High Street chains favouring UK employees
Discussion
gizlaroc said:
slightlyoldgit said:
Right now minimum wage is essentially £16k a year and it is not hard for a household of 2 adults to get £2k a month in net income between them. My wife's friend and her husband both work in Tesco and pull in a bit more than that as I think Tesco is slightly more than absolute minimum.
That is a perfectly acceptable income and many people survive and live quite happy lives on that sort of money.
It depends where you live, and hardly leaves you with anything left over to start paying into your pension with to keep that income level going once you retire. That is a perfectly acceptable income and many people survive and live quite happy lives on that sort of money.
The cheaper end terrace houses where I am from in Norwich is around £800-900 a month.
Nursery fees start at around £150 a week after kick backs, so £600 a month. That is £1400 at least.
Then you have food at £80 a week, electricity, gas, travel, clothing etc.
You might be lucky and cover essentials.
Child care vouchers can cover a good chunk of nursery fees and that is only applicable until your kids are 5 and in school anyway - you choose to have children when you can afford them frankly, if you can't don't!
Either way a family of two adults on minimum wage can quite easily earn £2k a month (which is topped up with working tax credits as well at the minute by another £300 ish) and with £675 of rent and child care etc - it is more than possible to live a decent life.
markyb_lcy said:
slightlyoldgit said:
Just out of interest - do you think £16k a year as a minimum wage is too little then?
Well, I live in south London where you’d be lucky to find a one bedroom flat for £1k a month. I’ve no idea if benefits are higher here (I suspect housing benefit would need to be). I’m not going to say whether 16k is enough because truth is I have no idea. I do know that I would find it pretty impossible myself though.Inflation is being fiddled (by leaving things out) and as such, prices of everyday things are going up and neither wages nor benefits are going up to match.
Also agree on inflation to some degree.
But it is nonetheless not hard for a family of four on little more than minimum wage to live quite satisfactory lives in a vast majority of the UK. We just have a nation that "want" more than satisfactory or want to do nothing for it.
yellowjack said:
I haven't worked for 7 years. I've also not claimed a penny in benefits over that same period. I live on an army pension and what my wife earns. i've looked for work, but rarely ever see anything advertised for wages that i would regard as fair or reasonable for the work required from me. Make of that what you will. But I'd clean toilets if the wages made up for the (perceived?) indignity of working with (and in many cases for) turds all day every day. I live near a large hospital. my skills are in logistics, storage, and distribution. I'd love a stores job in the hospital, and am on their mailing list for alerts..
I'm not having a go at you, but I regularly see attitudes like yours by ex Army blokes. Whilst you are 'in' you earn a shed load of money for a job which on the outside, as you've found, pays very little.I was shocked recently to learn that an 18year in AAC corporal was on £36k. The bloke has been in so much trouble, is lazy and feckless, yet earns far more than most stores (sorry, logistics, ) managers earn. A WO1 recently got out after doing his 22, again AAC with a stores background and expected to walk into a £51k a year job doing something similar. He doesn't have the luxury of not being able to do nothing as he and his family like shiny gadgets and holidays, and now have try and get a mortgage etc.
By comparison, the large warehouse attached to the back of our facility is shared by the Army and Kuehne Nagel , the average wage for the civilian staff is around £20k, with even the managers on less than £30k..
slightlyoldgit said:
London will always be an anomaly - but it is only a very small percentage of our whole country. I agree there should be affordable/subsidised housing to keep people in their communities.
I see what you're trying to get at but you'd have to include large areas outside London too. I just checked some of the rents for a range of Kent towns and they start at £900-1100pcm for modest family homes. I'm not sure how you'd get the required deposit on min wage either. markyb_lcy said:
London population isn’t a small percentage tho ... 9.3m vs 63m in the wider uk. That’s about 15%!
I would contend a decent amount of that percentage are not unemployed families and that the size of London's population has more to do with people moving to it - for work reasons that are not minimum wage, therefore supporting themselves than being born there. markyb_lcy said:
slightlyoldgit said:
Agreed and the latter is sorely needed.
There is just a bit of a logic fail when you can receive more whilst sat on your arse doing nothing than you can in reasonable employment.
Until that state of affairs changes, we have 2 or 3 generations of folks that simply will not get up off their arses to work.
Aye, but the problem here is that work doesn’t pay (for some) rather than benefits being too high. We have people in poverty that are in work.There is just a bit of a logic fail when you can receive more whilst sat on your arse doing nothing than you can in reasonable employment.
Until that state of affairs changes, we have 2 or 3 generations of folks that simply will not get up off their arses to work.
Regarding those sat on their arses ... are they not simply playing the capitalist game in the capitalist society, in that they are aiming for the most amount of return for the least amount of work? If work paid better then a lot of them would be working.
I do think more carrot is better than more stick.
In the last 12 months we've had a new McDonald's, a new Costa and a new Screwfix open up. 90% of the jobs offered were all on 16 or 20 hours a week which I believe is the threshold of hours worked that you get to keep your benefits. I think it was only the managers jobs and things like team leaders jobs that were on full time hours, and even then it was quite low money.
Until people get the chance to work full time, they'll always be reliant on being topped up by benefits.
Sticks. said:
slightlyoldgit said:
London will always be an anomaly - but it is only a very small percentage of our whole country. I agree there should be affordable/subsidised housing to keep people in their communities.
I see what you're trying to get at but you'd have to include large areas outside London too. I just checked some of the rents for a range of Kent towns and they start at £900-1100pcm for modest family homes. I'm not sure how you'd get the required deposit on min wage either. In fact if there was a push towards that and the reduction of actual handouts - I suspect it could even be relatively cost neutral. The issue is it would mean taking away the actual cash handouts and there would be uproar from the left.
eccles said:
I think the other issue is that jobs are being offered to match the expectancy of you keeping your benefits.
In the last 12 months we've had a new McDonald's, a new Costa and a new Screwfix open up. 90% of the jobs offered were all on 16 or 20 hours a week which I believe is the threshold of hours worked that you get to keep your benefits. I think it was only the managers jobs and things like team leaders jobs that were on full time hours, and even then it was quite low money.
Until people get the chance to work full time, they'll always be reliant on being topped up by benefits.
Yes but you restructure the system to stop that and you can bet your bottom dollar those jobs would shift as well. They are only advertised like that as that is the only way they will get applicants for them. In the last 12 months we've had a new McDonald's, a new Costa and a new Screwfix open up. 90% of the jobs offered were all on 16 or 20 hours a week which I believe is the threshold of hours worked that you get to keep your benefits. I think it was only the managers jobs and things like team leaders jobs that were on full time hours, and even then it was quite low money.
Until people get the chance to work full time, they'll always be reliant on being topped up by benefits.
If we structured the whole thing better we would have people in full time work and be handing out less cash and getting them on a ladder to perhaps show some initiative and progression into becoming those managers and supervisors, with more coming below them to do the lower paid roles and those above them eventually retiring etc etc.
gizlaroc said:
One of my staff had two kids in care, she did 9.15 till 2.15 3 days a week as the childcare was much cheaper in that slot.
She would never cover other staffs illness, holidays or do any extra over xmas or busy periods as she would lose her tax credits etc.
She earned around £8k a year from us and was topped up to £21k.
It was an issue with the other staff that she would never help out and it was always left to them, but as frustrating as it was you couldn't blame her, she was just playing the game.
Why didn't you 'play the game' and replace her with someone more flexible? She would never cover other staffs illness, holidays or do any extra over xmas or busy periods as she would lose her tax credits etc.
She earned around £8k a year from us and was topped up to £21k.
It was an issue with the other staff that she would never help out and it was always left to them, but as frustrating as it was you couldn't blame her, she was just playing the game.
slightlyoldgit said:
eccles said:
I think the other issue is that jobs are being offered to match the expectancy of you keeping your benefits.
In the last 12 months we've had a new McDonald's, a new Costa and a new Screwfix open up. 90% of the jobs offered were all on 16 or 20 hours a week which I believe is the threshold of hours worked that you get to keep your benefits. I think it was only the managers jobs and things like team leaders jobs that were on full time hours, and even then it was quite low money.
Until people get the chance to work full time, they'll always be reliant on being topped up by benefits.
Yes but you restructure the system to stop that and you can bet your bottom dollar those jobs would shift as well. They are only advertised like that as that is the only way they will get applicants for them. In the last 12 months we've had a new McDonald's, a new Costa and a new Screwfix open up. 90% of the jobs offered were all on 16 or 20 hours a week which I believe is the threshold of hours worked that you get to keep your benefits. I think it was only the managers jobs and things like team leaders jobs that were on full time hours, and even then it was quite low money.
Until people get the chance to work full time, they'll always be reliant on being topped up by benefits.
If we structured the whole thing better we would have people in full time work and be handing out less cash and getting them on a ladder to perhaps show some initiative and progression into becoming those managers and supervisors, with more coming below them to do the lower paid roles and those above them eventually retiring etc etc.
Why can't the majority of the jobs be full time on a wage where you shouldn't need any benefits. I do appreciate that not everyone wants to work full time.
Our market town has just had a factory close down, and most of the workers there were on full time shifts, so in this particular case I could easily see them filling full time positions if they were offered.
eccles said:
I agree, but it does seem a chicken and egg situation.
Why can't the majority of the jobs be full time on a wage where you shouldn't need any benefits. I do appreciate that not everyone wants to work full time.
Our market town has just had a factory close down, and most of the workers there were on full time shifts, so in this particular case I could easily see them filling full time positions if they were offered.
I suspect that if you look at a lot of industries the days of the "9-5" or traditional "8 hour shift" might be changing.Why can't the majority of the jobs be full time on a wage where you shouldn't need any benefits. I do appreciate that not everyone wants to work full time.
Our market town has just had a factory close down, and most of the workers there were on full time shifts, so in this particular case I could easily see them filling full time positions if they were offered.
Look at what people expect from stores and businesses and I don't know if it always lends itself to that traditional model.
Fully get that's a totally different thing to almost having to structure roles to "fit in" around possible benefits entitlements.
slightlyoldgit said:
There will be areas of the UK I suspect around other major city locations as well - a well structured affordable housing policy is a must of course it is and I did mean it overall and not just for London.
In fact if there was a push towards that and the reduction of actual handouts - I suspect it could even be relatively cost neutral. The issue is it would mean taking away the actual cash handouts and there would be uproar from the left.
Council houses were built for a reason. Most villages have a street or two, aimed at agricultural workers, who were never well paid, but needed all the same. Now a lot of HA houses are taken by London Boroughs which don't have enough capacity of their own (so I'm told). In fact if there was a push towards that and the reduction of actual handouts - I suspect it could even be relatively cost neutral. The issue is it would mean taking away the actual cash handouts and there would be uproar from the left.
The difference now to when I first learnt about in-work benefits in the late 70s is that then wages would increase, and the person would soon be earning enough to be off benefits. It was a stepping stone to getting a job for people with a fammily. Now, with minimal wage rises, people are on them indef. Whether that benefits the claimant or supports the landlords and employers, and help maintain low inflation is a thread in itself.
(apols if already said, not had time to keep up).
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:eccles said:
I agree, but it does seem a chicken and egg situation.
Why can't the majority of the jobs be full time on a wage where you shouldn't need any benefits. I do appreciate that not everyone wants to work full time.
Our market town has just had a factory close down, and most of the workers there were on full time shifts, so in this particular case I could easily see them filling full time positions if they were offered.
I suspect that if you look at a lot of industries the days of the "9-5" or traditional "8 hour shift" might be changing.Why can't the majority of the jobs be full time on a wage where you shouldn't need any benefits. I do appreciate that not everyone wants to work full time.
Our market town has just had a factory close down, and most of the workers there were on full time shifts, so in this particular case I could easily see them filling full time positions if they were offered.
Look at what people expect from stores and businesses and I don't know if it always lends itself to that traditional model.
Fully get that's a totally different thing to almost having to structure roles to "fit in" around possible benefits entitlements.
Sticks. said:
slightlyoldgit said:
There will be areas of the UK I suspect around other major city locations as well - a well structured affordable housing policy is a must of course it is and I did mean it overall and not just for London.
In fact if there was a push towards that and the reduction of actual handouts - I suspect it could even be relatively cost neutral. The issue is it would mean taking away the actual cash handouts and there would be uproar from the left.
Council houses were built for a reason. Most villages have a street or two, aimed at agricultural workers, who were never well paid, but needed all the same. Now a lot of HA houses are taken by London Boroughs which don't have enough capacity of their own (so I'm told). In fact if there was a push towards that and the reduction of actual handouts - I suspect it could even be relatively cost neutral. The issue is it would mean taking away the actual cash handouts and there would be uproar from the left.
The difference now to when I first learnt about in-work benefits in the late 70s is that then wages would increase, and the person would soon be earning enough to be off benefits. It was a stepping stone to getting a job for people with a fammily. Now, with minimal wage rises, people are on them indef. Whether that benefits the claimant or supports the landlords and employers, and help maintain low inflation is a thread in itself.
(apols if already said, not had time to keep up).
There seems to be in some quarters this assumption that you should simply be able to stay in one job and your yearly wage increase in that job should lift you out of the position you are in.
To me - that is not how it should work at all - you lift yourself out of that (if that is what you want) by doing more, gaining more skills and progressing.
The average wage for those in full time work in the UK now is as near as dammit makes no difference £30k a year. So you might start out on that £2k a month between you in minimum wage jobs one of you full and one of you part time. However, if you both progress over time and it would be more than reasonable to see that same family with a combined household income of £3,500 a month or more before their children are teenagers.
eccles said:
I'm pretty sure the factory that shut down ran early and late shifts, until 10 at night. The McDonald's is 24hr as is the Costa and Screwfix are open long hours. Surely if businesses are open longer you can offer more 8hr shifts ?
I think a lot of businesses would say they benefit from not having staff around for 8 hours at a time.I'm pretty sure I've read articles about how the likes of McDonalds will plan shifts so they have cover exactly when they need it and if I'm honest I suspect if I were an employer I'd probably prefer not to have the "risk" of too many people guaranteed to be on 8 hour shifts.
I'm not saying it's right simply that if you took away benefits tomorrow I'm not sure employers would be rushing out to offer full/longer shifts.
slightlyoldgit said:
There is missing bit there though - someone coming in on the bottom of the ladder early on in life might have to rely on assistance and some subsidy, especially if the have a family at that earlier point. The object of the exercise though is to better yourself, gain promotion, do more and therefore increase your lot in life.
There seems to be in some quarters this assumption that you should simply be able to stay in one job and your yearly wage increase in that job should lift you out of the position you are in.
To me - that is not how it should work at all - you lift yourself out of that (if that is what you want) by doing more, gaining more skills and progressing.
The average wage for those in full time work in the UK now is as near as dammit makes no difference £30k a year. So you might start out on that £2k a month between you in minimum wage jobs one of you full and one of you part time. However, if you both progress over time and it would be more than reasonable to see that same family with a combined household income of £3,500 a month or more before their children are teenagers.
For a lot of people, getting off a zero hours contract is progress, a career progression is just not realistic. There seems to be in some quarters this assumption that you should simply be able to stay in one job and your yearly wage increase in that job should lift you out of the position you are in.
To me - that is not how it should work at all - you lift yourself out of that (if that is what you want) by doing more, gaining more skills and progressing.
The average wage for those in full time work in the UK now is as near as dammit makes no difference £30k a year. So you might start out on that £2k a month between you in minimum wage jobs one of you full and one of you part time. However, if you both progress over time and it would be more than reasonable to see that same family with a combined household income of £3,500 a month or more before their children are teenagers.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:eccles said:
I'm pretty sure the factory that shut down ran early and late shifts, until 10 at night. The McDonald's is 24hr as is the Costa and Screwfix are open long hours. Surely if businesses are open longer you can offer more 8hr shifts ?
I think a lot of businesses would say they benefit from not having staff around for 8 hours at a time.I'm pretty sure I've read articles about how the likes of McDonalds will plan shifts so they have cover exactly when they need it and if I'm honest I suspect if I were an employer I'd probably prefer not to have the "risk" of too many people guaranteed to be on 8 hour shifts.
I'm not saying it's right simply that if you took away benefits tomorrow I'm not sure employers would be rushing out to offer full/longer shifts.
He has also said he would much rather have fewer staff numbers and have them working 40 hour weeks, on shifts and in rotas and even paying some overtime. As he knows he would have less churn, be more comfortable knowing his staff are better skilled and experienced and more invested in the business. On top of that he would be far happier in training them up and moving them on to shift supervisors etc. All of which would help his business and those staff to become better and more productive and progress.
But whilst it is all 16-20 hour week folks, he gets a lot of churn and has to maintain over double the actual staff numbers than he would do with full time workers, which is a business overhead for him.
Sticks. said:
For a lot of people, getting off a zero hours contract is progress, a career progression is just not realistic.
And there are thousands of jobs that are not on those as well - an exception does not make a rule. So do your zero hour contract to get some experience and then move on somewhere that does not operate like that based on that experience you gained. slightlyoldgit said:
Sticks. said:
For a lot of people, getting off a zero hours contract is progress, a career progression is just not realistic.
And there are thousands of jobs that are not on those as well - an exception does not make a rule. So do your zero hour contract to get some experience and then move on somewhere that does not operate like that based on that experience you gained. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff