UK: Rise in living wage may have to wait, say small firms - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Forthcoming rises to the National Living Wage mayneed to be delayed because of uncertain growth in the economy, small businesses have said. The wage is currently scheduled to rise to £8.75 an hour by 2020. But the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) said that target may have to be reconsidered, following a string of poor economic data. As a result, it said the National Living Wage (NLW) should rise from £7.50 an hour to no more than £7.85 next year.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40824937[/url] Not sure if this constitutes being in poldicks or not?

I mean considering the fact many businesses in Britain abuse their employees through zero hour contracts I'm not surprised.

[QUOTE=Thomo;52538861]I'd like it if they also scrapped the stupid age wage-band thing also. Being over 18 but under 25 and I can be payed 45 pence less just because of my age? What kind of shit is that.[/QUOTE] It's an incentive to have jobs employ young people. - Kind of valid (The goverment should pay the remains, yeah aint gonna happen) It's an incentive to keep young people in education. - keeps the NEET numbers down that way. It's because young people are 'inexperienced' and require training to get up to par with older staff members. - Because you need to be a rocket scientist to put stuff on shelves. Utter bollocks. Anyway thats the excuse they had when i fell within the 18 - 25 age bracket. More or less certain it's still the same.

Doesn't even get better as you get older, because you just stop getting hired for most min-wage jobs. Why would they employ me when they can employ someone 2 years younger so they can pay them less.

It's a shame that businesses can't wait. Because real, actual people who get cold and hungry can't wait any longer as their real-terms wages fall off a cliff. Something's gotta give.

[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;52538996]It's an incentive to have jobs employ young people. - Kind of valid (The goverment should pay the remains, yeah aint gonna happen) It's an incentive to keep young people in education. - keeps the NEET numbers down that way. It's because young people are 'inexperienced' and require training to get up to par with older staff members. - Because you need to be a rocket scientist to put stuff on shelves. Utter bollocks. Anyway thats the excuse they had when i fell within the 18 - 25 age bracket. More or less certain it's still the same.[/QUOTE] thats absolute bullshit economics though, the more money you can get into the younger generation's hands, the more they are likely to be secure later on. they wonder why growth is sluggish and consumer demands are down well, the largest upcoming spenders have no money because nobody's paying them fairly

I used to work for a "small business" at £2.79 an hour (apprenticeship wage). I was there practically every day, often running the place by myself whilst the owners went out for bike rides and shopping trips. I would take home £80 a week for both me and my partner to live on. My boss often told me that small businesses wouldn't afford to run if they had to pay their employees a higher wage. At the time I thought he was right, but now I think that if a business will not pay their employees a [I]living[/I] wage, they do not deserve to be in business. They let me go the day my apprenticeship ended, after 2 years of dedicated work and promises of a manager position. Minimum wage for me back then would have been about £3 more.

[QUOTE=Vault Hunter;52540131]I used to work for a "small business" at £2.79 an hour (apprenticeship wage). I was there practically every day, often running the place by myself whilst the owners went out for bike rides and shopping trips. I would take home £80 a week for both me and my partner to live on. My boss often told me that small businesses wouldn't afford to run if they had to pay their employees a higher wage. At the time I thought he was right, but now I think that if a business will not pay their employees a [I]living[/I] wage, they do not deserve to be in business. They let me go the day my apprenticeship ended, after 2 years of dedicated work and promises of a manager position. Minimum wage for me back then would have been about £3 more.[/QUOTE] There's a lot of businesses that seem to [URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/subway-apprentice-sandwich-artists-pay-350-hour-minimum-wage-gateshead-branch-a7640066.html"]abuse apprenticeships to just get employees for low cost[/URL]. The government should really crack down on that kind of shit.

[QUOTE=Sableye;52539722]thats absolute bullshit economics though, the more money you can get into the younger generation's hands, the more they are likely to be secure later on. they wonder why growth is sluggish and consumer demands are down well, the largest upcoming spenders have no money because nobody's paying them fairly[/QUOTE] Ah but you see you made the mistake there of thinking the goverment gives a flying fuck about the youth.

[QUOTE=Morgen;52540197]There's a lot of businesses that seem to [URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/subway-apprentice-sandwich-artists-pay-350-hour-minimum-wage-gateshead-branch-a7640066.html"]abuse apprenticeships to just get employees for low cost[/URL]. The government should really crack down on that kind of shit.[/QUOTE] It's fucking terrible. I remember seeing [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/subway-apprentice-sandwich-artists-pay-350-hour-minimum-wage-gateshead-branch-a7640066.html]'apprentice sandwich artists'[/url] advertised at subway a few months ago. £3.50 an hour. Atrocious.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;52540508]It's fucking terrible. I remember seeing [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/subway-apprentice-sandwich-artists-pay-350-hour-minimum-wage-gateshead-branch-a7640066.html]'apprentice sandwich artists'[/url] advertised at subway a few months ago. £3.50 an hour. Atrocious.[/QUOTE] Subway is fucking terrible for shit like this. The branch 'round where I live used to be [i] amazing[/i]. Then whoever manages the branch discovered apprenticeship abuse. Now they have a staff turnover every 3 months. They hire a group of newbies that can't make a sandwich properly, keep them on for the probational half pay trainee period, fire them all- rinse repeat. They get to pay their staff half of what they should, their sandwiches are terrible falling to pieces mess because the staff are always new to making them, and every three months there's another group of young people out of work and disqualified from claiming JSA with absolutely no income for another 6 months. It makes Job searching even more stressful than it already is. Now not only are jobs few and far between but job security is basically non-existent. How do I know i'm not jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire each time I apply for some shit job?

great things conglomerations of the owners of "small firms" don't run the country :)!

[QUOTE=Vault Hunter;52540131]but now I think that if a business will not pay their employees a [I]living[/I] wage, they do not deserve to be in business.[/QUOTE] It's better to get the economic benefit of someone having worked and them having received wages for their work, than to not receive the benefit of their work and still have to fund their living anyway by having everyone else pay for them through welfare. The latter case leaves the unemployed person feeling bad that they didn't get the chance to earn their money, the taxpayer feeling bad because they have less money because they have to pay more money in taxes to cover the bill, and the people who would receive the service/product of the person who would otherwise be employed do not get that any more. I don't know what the solution is. Remove minimum wage altogether and implement basic income? The idea is that you're guaranteed a set income per week regardless of whether you work or not, but if you do work, you don't need to worry about it leaving you worse off if it ends up paying less than you would receive on something like jobseekers allowance. If you're guaranteed 100 a week (as an example) and you find a job that pays 80 a week, you still get 100 a week, but now the government only has to foot you 20 pounds and we get the benefit of your labour. You can even scale it a bit so that maybe the government pays you 50 even though you make 80 and 20 would put you at the basic level, the extra 30 is incentive for having worked.

[QUOTE=Riutet;52540741]It's better to get the economic benefit of someone having worked and them having received wages for their work, than to not receive the benefit of their work and still have to fund their living anyway by having everyone else pay for them through welfare.[/QUOTE] Paying people below a living wage still means they will need welfare to survive. In the UK our government effectively subsidises supermarkets like TESCO by something ridiculous like £11 billion a year. They don't pay their workers enough so the government picks up the slack with income support, effectively paying their workers for them.

[QUOTE=fulgrim;52540767]Paying people below a living wage still means they will need welfare to survive. In the UK our government effectively subsidises supermarkets like TESCO by something ridiculous like £11 billion a year. They don't pay their workers enough so the government picks up the slack with income support, effectively paying their workers for them.[/QUOTE] It's better to have someone be paid less than the living wage and having to pick up the slack, than having to pickup 100 percent of the slack because they are not in work.

[QUOTE=Riutet;52540879]It's better to have someone be paid less than the living wage and having to pick up the slack, than having to pickup 100 percent of the slack because they are not in work.[/QUOTE] source? anything to back this up?

[QUOTE=Riutet;52540879]It's better to have someone be paid less than the living wage and having to pick up the slack, than having to pickup 100 percent of the slack because they are not in work.[/QUOTE] Or these companies which pull in record profits year over year could pay their employees fairly, bolstering the economy and earning them even more money in the long run. No, just don't pay anyone anything and wonder why the economy is in a perpetual slump, demand higher prices for everything, and blame your customers when they can't afford your price inflated shit. Apparently many business owners would rather be the king of shit mountain than just a powerful member of a thriving country.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52540884]source? anything to back this up?[/QUOTE] Well, it's the logic behind the working tax credit system. We'll know if it's true or not if they scrap the system and raise the minimum wage. I lean towards it being true. But I can see the potential flaws.

[QUOTE=Riutet;52540911]Well, it's the logic behind the working tax credit system. We'll know if it's true or not if they scrap the system and raise the minimum wage. I lean towards it being true. But I can see the potential flaws.[/QUOTE] There is no direct pressure to destroy or keep the Tax Credit system regardless of how well it works because it is a government system. From how the conservatives are act, I am sure failure of that system would not see it get removed.

-snip-

If you can't afford to pay your staff a decent living wage, then don't take staff on. No brainer.

I don't see why we should be listening to what businesses say they're comfortable paying employees when the MINIMUM restriction is there because they'd pay less if they could. Most of these companies expect their employees to "go the extra mile for them" while they continue to pay them the very least they are legally obligated to, perhaps while abusing apprenticeship workers and zero hour contract workers as well. Why should all the graft be on the worker while the employer gets to fuck about and consistently devalue the worker's time?

[QUOTE=fulgrim;52540646]Subway is fucking terrible for shit like this. The branch 'round where I live used to be [i] amazing[/i]. Then whoever manages the branch discovered apprenticeship abuse. Now they have a staff turnover every 3 months. They hire a group of newbies that can't make a sandwich properly, keep them on for the probational half pay trainee period, fire them all- rinse repeat. They get to pay their staff half of what they should, their sandwiches are terrible falling to pieces mess because the staff are always new to making them, and every three months there's another group of young people out of work and disqualified from claiming JSA with absolutely no income for another 6 months. It makes Job searching even more stressful than it already is. Now not only are jobs few and far between but job security is basically non-existent. How do I know i'm not jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire each time I apply for some shit job?[/QUOTE] The Subway next door to my work has new staff in probably every few weeks because they can't stand working there for such shit pay. Just last night one of the lads came in and told me that one of the girls who'd been there a month just walked out never to return, leaving him on his own for hours and having to stay late to catch up.

It's really shameful to read news like this. Our company is a small one which i'm leaving at the end of the month because of turning 25 and being fed up with the job being seen as a "stepping stone". This stone has been keeping me job secure for 6 years, never been interested in law as a career & applied for positions only in other departments because I don't like being a manager (or managed) and didn't like the phones. Our company reports profits year on year ranging from 5 to 10% per year but only offer 1% pay increases. I could totally understand when they took me on in 2011 but now in 2017 my job position is already obsolete, they now only hire apprentices to my position whom they pay a pittance. Not sure how they afford their cars, can only imagine it's from being subsidised by their parents. I sold mine so I could afford to have Fridays off work & because I figured all the useful experience had been gained from my job. If companies decide that 25 year olds don't deserve the higher pay, then it's going to show up in unemployment rates eventually.