a couple of Pizza Franchises.
And no, I'm not a rabid left wing socialist, far from it, but neither am I a nasty greedy capitalist who would pay his workers the least I can get away with by Law. I'd just charge £2.20 for my burgers instead of £1.99, and I'd make damn sure I stayed in business because my burgers were better, and my staff were better - and happier. That's how you stay in business.

minimum wage at the moment = £6.50
4 members of staff on 40 hours a week have a rise to £10 an hour is damn near close to £30k the company needs to pull in more to pay them. if they are selling things that don't have much margin it could be as much as £60k more turnover to cover them.

However you say they deserve to fail as after all those people employing people are evil and 4 more go on the dole.

[davepoth]

Du1point8 said:

minimum wage at the moment = £6.50
4 members of staff on 40 hours a week have a rise to £10 an hour is damn near close to £30k the company needs to pull in more to pay them. if they are selling things that don't have much margin it could be as much as £60k more turnover to cover them.

However you say they deserve to fail as after all those people employing people are evil and 4 more go on the dole.

4 staff on £6.50 are hardly motivated to sell. You're paying them the same sort of wage they could get for doing a very low stress job but they've got sales targets; Perhaps if you paid them a bit more they might do a bit more work?

[technodup]

JensenA said:

Who says they are struggling? A franchise will cost you in excess of £100k, that's one of the major costs, they pay the minimum wage because they can get away with it.

They pay minimum wage because that's what the job is worth. The recent KFC programme mentioned iirc around 20 applications for every position. Over supply of labour naturally keeps the cost down. And lets not forget that the arbitrary level set by the NMW means there are many who don't even deserve their £6.50/h.

And let's be honest- if the NMWers were genuinely worth more, what's stopping them getting a better paid position? And if the reply is there aren't any I'd suggest they don't have the necessary qualities, hence they are probably at just the right level already.

Businesses exist to make profit for the business and it's shareholders. They pay staff to complete tasks to further that aim. They don't exist to give people lifestyles they think they deserve.

[speedyman]

And I dont pay tax to subsidise your business.

[Oakey]

Blib said:

Oakey said:

What does that £3.60 in 1998 translate to today with inflation?

The "This is Money" historic inflation calculator says that the equivalent today would be £5.86.

So the NMW has given an increase of 64p. Over 17 years.

woohoo!

Meanwhile, over the same period the price of a McDonalds value meal has increased from £2.88 to £4.39.

[JensenA]

technodup said:

hey pay minimum wage because that's what the job is worth. The recent KFC programme mentioned iirc around 20 applications for every position. Over supply of labour naturally keeps the cost down. And lets not forget that the arbitrary level set by the NMW means there are many who don't even deserve their £6.50/h.

And let's be honest- if the NMWers were genuinely worth more, what's stopping them getting a better paid position? And if the reply is there aren't any I'd suggest they don't have the necessary qualities, hence they are probably at just the right level already.

Businesses exist to make profit for the business and it's shareholders. They pay staff to complete tasks to further that aim. They don't exist to give people lifestyles they think they deserve.

I wasn't to clear in my post, I'm not arguing for the £10 an hour minimum wage, that brings all sorts of problems, what will the people currently on £10 an hour want? My figures are arguing for. 10% increase, about £30 a week. But I take it you're in a well paid job, and believe that the scum at the bottom of the pile are only worth £6,50 an hour. Businesses pay that amount because it is the minimum they can pay, pure and simple.
The growth of Agency workers, and migration have caused wages to be depressed, but please don't give me twaddle about Business not being able to afford to pay more, they can, but they can get away with it because they don't have to. The tax payer subsidises these businesses. For all you people who buy nearly new cars from main dealers,,even the prestigious ones like BMW and Mercedes. The guys who prepare these 1 year old ex-Lease to showroom standards for supply to the main dealers as 'ZYZ' approves used cars are skilled panel,beaters and Paint sprayers, they earn just over £11 an hour, no holiday pay, no sick pay, they pay employee AND employees NI, and pay £25 a week to the Agency for 'processing the pay slip'. and they can be sacked with no notice. And the Agency also cream off another £3 per hour off the employer - the same ones who would be forced out of business if pay rose - for each employee. Incidentally where I work there are zero migrants working.
In Germany, employers pay the maximum they can afford because they want to keep their staff. In the UK employers pay the minimum they can get away with because they don't care about their staff - fact.

[technodup]

speedyman said:

And I dont pay tax to subsidise your business.

If that's aimed at me firstly you don't and secondly I'd dispose of tax credits altogether. It's a mental system of taking and giving back and creating a dependency which shouldn't exist.

[Rovinghawk]

JensenA said:

In Germany, employers pay the maximum they can afford because they want to keep their staff. In the UK employers pay the minimum they can get away with because they don't care about their staff - fact.

Would you please show proof of this fact?

[Dr Jekyll]

JensenA said:

In Germany, employers pay the maximum they can afford because they want to keep their staff. In the UK employers pay the minimum they can get away with because they don't care about their staff - fact.

So why does Germany have a minimum wage?

[technodup]

JensenA said:

But I take it you're in a well paid job, and believe that the scum at the bottom of the pile are only worth £6,50 an hour.

I worked in McDonald's long before the NMW was introduced. Can't remember the rate but suffice it to say I only lasted two weeks. I was worth more so found a better paying job. It really is that simple.

JensenA said:

Businesses pay that amount because it is the minimum they can pay, pure and simple.

An employee is essentially a supplier, of labour. Businesses pay suppliers the minimum they can for very obvious reasons. Supply of labour only differs from supply of paperclips in that some folk think businesses exist to provide employment. They don't.

If people want paid more they should make themselves more valuable, do training, stay late, start a business, go to college etc etc.

Plus if the bottom rung is raised 10% that makes the second bottom rung (for the purposes of the argument) 10% less well paid relatively speaking. What have they done wrong to be dragged closer to the bottom? Or do we bung them an extra 10% while we're at it? Or 15% to make it 'fair'? Where does it end?

JensenA said:

In Germany, employers pay the maximum they can afford because they want to keep their staff. In the UK employers pay the minimum they can get away with because they don't care about their staff - fact.

Move to Germany then.

[JensenA]

technodup said:

ove to Germany then.

I used it live and work there, and with tts like you in this country, I'm already thinking of doing it, but as I'm unlikely to actually meet you in person, there's no pressing urgency at the moment. . You really have no idea of life outside you're own comfortable little world do you.

Edited by JensenA on Sunday 19th April 21:35

[BGARK]

JensenA said:

In the UK employers pay the minimum they can get away with because they don't care about their staff - fact.

How much do you pay your staff?

[oyster]

There's a lot of thickos on this thread. I'm all in favour of a minimum wage, but not to increase it that much.

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.

And what do you think will happen to inflation if you do that?
What do you think will happen to house prices and rents?

The minimum wagers won't be any better off.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

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.

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.

[powerstroke]

oyster said:

There's a lot of thickos on this thread. I'm all in favour of a minimum wage, but not to increase it that much.

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.

And what do you think will happen to inflation if you do that?
What do you think will happen to house prices and rents?

The minimum wagers won't be any better off.

Yes and draw in even more migrants, the minimum wage will allways be worthless to the lower skilled as a way of achieving better pay while we have an over supply of labour..

Edited by powerstroke on Monday 20th April 07:19

[BGARK]

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:

£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?

[Du1point8]

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:

£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?

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.

[sidicks]

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?