Rant! Big businesses getting away with paying low wages...
Discussion
.... Must be said 1000s of times a day but I needed to get it off my chest.
I'm blessed enough to own my own home and well as a rental property. This is down to inheritance- I lost my dad 3 years ago. My parents weren't wealthy either. They inherited most of that money themselves as my grandparents never spent a penny in their life. They just saved and saved and saved...
Anyhow, due to above circumstances, I am asset rich but cash poor. My rental income was never amazing as covid hit when I invested the money but has enabled us to keep our heads above water (we're a family of four).
I work for Sainsbury's as a driver. Get paid £10.25 an hour for hard graft- lifting heavy shopping all day everyday. It's not the worst job in the world don't get me wrong, but it's my co-workers I feel for. None of them know my financial position of course, and I obviously never intend to tell them.
They work equally hard for relative pennies- our wage represents a lot of the UK workforce. How on earth are you meant to live as a family of 4 on that? We're ok- thank god- because of what I own but I feel for the 99% of people out there on that wage having to pay Rent/Mortgage/ Bills etc... And what about going on holiday, or any other luxury? Forget it...
It's wrong on so many levels- I wish wages reflected the cost of living. To think we're the lucky ones- it gets far worse if you live in 3rd world countries.
I'm blessed enough to own my own home and well as a rental property. This is down to inheritance- I lost my dad 3 years ago. My parents weren't wealthy either. They inherited most of that money themselves as my grandparents never spent a penny in their life. They just saved and saved and saved...
Anyhow, due to above circumstances, I am asset rich but cash poor. My rental income was never amazing as covid hit when I invested the money but has enabled us to keep our heads above water (we're a family of four).
I work for Sainsbury's as a driver. Get paid £10.25 an hour for hard graft- lifting heavy shopping all day everyday. It's not the worst job in the world don't get me wrong, but it's my co-workers I feel for. None of them know my financial position of course, and I obviously never intend to tell them.
They work equally hard for relative pennies- our wage represents a lot of the UK workforce. How on earth are you meant to live as a family of 4 on that? We're ok- thank god- because of what I own but I feel for the 99% of people out there on that wage having to pay Rent/Mortgage/ Bills etc... And what about going on holiday, or any other luxury? Forget it...
It's wrong on so many levels- I wish wages reflected the cost of living. To think we're the lucky ones- it gets far worse if you live in 3rd world countries.
In 2004 the NHS introduced its new pay and conditions package, Agenda for Change. I was quite involved in this as a mid ranking union rep, and worked in particular on its implementation in my own area, the blood service.
I had it on good authority that at one point there had to be a hurried re-evaluation of pay scales when negotiators on both sides realised that the bottom of the lowest pay band actually started below the national minimum wage.
I had it on good authority that at one point there had to be a hurried re-evaluation of pay scales when negotiators on both sides realised that the bottom of the lowest pay band actually started below the national minimum wage.
It's a tricky one. If jobs are being filled at the rates offered, then the correct rate is being paid for the job.
Aspirations are different now though aren't they? When I was a nipper my mum & dad were workers. Back in those days most people didn't have a car. I'd never been to a restaurant with my parents until I was grown up. We borrowed my grandad's car for a two week holiday in his caravan at Caister.
There was no central heating or carpets.
People these days (rightly) expect better. As you say OP, much of the world would give their eye teeth to have the comforts we take for granted.
Aspirations are different now though aren't they? When I was a nipper my mum & dad were workers. Back in those days most people didn't have a car. I'd never been to a restaurant with my parents until I was grown up. We borrowed my grandad's car for a two week holiday in his caravan at Caister.
There was no central heating or carpets.
People these days (rightly) expect better. As you say OP, much of the world would give their eye teeth to have the comforts we take for granted.
Sadly it's the way of the world.
If there are lots of workers for the same job the wages will traditionally be low, if there aren't they will be higher.
From unskilled to highly specialised work there will be a massive different in pay scales.
There is no need for a university degree to do well. Either have a good idea and sell it or learn a trade.
Good quality tradesman are difficult to find and booked for months. A lot of young workers would be better to learn a trade and although it would be hard to begin with, it would give them independence and a skill that could be valuable going forward.
The wages are set at the skill and availability of workers.
Yes, come companies are good to work for and pay above the industry standard and that's great when the company is doing well but if the company struggles then being locked in to higher than standard wages can the fall of the business.
Maybe a yearly bonus tied in to company performance to share over the the workers?
If there are lots of workers for the same job the wages will traditionally be low, if there aren't they will be higher.
From unskilled to highly specialised work there will be a massive different in pay scales.
There is no need for a university degree to do well. Either have a good idea and sell it or learn a trade.
Good quality tradesman are difficult to find and booked for months. A lot of young workers would be better to learn a trade and although it would be hard to begin with, it would give them independence and a skill that could be valuable going forward.
The wages are set at the skill and availability of workers.
Yes, come companies are good to work for and pay above the industry standard and that's great when the company is doing well but if the company struggles then being locked in to higher than standard wages can the fall of the business.
Maybe a yearly bonus tied in to company performance to share over the the workers?
Far from wealthy myself but I do earn above the national average wage just to put my position across before I comment.
The issue I see is that if wages were to go up across the board then the long term issue is the price of everyrhing also goes up to c9ver the increased cost therefore the wage increase.is eaten up by the price increase.
I'm not saying it's right or fair but I dont know what the solution is in the end, also as the poster above states people now expect much more than they did 30-40 years ago at all levels in terms of the cars they own, the houses they live in, the consumer goods etc.
The issue I see is that if wages were to go up across the board then the long term issue is the price of everyrhing also goes up to c9ver the increased cost therefore the wage increase.is eaten up by the price increase.
I'm not saying it's right or fair but I dont know what the solution is in the end, also as the poster above states people now expect much more than they did 30-40 years ago at all levels in terms of the cars they own, the houses they live in, the consumer goods etc.
Most low paid workers, or at least those with kids, don't mind the low pay and actively seek to limit the number of hours they work anyway because their wages are so generously "topped up" with child Tax Credits/Universal Credit.
It's mostly the full time average/middle earners that are subsidising the low paying big businesses and their low paid, part time (through choice) workers.
It's mostly the full time average/middle earners that are subsidising the low paying big businesses and their low paid, part time (through choice) workers.
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
It's a tricky one. If jobs are being filled at the rates offered, then the correct rate is being paid for the job.
Aspirations are different now though aren't they? When I was a nipper my mum & dad were workers. Back in those days most people didn't have a car. I'd never been to a restaurant with my parents until I was grown up. We borrowed my grandad's car for a two week holiday in his caravan at Caister.
There was no central heating or carpets.
People these days (rightly) expect better. As you say OP, much of the world would give their eye teeth to have the comforts we take for granted.
OT: One week holiday in a caravan in Caister with Mum and Aunt. Saw The Barron Knights at some theatre. Best holiday!Aspirations are different now though aren't they? When I was a nipper my mum & dad were workers. Back in those days most people didn't have a car. I'd never been to a restaurant with my parents until I was grown up. We borrowed my grandad's car for a two week holiday in his caravan at Caister.
There was no central heating or carpets.
People these days (rightly) expect better. As you say OP, much of the world would give their eye teeth to have the comforts we take for granted.
It is tricky. There will always (well until robots take over) be the need for unskilled labour. Yes, £10.25/hour is buttons but if you make it £15/hour then those on £15/hour equivalent and more skilled will (rightly) want an increase. Cue inflation and nobody is better off. I think "it's about differentials innit" was a common cry in the 1970's when the domino effect rippled upwards. Apologies for the tortuous metaphor!
mike74 said:
Most low paid workers, or at least those with kids, don't mind the low pay and actively seek to limit the number of hours they work anyway because their wages are so generously "topped up" with child Tax Credits/Universal Credit.
It's mostly the full time average/middle earners that are subsidising the low paying big businesses and their low paid, part time (through choice) workers.
Aa above. Employers and government have made a deal. Employers get to pay low and government tops up materially if worker has kids.It's mostly the full time average/middle earners that are subsidising the low paying big businesses and their low paid, part time (through choice) workers.
hyphen said:
mike74 said:
Most low paid workers, or at least those with kids, don't mind the low pay and actively seek to limit the number of hours they work anyway because their wages are so generously "topped up" with child Tax Credits/Universal Credit.
It's mostly the full time average/middle earners that are subsidising the low paying big businesses and their low paid, part time (through choice) workers.
It's mostly the full time average/middle earners that are subsidising the low paying big businesses and their low paid, part time (through choice) workers.
As I say I'm not overly bothered as it's temporary job- I'll be teaching very soon.
It's more about the poor sods I work with. Yes, you could argue most accept it so why is there a need to pay them more?
It's still wrong somehow though- is a CEO working so much harder for his wage, really?
Instead of the high turnover of the staff these places have why doesn't the CEO discuss a better way of retaining their staff in the boardroom? Everybody is pissed off due mostly to the fact that they feel forgotten, and I get why- just pisses me off that these guys get paid so much for seemingly making very little to no difference to their workforce.
It's more about the poor sods I work with. Yes, you could argue most accept it so why is there a need to pay them more?
It's still wrong somehow though- is a CEO working so much harder for his wage, really?
Instead of the high turnover of the staff these places have why doesn't the CEO discuss a better way of retaining their staff in the boardroom? Everybody is pissed off due mostly to the fact that they feel forgotten, and I get why- just pisses me off that these guys get paid so much for seemingly making very little to no difference to their workforce.
Jamescrs said:
Far from wealthy myself but I do earn above the national average wage just to put my position across before I comment.
The issue I see is that if wages were to go up across the board then the long term issue is the price of everyrhing also goes up to c9ver the increased cost therefore the wage increase.is eaten up by the price increase.
I'm not saying it's right or fair but I dont know what the solution is in the end, also as the poster above states people now expect much more than they did 30-40 years ago at all levels in terms of the cars they own, the houses they live in, the consumer goods etc.
technically with the UK being out of Europe, the UK government could if it so wishes subsidise certain industries or business sectors to allow both higher wages for those at the bottom ( min wage) and cheaper prices for the consumers. Never going to happen though.The issue I see is that if wages were to go up across the board then the long term issue is the price of everyrhing also goes up to c9ver the increased cost therefore the wage increase.is eaten up by the price increase.
I'm not saying it's right or fair but I dont know what the solution is in the end, also as the poster above states people now expect much more than they did 30-40 years ago at all levels in terms of the cars they own, the houses they live in, the consumer goods etc.
Leicesterdave said:
As I say I'm not overly bothered as it's temporary job- I'll be teaching very soon.
It's more about the poor sods I work with. Yes, you could argue most accept it so why is there a need to pay them more?
It's still wrong somehow though- is a CEO working so much harder for his wage, really?
Instead of the high turnover of the staff these places have why doesn't the CEO discuss a better way of retaining their staff in the boardroom? Everybody is pissed off due mostly to the fact that they feel forgotten, and I get why- just pisses me off that these guys get paid so much for seemingly making very little to no difference to their workforce.
the CEO is paid more because he has to make big decisions about the strategy of the company that if he gets wrong could make the company bankrupt. However even in this scenario he'll have a warning about it and sort a decent redundancy package. At the lower level, the decisions you make are more frequent but rarely will the effect the overall business profitability unless you are in the habit of breaking the law.It's more about the poor sods I work with. Yes, you could argue most accept it so why is there a need to pay them more?
It's still wrong somehow though- is a CEO working so much harder for his wage, really?
Instead of the high turnover of the staff these places have why doesn't the CEO discuss a better way of retaining their staff in the boardroom? Everybody is pissed off due mostly to the fact that they feel forgotten, and I get why- just pisses me off that these guys get paid so much for seemingly making very little to no difference to their workforce.
You do however have to want to be a CEO, which means being visible and taking responsibility whilst at the same time managing the politics and ensuring that fault is placed elsewhere. Which is an Oxymoron.
The problem with this argument is looking at it from a micro level rather than macro.
If you take a worker on £10 an hour and increase this to £12.50 an hour, that seems on the face of it a modest rise. On the basis of an 8 hour working day, five days a week, that would increase their weekly wage from £400 to £500. Still modest but a meaningful increase and on the face of it, would cause little issue with the company.
But lets say that company employs 10,000 people all on £10 per hour. A £2.50 increase applied to all workers would cost that company and additional £1m a week or £52m a year. If that company makes, say £100m profit each year, that increase would cut their profit by over half. This would devalue their shares, investment revenue drops which makes it more difficult to invest in growth which can instead lead to shrinkage and staff lay-offs.
Or, to avoid this, they can add £2.50 to what they charge customers which then ultimately negates the rise in the first place.
That is a very over-simplistic example but hopefully you get the gist. And nor am I saying that the status quo is right. Wealth inequality is a massive issue but one countless economists and governments have yet to resolve.
My personal view is that there needs to be a reconfiguration of what determines a successful business. At present, growth is king - but does this mean that a business providing a good service making a decent profit year in year out is any less successful? In the above example, £48m is still a lot of money but when it has dropped from £100m the consensus thinking is that this is a huge failure.
And here lays the next paradox because if that worker on £10 an hour has savings or even some modest investments, there's a chance that some of that is invested in the company that employs him. So it is in his interests that the company makes £100m and not £48m because his return will be greater. So a case of 'bread today, jam tomorrow'. Problem is we want them both on the same day. Some need it on the same day.
If you take a worker on £10 an hour and increase this to £12.50 an hour, that seems on the face of it a modest rise. On the basis of an 8 hour working day, five days a week, that would increase their weekly wage from £400 to £500. Still modest but a meaningful increase and on the face of it, would cause little issue with the company.
But lets say that company employs 10,000 people all on £10 per hour. A £2.50 increase applied to all workers would cost that company and additional £1m a week or £52m a year. If that company makes, say £100m profit each year, that increase would cut their profit by over half. This would devalue their shares, investment revenue drops which makes it more difficult to invest in growth which can instead lead to shrinkage and staff lay-offs.
Or, to avoid this, they can add £2.50 to what they charge customers which then ultimately negates the rise in the first place.
That is a very over-simplistic example but hopefully you get the gist. And nor am I saying that the status quo is right. Wealth inequality is a massive issue but one countless economists and governments have yet to resolve.
My personal view is that there needs to be a reconfiguration of what determines a successful business. At present, growth is king - but does this mean that a business providing a good service making a decent profit year in year out is any less successful? In the above example, £48m is still a lot of money but when it has dropped from £100m the consensus thinking is that this is a huge failure.
And here lays the next paradox because if that worker on £10 an hour has savings or even some modest investments, there's a chance that some of that is invested in the company that employs him. So it is in his interests that the company makes £100m and not £48m because his return will be greater. So a case of 'bread today, jam tomorrow'. Problem is we want them both on the same day. Some need it on the same day.
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
It's a tricky one. If jobs are being filled at the rates offered, then the correct rate is being paid for the job.
Aspirations are different now though aren't they? When I was a nipper my mum & dad were workers. Back in those days most people didn't have a car. I'd never been to a restaurant with my parents until I was grown up. We borrowed my grandad's car for a two week holiday in his caravan at Caister.
There was no central heating or carpets.
People these days (rightly) expect better. As you say OP, much of the world would give their eye teeth to have the comforts we take for granted.
Maybe those jobs are being filled because people need to work regardless, and therefore have no choice but to accept low pay?Aspirations are different now though aren't they? When I was a nipper my mum & dad were workers. Back in those days most people didn't have a car. I'd never been to a restaurant with my parents until I was grown up. We borrowed my grandad's car for a two week holiday in his caravan at Caister.
There was no central heating or carpets.
People these days (rightly) expect better. As you say OP, much of the world would give their eye teeth to have the comforts we take for granted.
It doesn't mean that the rate is correct for the job. Employers (not all but most) have exploited employees by offering low wages for decades. Nothing has changed, apart from the introduction of the minimum wage, which has forced exploitative employers to pay a fairer wage.
Ok so £10.25 isn’t a great wage but it’s a start, say you work a 50 hour week and your other half brings in half as much that’s over £3,000 a month before tax. A family of 4 could easily cope on that income.
But the bigger question is what is the OP doing to better his position? To get to £15 an hour £20? When was the last time they applied for a promotion or a different job? Big business get away with it because they can and will reward loyal hard working employees who want to progress. There are plenty of stories of shop managers in supermarkets who started stacking the shelves or on the checkouts.
But the bigger question is what is the OP doing to better his position? To get to £15 an hour £20? When was the last time they applied for a promotion or a different job? Big business get away with it because they can and will reward loyal hard working employees who want to progress. There are plenty of stories of shop managers in supermarkets who started stacking the shelves or on the checkouts.
BoRED S2upid said:
Ok so £10.25 isn’t a great wage but it’s a start, say you work a 50 hour week and your other half brings in half as much that’s over £3,000 a month before tax. A family of 4 could easily cope on that income.
But the bigger question is what is the OP doing to better his position? To get to £15 an hour £20? When was the last time they applied for a promotion or a different job? Big business get away with it because they can and will reward loyal hard working employees who want to progress. There are plenty of stories of shop managers in supermarkets who started stacking the shelves or on the checkouts.
£3k won't go very far if both your children are under 5. But the bigger question is what is the OP doing to better his position? To get to £15 an hour £20? When was the last time they applied for a promotion or a different job? Big business get away with it because they can and will reward loyal hard working employees who want to progress. There are plenty of stories of shop managers in supermarkets who started stacking the shelves or on the checkouts.
Childcare costs will soak up an awful lot of that if both parents are working full time.
BoRED S2upid said:
But the bigger question is what is the OP doing to better his position?
I have a skill- I'm bilingual so can teach French for a living which is my next move. No stress, no commuting costs, no boss, and can work from anywhere for better money. I won't make crazy money but it'll be better. I value time and quality time over money. Saying that I have the luxury of being able to say that- as I own 2 houses outright. And still we need more!My other half works part time as we have 2 children to look after- we really aren't making much at all but still we complain, and I keep reminding myself how lucky we are.
Low pay is obviously something that will never change much- it's life I guess but as I say I feel for the people who have worked for years and years for such a low pay, have 35 years mortgages if they're lucky and little else. I know I'd find that demoralising but perhaps that's just me.
Paying someone more in that role, isnt going to make any meaningful difference to staff turnover.
Its not really a difficult job, all you need is a licence and to be relatively fit, and its not a job that young people particularly want to do, and for the majority of the employees, its just a stop gap.
Lets face it, its still a job that people look down on really, no one is leaving school wanting to make a career of delivering people shopping.
All you would really be doing by paying more is increasing the costs to the business for employing and training people to do the job.
I would think that the main reason that most people are in the role is because of covid, there are a few people who enjoy the job and want to work for companies they feel are good, and want to move up within that company, but realistically, people only do the job until they find somethign they think they want to do.
Its not really a difficult job, all you need is a licence and to be relatively fit, and its not a job that young people particularly want to do, and for the majority of the employees, its just a stop gap.
Lets face it, its still a job that people look down on really, no one is leaving school wanting to make a career of delivering people shopping.
All you would really be doing by paying more is increasing the costs to the business for employing and training people to do the job.
I would think that the main reason that most people are in the role is because of covid, there are a few people who enjoy the job and want to work for companies they feel are good, and want to move up within that company, but realistically, people only do the job until they find somethign they think they want to do.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff