• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

Firms that dodge paying the minimum wage

karkus30

Banned
la gran siete said:
Scandal of firms that dodge paying the minimum wage - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

looks as though war needs to be declared on these unscrupulous employers .A 5k fine is wholly inadequate so I would suggest penalties that have real a deterrence factor for eg close the business for 6 months,confiscate personal assets such as cars and homes putting them in lodgings again for 6 months .We need to be harsh on this

It will be easily achieved if the current firms perceive the penalty to be too high. A lot more unemployed.
Interesting how many Of the Labour Party are using volunteer interns that get paid zero wages.
 
Last edited:

la gran siete

Distinguished Member
It will be easily achieved if the current firms perceive the penalty to be too high. A lot more unemployed.
Interesting how many Of the Labour Party are using volunteer interns that get paid zero wages.

if workers are being forced into a slave wage jobs then they are better off unemployed
 

NewMan

Prominent Member
if workers are being forced into a slave wage jobs then they are better off unemployed

You use this wonderfully emotive term "slave wage" - but as I understood it, slaves didn't get paid. If they're freely accepting the job knowing the wage in advance (and not, as your overly-emotive spin would imply, being SOLD as property to the employer by un unscrupulous third party - which would actually be illegal), it's not slavery.

I'm sure there'll be a goalpost-moving reason why it should be considered slavery nonetheless, but by equating this with slavery you demean those who suffered under actual slavery, not just your fauxcialist version of it.
 

karkus30

Banned
la gran siete said:
if workers are being forced into a slave wage jobs then they are better off unemployed

There won't be that choice. The private sector is already dealing with the problem, but the public sector are not. Its the public sector where the problems lie. If they can get out and take a job in the private sector on better wages, holidays and pension then good luck to them. The benefits plan they receive is now grossly higher than anything under the private sector and I reckon the milk and honey is about to run out. Why should the private sector tax payer fund it ? It makes it unequal and its high cost is dragging the private sector down.

In some way it has to be drastically cut. Its no longer an option. When I saw the guys talking about it with the select committee it was abundantly clear that everyone in that room was looking for an answer. All agreed with the necessity to be far more radical with public sector spending. If it gets spent anywhere it will have to be on infra structure projects to sort out the cost base for the country.

There was little variance between any of the parties on this. It was like watching a war cabinet at work.

I don't suppose many people watch these sessions ? They are very blunt. None of the performance factor of the House of Commons. You can see ministers under a lot of pressure. They have many high profile experts. They went for the throats of the energy companies the other day. There were high level representatives from each company plus a smaller independent.
 

sidicks

Banned
karkus30 said:
There won't be that choice. The private sector is already dealing with the problem, but the public sector are not. Its the public sector where the problems lie. If they can get out and take a job in the private sector on better wages, holidays and pension then good luck to them. The benefits plan they receive is now grossly higher than anything under the private sector and I reckon the milk and honey is about to run out. Why should the private sector tax payer fund it ? It makes it unequal and its high cost is dragging the private sector down.

In some way it has to be drastically cut. Its no longer an option. When I saw the guys talking about it with the select committee it was abundantly clear that everyone in that room was looking for an answer. All agreed with the necessity to be far more radical with public sector spending. If it gets spent anywhere it will have to be on infra structure projects to sort out the cost base for the country.

There was little variance between any of the parties on this. It was like watching a war cabinet at work.

I don't suppose many people watch these sessions ? They are very blunt. None of the performance factor of the House of Commons. You can see ministers under a lot of pressure. They have many high profile experts. They went for the throats of the energy companies the other day. There were high level representatives from each company plus a smaller independent.

As BISHI (?) pointed out, until the politicians amend their own pension scheme then it's unlikely that other public sector workers will accept similar changes.

Unfortunately if the Coalition did propose a significant reduction in the pension - certain people would criticise them for doing so, arguing that the 'posh Tories' can afford to live off their assets and it's the poor Labour MPs who will be most adversely affected...
:(
 

pragmatic

Distinguished Member
I don't suppose many people watch these sessions ? They are very blunt. None of the performance factor of the House of Commons. You can see ministers under a lot of pressure. They have many high profile experts. They went for the throats of the energy companies the other day. There were high level representatives from each company plus a smaller independent.

Does this make you more impressed by our version of democracy and MPs?
 

sidicks

Banned
Karkus said:
I don't suppose many people watch these sessions ? They are very blunt. None of the performance factor of the House of Commons. You can see ministers under a lot of pressure. They have many high profile experts. They went for the throats of the energy companies the other day. There were high level representatives from each company plus a smaller independent.

I disagree - maybe some of the committees are better than others, but some of the questions and comments from some MPs during the banking enquiry were pathetic / naive / ignorant etc!!
 

karkus30

Banned
sidicks said:
I disagree - maybe some of the committees are better than others, but some of the questions and comments from some MPs during the banking enquiry were pathetic / naive / ignorant etc!!

Yes, I saw that as well. They seem to have become far better. Worth watching. I watched Osbourne looking decidedly uncomfortable. Actually he looked arrogant. Like a Lord of the Manor asked to explain some fact about his lifestyle. I got the feeling he wanted to tell them to sod off and mind there own business. They did really have a go at him at one or two points.
 

karkus30

Banned
gazbarber said:
Does this make you more impressed by our version of democracy and MPs?

I think it does have some merit. There needs to be far more transparency and education. Putting this stuff on daytime TV is tantamount to disguise.
 

karkus30

Banned
sidicks said:
As BISHI (?) pointed out, until the politicians amend their own pension scheme then it's unlikely that other public sector workers will accept similar changes.

Unfortunately if the Coalition did propose a significant reduction in the pension - certain people would criticise them for doing so, arguing that the 'posh Tories' can afford to live off their assets and it's the poor Labour MPs who will be most adversely affected...
:(

I think its inevitable that something is going to happen. I've read much that suggests that the very disparate thinking is beginning to coalesce. They idea of demand side economics is beginning to lose its appeal, the banks are frozen and people are paying down debts. No amount of QE has helped. The public debt is still growing and so is the deficit once again. We have a defunct energy industry, crumbling roads, high fuel and energy costs. None of that is going to work towards growth.
 

sidicks

Banned
karkus30 said:
I think it does have some merit. There needs to be far more transparency and education. Putting this stuff on daytime TV is tantamount to disguise.

The unfortunate irony is that in a couple of years the private sector will be de-leveraged and looking to invest / spend again leading to economic growth.

If Labour are in power at that point they will of course claim all the credit, government borrowing will go up and the inevitable cycle will start all over again....
:(
 

karkus30

Banned
sidicks said:
The unfortunate irony is that in a couple of years the private sector will be de-leveraged and looking to invest / spend again leading to economic growth.

If Labour are in power at that point they will of course claim all the credit, government borrowing will go up and the inevitable cycle will start all over again....
:(

There is a suggestion we already have growth, but that the dying back of credit fuelled malinvestment is distorting the picture. At present labour prices are sticky which is holding up the restructuring of manufacturing and service industries. The public sector has to move its expectations down in line with private sector workers or we end up with a serious case of private sector tax payers funding ludicrously high wages and pensions taking an increasingly large share of private sector capital.

I think we will experience another crash before the end of this term.

If you put in the earliest date for this chart http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/stock-market. You can see that its coming close to peak. It might go higher, but its unsustainable, lots of stocks are over valued. Meanwhile gilts are very low yield but its unlikely they will stay that way.
 

Trollslayer

Distinguished Member
Start an e-petition and spread the word, that's the kind of thing they are for.
 

pandemic

Prominent Member
Firms not paying min. wage is surprisingly common in some industries. I was speaking to someone a few weeks ago who worked in the milling industry her experience was many employees were working full-time i.e. 37-40 hrs/wk and to avoid paying the statutory minimum their pay slips where 'manufactured' to show they worked less hours, so in reality they were paid less than £4/hr.
It's a dire situation though, whatever happens the employees are going to lose out.
 

overkill

Distinguished Member
There won't be that choice. The private sector is already dealing with the problem, but the public sector are not. Its the public sector where the problems lie. If they can get out and take a job in the private sector on better wages, holidays and pension then good luck to them. The benefits plan they receive is now grossly higher than anything under the private sector and I reckon the milk and honey is about to run out. Why should the private sector tax payer fund it ? It makes it unequal and its high cost is dragging the private sector down.

In some way it has to be drastically cut. Its no longer an option. When I saw the guys talking about it with the select committee it was abundantly clear that everyone in that room was looking for an answer. All agreed with the necessity to be far more radical with public sector spending. If it gets spent anywhere it will have to be on infra structure projects to sort out the cost base for the country.

There was little variance between any of the parties on this. It was like watching a war cabinet at work.

I don't suppose many people watch these sessions ? They are very blunt. None of the performance factor of the House of Commons. You can see ministers under a lot of pressure. They have many high profile experts. They went for the throats of the energy companies the other day. There were high level representatives from each company plus a smaller independent.
Still banging on about cuts are we? Despite the fact that history has shown that cuts based austerity doesn't work, and in fact never has?

Oh, and on that note, the theory of modern austerity, drawn up by Harvard professors, has been found to be full of holes.

But then anyone who actually understands the whole economic picture and doesn't just pontificate to self justify knew that already. :rolleyes:

No offence intended.

@IDS, this is old news. Employers ignore our 'harsh and restrictive' Employments laws at will, knowing full well they can get away with it - even more so with a govt making it harder than ever to seek justice. You 'could' report them to the MW council. But they are a small office doing a big job and they rarely get anywhere. You could, if you are fired for making a complaint to your employer go to a tribunal, but what good would that do? You lose your job, employers then blacklist you (the rare few that win at tribunal find it hard to get employment), and they will just carry on ignoring the law.

This is why when employers, and people on forums who know nothing about the subject in reality, bleat about how Employment law holds back Business, it make me laugh. Cynically.
 

karkus30

Banned
overkill said:
Still banging on about cuts are we? Despite the fact that history has shown that cuts based austerity doesn't work, and in fact never has?

Oh, and on that note, the theory of modern austerity, drawn up by Harvard professors, has been found to be full of holes.

But then anyone who actually understands the whole economic picture and doesn't just pontificate to self justify knew that already. :rolleyes:

No offence intended.

@IDS, this is old news. Employers ignore our 'harsh and restrictive' Employments laws at will, knowing full well they can get away with it - even more so with a govt making it harder than ever to seek justice. You 'could' report them to the MW council. But they are a small office doing a big job and they rarely get anywhere. You could, if you are fired for making a complaint to your employer go to a tribunal, but what good would that do? You lose your job, employers then blacklist you (the rare few that win at tribunal find it hard to get employment), and they will just carry on ignoring the law.

This is why when employers, and people on forums who know nothing about the subject in reality, bleat about how Employment law holds back Business, it make me laugh. Cynically.

It doesn't hold back business. Business adapts. It holds back employment. Just as the cost and needs of any product are weighed.

The economic picture should be obvious to you by now. If you spend more than you earn then you have to borrow. Borrowing is taking from the future in order to produce benefits for the present. When this is carried out by entrepreneurs they understand the risk and not by Governments who take no risk.

The result of excess borrowing is clearly illustrated by Cyprus, Greece, Ireland and Portugal.

So, austerity has many meanings. Borrowing and investment of entrepreneurs using capital that is saved by those not needing to use all they earn for the present is the lifeblood of growth. Governments spending more than they get in taxes is the exact opposite. Austerity in Government is wrongly named. It isn't austerity at all. The less spent, the less tax that is needed and the less capital is consumed which leaves more for the private sector to use for growth.

Surely you can understand that simple model. The private sector are net creators of wealth and the public sector are net consumers. The more the public sector spends, the lower is the growth of wealth in a country.
 

la gran siete

Distinguished Member
I am sure there are plenty of firms who would employ workers at less than acceptable wages even as low as 2 or 3 pounds an hour if they had the chance .The question is should they be allowed to do so and i say no resoundingly.I passionately believe that any firm that flouts the rule re pay should be prosecuted just as it would of it did not mean safety standards( another cost).Underpaid staff are simply not good for any economy as they cannot contribute much .Not only that but they would have severe morale problems and not feel inclined to work as hard as they might. i would far rather they claim benefits than be abused and exploited by unscrupulous employers looking to make a fast buck
 

karkus30

Banned
la gran siete said:
I am sure there are plenty of firms who would employ workers at less than acceptable wages even as low as 2 or 3 pounds an hour if they had the chance .The question is should they be allowed to do so and i say no resoundingly.I passionately believe that any firm that flouts the rule re pay should be prosecuted just as it would of it did not mean safety standards( another cost).Underpaid staff are simply not good for any economy as they cannot contribute much .Not only that but they would have severe morale problems and not feel inclined to work as hard as they might. i would far rather they claim benefits than be abused and exploited by unscrupulous employers looking to make a fast buck

But why ? If I ask you to do a gardening job for me and you say it will cost £300 and I offer you £100, then you will say no and walk away. On the other hand, if you say £300 and then I only pay you £100 then you have every right to ask politely for the remainder, or to take me to a small claims court.

There is no right to anymore than the contractual value agreed between parties. The State is interfering in something that has nothing at all to do with them. It only turns nasty when, in those examples, the contracted labour is not paid the amount in the contract. At that point it turns into a legal battle. Whatever happens, the situation reveals the employer as a cheater, a liar, a thief. An employer who does that will soon find that no one will work for them.

There are no 'underpaid' or 'overpaid' people, except in your imagination. There are contractual obligations to pay an amount for an agreed service. Its only the state that is seeking to impose rules which have no viability and will either be pointless or problematic, but never productive.

A good employer is one that sticks to their obligations and agreements with his labour contractors. The labour contractor does not have to remain in the employ of someone they feel are not paying them enough, just as you would walk away from my gardening job if I won't pay you what I want.
 

la gran siete

Distinguished Member
But why ? If I ask you to do a gardening job for me and you say it will cost £300 and I offer you £100, then you will say no and walk away. On the other hand, if you say £300 and then I only pay you £100 then you have every right to ask politely for the remainder, or to take me to a small claims court.

There is no right to anymore than the contractual value agreed between parties. The State is interfering in something that has nothing at all to do with them. It only turns nasty when, in those examples, the contracted labour is not paid the amount in the contract. At that point it turns into a legal battle. Whatever happens, the situation reveals the employer as a cheater, a liar, a thief. An employer who does that will soon find that no one will work for them.

There are no 'underpaid' or 'overpaid' people, except in your imagination. There are contractual obligations to pay an amount for an agreed service. Its only the state that is seeking to impose rules which have no viability and will either be pointless or problematic, but never productive.

A good employer is one that sticks to their obligations and agreements with his labour contractors. The labour contractor does not have to remain in the employ of someone they feel are not paying them enough, just as you would walk away from my gardening job if I won't pay you what I want.

the state has a moral obligation to ensue that no one is exploited and everyone works within a safe environment.Underpaid people are those who are overworked and who are not receiving enough money to meet their obligations ands provide for themselves adequately,i would have thought that was quite obvious:confused:.They are also people who are not sufficiently motivated to be very productive because of that low pay , its called incentive .Pay well and they will work well, pay badly and they won't.This is not something i imagine at all .Speak to the low paid and you will see the sense of frustration, low morale and general unwillingness most of them feel.Then again I expect you would be quite blind to that.Why do you think the minimum wage came into being in the first place? Its a safety net below no one one should fall, coupled with a health service, education, pension and other social services ,all part of the contract we all have with the state.We all know private sector cannot and will not deliver sufficiently for those at the bottom so the safety net is there to ensure no one falls below a certain level.Very good thing too
A good employer is one who pays his staff properly , is loyal,appreciates what they do for him and is able to motivate them in the right manner.
 
D

Deleted member 27989

Guest
la gran siete said:
the state has a moral obligation to ensue that no one is exploited and everyone works within a safe environment.Underpaid people are those who are overworked and who are not receiving enough money to meet their obligations ands provide for themselves adequately,i would have thought that was quite obvious:confused:.They are also people who are not sufficiently motivated to be very productive because of that low pay , its called incentive .Pay well and they will work well, pay badly and they won't.This is not something i imagine at all .Speak to the low paid and you will see the sense of frustration, low morale and general unwillingness most of them feel.Then again I expect you would be quite blind to that.Why do you think the minimum wage came into being in the first place? Its a safety net below no one one should fall, coupled with a health service, education, pension and other social services ,all part of the contract we all have with the state.We all know private sector cannot and will not deliver sufficiently for those at the bottom so the safety net is there to ensure no one falls below a certain level.Very good thing too
A good employer is one who pays his staff properly , is loyal,appreciates what they do for him and is able to motivate them in the right manner.

Lol you keep on thinking the other way round, you clearly have never had a business reliant on staff have you ;) it's a business decision, there is an input value and that is down to the business to decide and determine. And naturally any decision has consequences thus those decisions get continuously adjusted. Just the fact that a government rule states x is the minimum doesn't make it viable. Ultimately it is going to drive up costs, and who pays for those costs ;) and then you argue the costs are too high and minimum wage needs to go up blah blah and so on. Of course there are a lot more factors involved, but the principle is so clear to see I would have thought.
 

la gran siete

Distinguished Member
Lol you keep on thinking the other way round, you clearly have never had a business reliant on staff have you ;) it's a business decision, there is an input value and that is down to the business to decide and determine. And naturally any decision has consequences thus those decisions get continuously adjusted. Just the fact that a government rule states x is the minimum doesn't make it viable. Ultimately it is going to drive up costs, and who pays for those costs ;) and then you argue the costs are too high and minimum wage needs to go up blah blah and so on. Of course there are a lot more factors involved, but the principle is so clear to see I would have thought.


i said there is a contract between an individual and his employer and an individual and the state.It may not be a written on but its there.Provided the rules are followed then the state will ensure he or she has the basic minimum requirements met.By the same token provided an individual fulfils the terms of his contract and is productive then his employer must ensure he or she is paid properly.Nothing else matters.Of course there are always constraints based on how well a company is performing which is why total openness is essential .If that company is doing very well then that must reflected by good bonuses for the very people who are creating that wealth ie the staff.Simples really
 
D

Deleted member 27989

Guest
la gran siete said:
i said there is a contract between an individual and his employer and an individual and the state.It may not be a written on but its there.Provided the rules are followed then the state will ensure he or she has the basic minimum requirements met.By the same token provided an individual fulfils the terms of his contract and is productive then his employer must ensure he or she is paid properly.Nothing else matters.Of course there are always constraints based on how well a company is performing which is why total openness is essential .If that company is doing very well then that must reflected by good bonuses for the very people who are creating that wealth ie the staff.Simples really

Can't agree at all. But hey if employees dont like it, and i as a company owner think that i can easily replace with another without impact to my business than that is my decision. If that employee demonstrates exceptional qualities that i may appreciate elsewhere it would be potentially a daft decision to risk letting him/her go. But it is my decision how i mitigate that, note the state not the employee involved; although id welcome proactive suggestions from the employee concerning but it is not and never their decision how the company renumerates them.

Glad you admit to you fictitious contracts.
 

karkus30

Banned
la gran siete said:
i said there is a contract between an individual and his employer and an individual and the state.It may not be a written on but its there.Provided the rules are followed then the state will ensure he or she has the basic minimum requirements met.By the same token provided an individual fulfils the terms of his contract and is productive then his employer must ensure he or she is paid properly.Nothing else matters.Of course there are always constraints based on how well a company is performing which is why total openness is essential .If that company is doing very well then that must reflected by good bonuses for the very people who are creating that wealth ie the staff.Simples really

I don't think you have even a tenuous grasp of economic reality if you believe that to be true. I can see why you think that would work, but its fairy tale land.

The problem is you are unable to see the cost/value ratio that the market applies. The only way your idea would work is where everything is state owned. Rather like the Matrix film, where the first Matrix was made perfectly, but humans couldn't live inside it. This is what happened in the USSR.

It is rather like saying that you should have priced your rental low enough so that no one needed to have the state pay anything. In fact what you are saying is EXACTLY that. Also, if I employ you as a Gardner-because you are the company owner- you should do my gardening for what I can afford to pay you, but as an employee of mine I would have to pay you an amount which would meet all your financial obligations.

I'm hoping you can see that neither of those things make any sense because it is impossible to silo people. We are fluid. One moment a business owner ( as you are ), the next an employee of your customer and the next the customer that pays the company owner as an effective employer.

You think a business owner isn't an employee of his customer, that the employee cannot equally be the customer that employs the businessman to make something or do a job. Its sliding doors. The market allows that to work. Its not perfect, but then nothing is. We already tried the utopia you are suggesting and its clearly faulty. The first Matrix didn't work, the second, more random, faulty Matrix did.
 
D

Deleted member 51156

Guest
Also, if I employ you as a Gardner-because you are the company owner- you should do my gardening for what I can afford to pay you.

.

Drivel,,, you pay the company owner what he thinks the job is worth or you find someone else...
Sometimes you make sense Karkus then other times :suicide:
 

The latest video from AVForums

SVS Prime Wireless Pro Powered Speakers - Review Coming Soon
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom