[GAZBEROTTEN]

I think people are missing the point raised about corporations making billions of profit after paying wages bills etc. Its not like they cant take a few million of that and give there staff loyalty bonuses

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by GAZBEROTTEN

I think people are missing the point raised about corporations making billions of profit after paying wages bills etc. Its not like they cant take a few million of that and give there staff loyalty bonuses

1) Some companies do
2) It's not the company's money, it belongs to the Shareholders and often needs to be invested back into the business!

[dejongj]

Originally Posted by GAZBEROTTEN

I think people are missing the point raised about corporations making billions of profit after paying wages bills etc. Its not like they cant take a few million of that and give there staff loyalty bonuses

They could, if certain conditions were met/adhered to, but why would they have to?

Further more I doubt you have any idea how much of that "profit" is just available and waiting. Heck when I was in Pharma billions and billions were made, I worked for one of the big five in those days. However billions also were need to find that next active compound. To build up the pipeline to have other products available, it costs vast sums of money.

Or take a look at an organisation you must have read about. British Airways. Do you remember how much the strikes directly has costed that organisation? And actually still has an effect. I would not be surprised if you or someone else will say they could have avoided the strikes by giving in to the staff demands. Facts are it does costs and organisation a lot of money, together with the ash cloud costs that money has to come from somewhere. :thumbs:

[mitchec1]

I'd say a bigger problem that's holding the UK back is our attitude to work and the fact we still have the mentality that we're to good for certain jobs or industries and that the people doing these jobs must be stupid.


For myself the minimum wage is there as a safeguard against employers and I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush, but there are one's who'd try to pay nothing if they could get away with it.

[GAZBEROTTEN]

Originally Posted by mitchec1

I'd say a bigger problem that's holding the UK back is our attitude to work and the fact we still have the mentality that we're to good for certain jobs or industries and that the people doing these jobs must be stupid.


For myself the minimum wage is there as a safeguard against employers and I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush, but there are one's who'd try to pay nothing if they could get away with it.

Yes small ammounts of people do have an attitude to working but not everyone who is unemployed. Many people do not think they are to good to do the jobs its the low pay and no chance of having anything to show for there time working. People won't have a poor quality of life, working long hours for short pay that happend in the 80's we are now in the 2010's times have changed. The purpose of working is to be better off finacially and have something to show for your time working thats what employment is for.

Sadly because of low wages which does not bennefit anyone from working whatsoever is the reason why we have sky high unemployment. Increase those wages to respectable ammounts per week making people better off and you get unemployment dropping since people can actually benenfit from working.

Sadly that isnt the case and unless minimum wage is raised significantly then you will only see unemployment stay around or possibly get much worse. Working 16 to 24 hours per week doesnt leave you with much and a lot of temporary jobs eat up the jobs market that pay to low which in result means you are spending your life working with nothing to show for it and be in the exact same position as you had been before. Unless you are working 30-40 hours per week forget about having any decent quality of life.

Im not afraid to tell people how it really is in the jobs market

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by mitchec1

I'd say a bigger problem that's holding the UK back is our attitude to work and the fact we still have the mentality that we're to good for certain jobs or industries and that the people doing these jobs must be stupid.


For myself the minimum wage is there as a safeguard against employers and I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush, but there are one's who'd try to pay nothing if they could get away with it.

whilst i agree there is an attitude amongst some that certain jobs are beneath them , and one can see that clearly where service to the public is concerned,they are ,by and large, low status jobs and with them comes a certain amount of abuse from certain sections of that public.Its a bit of a chicken an egg situation but i would like to know how east Europeans , many of which do those jobs , feel about doing them.To them the pay is good but i wonder what they must think of the public's attitude to them

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by sidicks

To be fair to LGS (although he's still talking absolute rubbish) he is talking about bonuses as a percentage of salary, whereas you are talking about bonuses as a percentage of earnings (in the case of RBS).

Sidicks

speaks the fountain of good common senseI almost split myself laughing

All i was giving was an example of what could be done aiming bonuses from the bottom upwards, whether it be as a percentage of earnings or salary or whatever.Its the principle i am arguing about not how its done.I would like to see inequality decreased substantially with healthy bonuses paid from the bottom up, rather than just rewarding (to a completely unjustified extent) those at the top

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

speaks the fountain of good common senseI almost split myself laughing

All i was giving was an example of what could be done aiming bonuses from the bottom upwards, whether it be as a percentage of earnings or salary or whatever.Its the principle i am arguing about not how its done.I would like to see inequality decreased substantially with healthy bonuses paid from the bottom up, rather than just rewarding (to a completely unjustified extent) those at the top

When will you stop spouting this nonsense about 'unjustifiable' when you have absolutely zero knowledge of what is required for 99.9% of people involved...?

The other justification required is that of the employer / shareholder!

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by sidicks

When will you stop spouting this nonsense about 'unjustifiable' when you have absolutely zero knowledge of what is required for 99.9% of people involved...?

The other justification required is that of the employer / shareholder!

Ridiculous nonsense ? you just dont get it do you? you ignore the level of anger felt by the general public about all these completely unjustifiable bonuses, then you have the gall to pontificate about the lower paid and those on benefits.Your posts regarding them reek of condescension. The sheer notion of wanting to reduce benefits ,particularly at this time, would be offensive if it wasnt so laughable.The goal ,in fact , should be to increase pay for the lowest paid by whatever means possible and reduce inequality.That way we will have a society more at peace with itself.Of course at this time it may not be possible but it should be a long term goal for sure.In the short term what should be done is to introduce bonus taxes, that would get the public onside

[GAZBEROTTEN]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

Ridiculous nonsense ? you just dont get it do you? you ignore the level of anger felt by the general public about all these completely unjustifiable bonuses, then you have the gall to pontificate about the lower paid and those on benefits.Your posts regarding them reek of condescension. The sheer notion of wanting to reduce benefits ,particularly at this time, would be offensive if it wasnt so laughable.

Doesnt suprise me to be honnest. If thats his views let people see them im sure they will be laughing not just us two.

[Ed Selley]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

Ridiculous nonsense ? you just dont get it do you? you ignore the level of anger felt by the general public about all these completely unjustifiable bonuses, then you have the gall to pontificate about the lower paid and those on benefits.Your posts regarding them reek of condescension. The sheer notion of wanting to reduce benefits ,particularly at this time, would be offensive if it wasnt so laughable.The goal ,in fact , should be to increase pay for the lowest paid by whatever means possible and reduce inequality.That way we will have a society more at peace with itself.Of course at this time it may not be possible but it should be a long term goal for sure.In the short term what should be done is to introduce bonus taxes, that would get the public onside

And you fall hook, line and sinker for the facile "private sector= banks" argument made by the simple, for the simple. Making comparisons to a tiny number of people in a specific industry and judging everything else on that is completely pointless. You've been shown it is pointless, and yet you persist with the charmless zeal of a religious fundamentalist.

The minimum wage is worthwhile legislation but the effect it has on the value of a job in an absolute sense is slim to none.

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by Ed Selley

And you fall hook, line and sinker for the facile "private sector= banks" argument made by the simple, for the simple. Making comparisons to a tiny number of people in a specific industry and judging everything else on that is completely pointless. You've been shown it is pointless, and yet you persist with the charmless zeal of a religious fundamentalist.

The minimum wage is worthwhile legislation but the effect it has on the value of a ijob in an absolute sense is slim to none.

It mght suprise you but that tiny minority form part of our society and when their bonuses become public "the simple": as you so condascendingly refer them, feel a sense of outrage particularly when it involves banks who have been financially rescued by the tax payer , particularly when it involves shareholder value going down ,profits going down or loads of jobs being sacrificed on the alter of unjustifiable bonuses.
There cheers to the simple

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

Ridiculous nonsense ? you just dont get it do you? you ignore the level of anger felt by the general public about all these completely unjustifiable bonuses, then you have the gall to pontificate about the lower paid and those on benefits.

The public anger is predominantly ill-informed bitterness stirred up by the media and politicians looking for scapegoats to take away the focus on their own inadequacies.

They rightly resent the actions of a minority of high profile bankers but fail to acknowledge the remaining 99% who do a valuable and honest role.

Why don't the public complain about the bonuses / pay for sportsmen or celebrities ??

Originally Posted by la gran siete

Your posts regarding them reek of condescension. The sheer notion of wanting to reduce benefits ,particularly at this time, would be offensive if it wasnt so laughable.

The goal should be to make work pay - the best way of doing do would be to a) cap total benefits (as currently proposed) and b) increase the tax free allowance to ensure that a full time minimum wage job was exempt from Income tax.

Reducing total benefits will also reduce the upward pressure on rents making housing affordable for the poorest and reducing the scope for the taxpayer to subsidise greedy landlords....

Lower (employee) taxes for companies creating jobs could be offset by reducing benefits for those not willing to work helping to balance the books.

Originally Posted by la gran siete

In the short term what should be done is to introduce bonus taxes, that would get the public onside

As I keep reminding you, bonuses are already taxed!!

[Berties]

Lower (employee) taxes for companies creating jobs could be offset by reducing benefits for those not willing to work helping to balance the books.

That's already in place. You get £25? a week rather than £65 a week.

[Ed Selley]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

It mght suprise you but that tiny minority form part of our society and when their bonuses become public "the simple": as you so condascendingly refer them, feel a sense of outrage particularly when it involves banks who have been financially rescued by the tax payer , particularly when it involves shareholder value going down ,profits going down or loads of jobs being sacrificed on the alter of unjustifiable bonuses.
There cheers to the simple

And meanwhile, the rest of private sector seems to be subject to the same facile assumptions and childish abuse even though their conditions have nothing in common.

Nothing you've "suggested" (this requires me to consider your outpourings as suggestions which is stretching credibility but we'll let it ride) are remotely workable outside of a fractional number of companies. You bleat at others for generalising whilst yourself showing a total inability to comprehend that for most of the private sector, their job is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. There is no steamer trunk full of cash being hidden by the management, most companies aren't issuing bonuses at all at any level and they haven't the resources to pay vastly over the odds for people.

Your response is "but the banks....." every time. You've got no ideas at all that have any traction for the real world.

[GAZBEROTTEN]

Originally Posted by Ed Selley

And meanwhile, the rest of private sector seems to be subject to the same facile assumptions and childish abuse even though their conditions have nothing in common.

Nothing you've "suggested" (this requires me to consider your outpourings as suggestions which is stretching credibility but we'll let it ride) are remotely workable outside of a fractional number of companies. You bleat at others for generalising whilst yourself showing a total inability to comprehend that for most of the private sector, their job is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. There is no steamer trunk full of cash being hidden by the management, most companies aren't issuing bonuses at all at any level and they haven't the resources to pay vastly over the odds for people.

Your response is "but the banks....." every time. You've got no ideas at all that have any traction for the real world.

Why is it that the banks where caught over charging customers by charging them £35 at the time years back just to send them a letter threw the door that only cost £1.60 and that was being generous just for missing a direct debit payment even if it was one day late?. The Tonight Show with trevor mcdonnald exposed this and the banks lost a ton of money since they had to refund there customers all the charges they made often running into hundreads if not thousands of pounds with persons missing a few direct debits that where slightly late over the years. The banks are far from innocent and because of them pulling that stunt god knows what else they pulled that we have not yet found out about.

La Gran Siete has a point it is the banks being bailed out by the tax payer because of there own greed.

You can post that picture again i really dont care because no one forces you to read my posts either.

[Ed Selley]

Originally Posted by GAZBEROTTEN

Why is it that the banks where caught over charging customers by charging them £35 at the time years back just to send them a letter threw the door that only cost £1.60 and that was being generous just for missing a direct debit payment even if it was one day late?. The Tonight Show with trevor mcdonnald exposed this and the banks lost a ton of money since they had to refund there customers all the charges they made often running into hundreads if not thousands of pounds with persons missing a few direct debits that where slightly late over the years. The banks are far from innocent and because of them pulling that stunt god knows what else they pulled that we have not yet found out about.

La Gran Siete has a point it is the banks being bailed out by the tax payer because of there own greed.

You can post that picture again i really dont care because no one forces you to read my posts either.

I'll tell you what, I'll forgo posting Terry again if you can provide any cogent response to what I actually wrote. I'll give you a big clue- what I wrote isn't actually much (anything really) to do with banks. This thread is notionally about the minimum wage- what I wrote relates to that. It keeps being pulled back to banks because the Anglo-Argentine society for goalpost maneuver hasn't got any answers for the workplace outside of the financial sector.

[icstm]

Originally Posted by Ed Selley

The minimum wage is worthwhile legislation but the effect it has on the value of a job in an absolute sense is slim to none.

So rather than looking at the NMW as a direct cost to employers (ie makes them pay more wages), view it as a mitigating action against taxes on other businesses and employees (to provide benefits and credits to those on NMW).

In other words, we have a benefits system which provides additional income to those on or near NMW. So even though the PRICE that people command in the workplace (their PAY) maybe below the COST of maintaining that person, we the TAXPAYER tops them up.

Is it too much to ask that large businesses FTSE 100 employers, if not FTSE 350 pay their staff enough to ensure they do not require these taxpayer funded top-ups?

Either that or we should question why we are topping up their salary in the first place (non-means tested benefits excluded).

[Ed Selley]

Originally Posted by icstm

So rather than looking at the NMW as a direct cost to employers (ie makes them pay more wages), view it as a mitigating action against taxes on other businesses and employees (to provide benefits and credits to those on NMW).

In other words, we have a benefits system which provides additional income to those on or near NMW. So even though the PRICE that people command in the workplace (their PAY) maybe below the COST of maintaining that person, we the TAXPAYER tops them up.

Is it too much to ask that large businesses FTSE 100 employers, if not FTSE 350 pay their staff enough to ensure they do not require these taxpayer funded top-ups?

Either that or we should question why we are topping up their salary in the first place (non-means tested benefits excluded).

I think that on a more profound level, you miss my point and touch on another. I don't disagree with the aim and sentiment of your post but ultimately the "value" of certain roles does not increase because we want people to be paid more. Take cleaning. After the implementation of the National Minimum wage, the result by and large is that most large companies use a contract cleaner for a few hours a week rather than employ their own. The value they ascribe to cleaning hasn't changed so to meet the requirements of the NMW, they share their cleaners with other companies in the same position. The cleaners themselves will receive a higher wage but there are less of them to compensate.

To this end, I would be interested to learn the percentage of staff at or near NMW in the FTSE350. My guess is a fairly low one. The companies that do employ large quantities of staff on NMW are (with the possible exception of supermarkets) not in the position of having substantial reserves of cash to offer as increased wages no matter how "fair" that might be perceived to be.

[mitchec1]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

whilst i agree there is an attitude amongst some that certain jobs are beneath them , and one can see that clearly where service to the public is concerned,they are ,by and large, low status jobs and with them comes a certain amount of abuse from certain sections of that public.Its a bit of a chicken an egg situation but i would like to know how east Europeans , many of which do those jobs , feel about doing them.To them the pay is good but i wonder what they must think of the public's attitude to them

We outsource the cleaning of our trains, I'm not going to mention the name of the company but on our depot most our cleaners are Eastern European or African.

They have to deal with sick, razor blades, needles acid based, graffiti, half eaten food, human waste in carriages and you know what they've always got smiles on their faces, always say hello, take everything in their stride & do a really professional job.

As for what the cleaners think of the public opinion of them the one's I talk to don't care it's a job. I'd actually like to get our cleaners opinion on our paying public when they enter the carriages for the first time, funnily enough they're quite guarded and just smile shake their head and get on with it.

[GAZBEROTTEN]

Originally Posted by mitchec1

We outsource the cleaning of our trains, I'm not going to mention the name of the company but on our depot most our cleaners are Eastern European or African.

They have to deal with sick, razor blades, needles acid based, graffiti, half eaten food, human waste in carriages and you know what they've always got smiles on their faces, always say hello, take everything in their stride & do a really professional job.

As for what the cleaners think of the public opinion of them the one's I talk to don't care it's a job. I'd actually like to get our cleaners opinion on our paying public when they enter the carriages for the first time, funnily enough they're quite guarded and just smile shake their head and get on with it.

And yet most of them end up not being paid that much for dealing with all of the stress that causes non stop

[dejongj]

Originally Posted by GAZBEROTTEN

And yet most of them end up not being paid that much for dealing with all of the stress that causes non stop

Out of interest, what stress are you referring to?

[icstm]

Originally Posted by Ed Selley

I think that on a more profound level, you miss my point and touch on another. I don't disagree with the aim and sentiment of your post but ultimately the "value" of certain roles does not increase because we want people to be paid more. Take cleaning. After the implementation of the National Minimum wage, the result by and large is that most large companies use a contract cleaner for a few hours a week rather than employ their own. The value they ascribe to cleaning hasn't changed so to meet the requirements of the NMW, they share their cleaners with other companies in the same position. The cleaners themselves will receive a higher wage but there are less of them to compensate.

To this end, I would be interested to learn the percentage of staff at or near NMW in the FTSE350. My guess is a fairly low one. The companies that do employ large quantities of staff on NMW are (with the possible exception of supermarkets) not in the position of having substantial reserves of cash to offer as increased wages no matter how "fair" that might be perceived to be.

Large outsourcers are by defn. large companies. I said the 350, more as a manageable starting point.

What you say is by an large correct, but you miss the point. Essentially those companies paying NMW are being subsidised, as most on NMW get government support on top. So either we should remove those benefits, or given society has by and large decided to endorse those benefits, we should in actual fact make the companies pay their staff enough so the taxpayer is not having to fork out.

My other points address the issue that there are some companies whom we may wish to encourage to grow their staff and in such situations you may still wish to use taxpayer subsidy.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by icstm

Essentially those companies paying NMW are being subsidised, as most on NMW get government support on top. So either we should remove those benefits, or given society has by and large decided to endorse those benefits, we should in actual fact make the companies pay their staff enough so the taxpayer is not having to fork out.

Could you not equally argue that if the value of these people (to those businesses) is less than minimum wage that these companies are subsidising the taxpayer by reducing the amount that the government needs to spend on benefits as otherwise these people would be unemployed?!

[icstm]

No, as they would not be unemployed and some labour was required. What this would suggest is that there is a minimum amount that can be paid to take on headcount.

So your headcount costs / FTE costs would be somewhat different, but this is basically saying that there is a floor from which the market can complete.

Basically this would be an appropriate form of government involvement. They are setting the rules for enterprise to participate in.


If on the otherhand you are saying that underemployment is a good thing, I am less clear on that. In India where labour is cheap you really do have 3 people doing what 1 person could do. None of them receive a good wage, so I am not sure of the benefits of this. So if by setting an appropriate NMW jobs numbers reduce, it would suggest that these companies were not optimised which you would support.

If this is changing the break-even economics of businesses, that is basically showing which businesses are in effect state supported…