Dontlookbehindyou Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Why should civil servants get any more? what do they do to justify more pay? Who says they should get paid more than a manual worker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manx driver Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 so its ok for a small factory in Ramsey to pay the minimum wage with no holiday pay or sick pay with the answer if we pay holiday pay we will go bust and so to the plans for a bignew factory in the north on 3 sites which have now been withdrawn could it be that after all the workers who were paid off due to no work and had to take the company for unfair dissmisal and they settled out of court did the DTI suddenly think hang on this is not a good company and withdrew the grants so now they are gone So is this the class of emloyers the IOM want ? Downey said he had no complaints but the ones who went to the industrial relations have not been offered the jobs back And whilst i think of it how much of the grants to KYCOS have been paid back answers please DTI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spatula girl Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Is there anyone on here who gets £5.50 an hour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gonzo Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Is there anyone on here who gets £5.50 an hour? £5.25 in one of my jobs. If that was my full-time post (and there are plenty of people for whom it is) that's £220 a week before tax and NI and gas and electricity and rent. Just over £110 a week rent. A 40% rise might be optimistic, but given the huge hikes in energy cost, that doesn't leave much for - say - new glasses, a car, the odd night out, an internet connection, mobile phone, laundry, and all the rest of life's little luxuries. I might add it's bloody hard work for what I earn - even if it is rewarding - given that advocates fees are about to rise to £100 an hour in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Its a base rate, not a nice average rate, a base rate, an absolute minimum. As for the Tory pop, you are way off the mark, its economics, and common sense. Common sense ? How does that one work ? If higher salaries result in rising unemployment is it also common sense the opposite is true ? Maybe someone should tell India where low pay and high unemployment seem to go hand in hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobe Posted January 7, 2006 Author Share Posted January 7, 2006 I'm not sure how relevant a third world countries data is to this topic, but, according to the united nations statistics, in the past 23 years Indias employment has increased by 21%, however, their population has increased by 58%, hence their problems. They haven't lost jobs, they gained them. But still, comparison to them seems tenuous. United Nations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 There is something fundamentally wrong with a business that needs the input of more people than it can afford to pay a basic living wage to. Either, there isn't a real demand for whatever is being produced or sold, or the end users are not paying enough for the thing involved. Seems very simple to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Yeah? I'll take a guess you're not in business then. You don't just start a business and watch the cash roll in you know, it takes work and cash flow is never steady, there's always troughs and falls. As a small business owner I don't agree with any minimum wage being set, least of all one at over £7 per hour. Often I don't even earn that myself during quiet periods. It's business owners who make the world go round, setting a mimimum wage like that would just crush many, and force others to lay off staff. No-one is forced to work for a low wage, if they want more £ they can work their way up, get more qualifications etc. As has been pointed out, the mimimum wage is exactly that - a minimum. The vast majority will be earning way over that. so its ok for a small factory in Ramsey to pay the minimum wage with no holiday pay or sick pay with the answer if we pay holiday pay we will go bust Yes. No-one HAS to work for them. Better a factory paying rubbish wages than no factory at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 I take what you are saying Alex but I do actually understand the rudiments of commercial life having been involved in commercial enterprises for all of my working life. However, the fact remains that no-one should be expected to work at below a living wage; now where that may be set is a different exercise. But really, for a business owner to expect its staff to work for a pittance because the business can't support a proper level of remuneration just is not tenable. One of the risks of being an entrepreneur is that you do not achieve the profits you expected, but the other side of the coin is that you can participate in the profits if the business is successful; after all, it is your investment that has created the business. All well and good, in my book, but the staff should be properly remunerated for what they do and what they contribute to the overall business. If they are remunerated at the level the business can afford (and that is a very low wage) then, as I said before, the business is fundamentally flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Presumably the low paid staff can find better paid work elsewhere? What if the minumum wage is increased and they are then laid off by the business as it can't afford to pay them the higher rate. Are they now better off on the dole? I'd like to see everyone on a really good wage but some sectors can afford it and other sectors can't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dontlookbehindyou Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 I take what you are saying Alex but I do actually understand the rudiments of commercial life having been involved in commercial enterprises for all of my working life. However, the fact remains that no-one should be expected to work at below a living wage; now where that may be set is a different exercise. But really, for a business owner to expect its staff to work for a pittance because the business can't support a proper level of remuneration just is not tenable. One of the risks of being an entrepreneur is that you do not achieve the profits you expected, but the other side of the coin is that you can participate in the profits if the business is successful; after all, it is your investment that has created the business. All well and good, in my book, but the staff should be properly remunerated for what they do and what they contribute to the overall business. If they are remunerated at the level the business can afford (and that is a very low wage) then, as I said before, the business is fundamentally flawed. Glad to be back you are so right, unfortunately the Island lets people come over to work for low wages which doesn't help the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Presumably the low paid staff can find better paid work elsewhere? What if the minumum wage is increased and they are then laid off by the business as it can't afford to pay them the higher rate. Are they now better off on the dole? I'd like to see everyone on a really good wage but some sectors can afford it and other sectors can't I am not talking about everyone being on a high wage, just the basic living wage as a minimum and which reflects the level of contribution to the overall success of an enterprise. If a business really cannot afford to pay the staff it needs to operate a basic living wage (and I agree realistically setting that is difficult) then the business model doesn't stack up. Why should employees effectively be expected to subsidise a flawed business? Presumably, low paid staff cannot find better paid work elsewhere or they would be elsewhere, wouldn't you?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 If a business really cannot afford to pay the staff it needs to operate a basic living wage (and I agree realistically setting that is difficult) then the business model doesn't stack up. Why should employees effectively be expected to subsidise a flawed business? A business might be, say, 30 years old, and have operated sucessfully for the first 27 years. Things change, shit happens, and it might now be struggling in the current retail climate. Should it now decide to close and lay off all staff because it would struggle to pay some of them the 40% increase in minimum wage? Should it lay off just the staff that would be effected by the minimum wage increase? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Presumably, low paid staff cannot find better paid work elsewhere or they would be elsewhere, wouldn't you?! So are they better off being in work but low paid, or being laid off and maybe unemployable for a good while because they've "won" an increase in minimum wage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 TOG, my point is not whether the T&G have proposed a correct level of minimum wage, but that a minimum, living wage is right. Businesses shouldn't survive by paying their staff below a minimum , living wage. I am not against low pay in itself, because some jobs carry a low value to the business whereas others carry a higher value (and that is not just in terms of revenue generated by that post, but other values such as posts which limit the downside of commerce, normally called overhead positions). But I do believe there should be a safety net minimum, living wage and if a business cannot pay that, then is the job necessary for the continued success of the business? If it is, then it deserves to commensurately remunerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.