Minimum Wage should be a Living Wage

richw · 6 Nov 2014

Butts said:
You've hit the nail on the head there - that is exactly what happens in The Security Industry to a large degree with 60 hour weeks at flat rate the norm.

The Living Wage would give these people a couple of hundred extra per month which could make a real difference to their lives. They could either reduce the number of hours worked or afford some luxuries other people take for granted.

Just as well you don't smoke, £15 buys far more pasties

Don't smoke, don't drink. Rather boring :lol:

If I had lower pay I could I guess buy "Value" range of food, but nowhere else to cut outgoings, without getting rid of the car. Our public transport is so poor a car is an essential though, and probably cheaper than using the bus!

RailUK Forums

Butts · 6 Nov 2014

Amberley54 said:
Fortunately, not all have developed such a cynical view of the world.

Hundreds of employers are currently signed-up to the living wage, with the notable exception being any Conservative-controlled councils - but that is hardly surprising is it? No employers have claimed that they have had to sack employees as a consequence, indeed the Majority are very keen for it be know outside their organisation - charity at home?

I, and thousands of others both in the trade union movement and a wider coalition of organisations have given time, and money, to lobbying for a living wage, often together with efforts to eradicate the associated stigma of fuel poverty ( which the government has 'abolished', just in time for winter) and child poverty which is amongst the highest in Europe ( well, it is at least lower than in Slovakia, Albania, Bulgaria and Belarus).

"Charity begins at home" - it certainly does for far too many - yet those with least often give most to those that have nothing.

No large employers such as a retailer or caterer have signed up. I refer you to post 1 in this thread. Other than Public Bodies those that have made the pledge have largely been able to do so at little cost due to the numbers involved.

Trog · 6 Nov 2014

Just a thought but if you bring in a living wage and it drives up prices, all of a sudden it is not a living wage anymore.

21C101 · 6 Nov 2014

Trog said:
Just a thought but if you bring in a living wage and it drives up prices, all of a sudden it is not a living wage anymore.

This of course is the problem. There is a similar problem with childcare. Every time the government increases the subsidy, guess what, the providers put their prices up.

Its a modern version of the problem discovered in the C19th where in one part of southwark a charity sold very cheap bread to the poor. It was then discovered that this made tenements in that locality more attractive so the rent went up as there was more competition for them, leaving the poor no better off than before

Another problem is that the minimum wage has become a defacto maximum wage for a lot of semi/unskilled workers, not least because enough of the staff will get tax credits so there is little incentive to pay them more when they only get 27p in the pound in their pockets (20% tax, 12% NI, 41% Tax Credit withdrawal)

Therefore employers pay the miminum wage and get the government to subsidise their production by topping up the wages through tax credits. If you haven't got kids - tough luck.

Sometimes its a case of be careful what you wish for.

Amberley54 · 6 Nov 2014

Butts said:
No large employers such as a retailer or caterer have signed up. I refer you to post 1 in this thread. Other than Public Bodies those that have made the pledge have largely been able to do so at little cost due to the numbers involved.

The big supermarkets ARE notable omissions even though Tesco actually now pay the living wage to all over 18 starters.

Also, Google, BMW, Nestlé, Pearson ( owners of Financial Times & Alton Towers amongst other things!), Glencore ( biggest miner & quarrying outfit in world, by value), First Transpennine Express (!), and Standard Life are hardly state enterprises, SMEs or small voluntary organisations, neither are the 28 universities most of which are amongst the largest providers in their parts if the world for non academic job opportunities?

Interesting that the majority of the largest employers signed up in the private sector are foreign owned - they don't seem to think the living wage is a deterrent to investing in UK plc - yet our home-grown entrepreneurs are yet to be convinced. Most seem to still be hankering for the 'good old days' before the Factories Act when they could send children up chimneys and down the pit. (Sorry, but couldn't resist that dig)

Butts · 6 Nov 2014

Amberley54 said:
The big supermarkets ARE notable omissions even though Tesco actually now pay the living wage to all over 18 starters.

Also, Google, BMW, Nestlé, Pearson ( owners of Financial Times & Alton Towers amongst other things!), Glencore ( biggest miner & quarrying outfit in world, by value), First Transpennine Express (!), and Standard Life are hardly state enterprises, SMEs or small voluntary organisations, neither are the 28 universities most of which are amongst the largest providers in their parts if the world for non academic job opportunities?

Interesting that the majority of the largest employers signed up in the private sector are foreign owned - they don't seem to think the living wage is a deterrent to investing in UK plc - yet our home-grown entrepreneurs are yet to be convinced. Most seem to still be hankering for the 'good old days' before the Factories Act when they could send children up chimneys and down the pit. (Sorry, but couldn't resist that dig)

Well I am sitting inside in a Tesco Premises in Glasgow at this very moment and I can assure you that is not the case. Where did you gleam that piece of false infromation from.

Tesco do not qualify for "The Living Wage" hallmark.

richw · 7 Nov 2014

Butts said:
Well I am sitting inside in a Tesco Premises in Glasgow at this very moment and I can assure you that is not the case. Where did you gleam that piece of false infromation from.

Tesco do not qualify for "The Living Wage" hallmark.

My wife had an interview at Tesco recently and they disclosed the income as being national minimum wage. She declined the job offer, as the hours offered weren't worthwhile.

Amberley54 · 7 Nov 2014

richw said:
My wife had an interview at Tesco recently and they disclosed the income as being national minimum wage. She declined the job offer, as the hours offered weren't worthwhile.

Sincere apologies. :oops:

Tesco's start in England at £7.65 p/h ( well that is what my sister-in-law is getting) I mis-read a text from her.

Xenophon PCDGS · 7 Nov 2014

The term "living wage" is a misnomer as the term "living" does not signify what standard of level is used as the base line.

Butts · 7 Nov 2014

Paul Sidorczuk said:
The term "living wage" is a misnomer as the term "living" does not signify what standard of level is used as the base line.

Whether it's a misnomer or not I'm sure those on £6.50 would not be to concerned if the Living Wage was adopted

Interestingly there was an article by Polly Toynbee in The Guardian the other day (I saw it today in an old copy) advocating that Labour should abandon it's barely above inflation 2020 £8 Minimum Wage pledge and adopt the Living Wage.

richw · 7 Nov 2014

Amberley54 said:
Sincere apologies.

Tesco's start in England at £7.65 p/h ( well that is what my sister-in-law is getting) I mis-read a text from her.

I believe like many companies that varies by area. Most companies pay competitive rates for the area, so a low pay area like Cornwall they can get away with minimum wage, where as somewhere with a higher average pay, they pay more to attract good staff

Greenback · 7 Nov 2014

Butts said:
So on that basis you are against the introduction of a living wage ?

Perhaps some of the increased wages could not be used to offset the level of benefit thus giving you a higher disposable income.

An excellent point!

Butts said:
But in order to pay any bill you need money, with more money in their pockets people are more able to pay bills.

I completely agree, I was just trying to make the point that there's more to living than housing costs, as important as those are to the majority of us.

Butts said:
Would it be a vote winner to pledge a Living Wage - I'm surprised Labour have not gone further towards this than they have

It's probably seen as a vote loser, as the right wing media will pounce on such a pledge and so will employers organisations.

Whether that would actually cost votes or not I am not sure, but that's what the leadership will fear.

Butts said:
No large employers such as a retailer or caterer have signed up. I refer you to post 1 in this thread. Other than Public Bodies those that have made the pledge have largely been able to do so at little cost due to the numbers involved.

Many of those who have signed up to the Living Wage also had very few employees below that level int he first place, which helps to keep the costs down. The trouble is, of course, that it's those that don't pay the Living Wage to the majority of their employees that need to be brought in!

Paul Sidorczuk said:
The term "living wage" is a misnomer as the term "living" does not signify what standard of level is used as the base line.

I don't think it's a misnomer, I think it;s a generic term used to describe the average amount of money a person would need to bring in to live outside poverty.

That said, there are problems with the definition of poverty, and with the fact that there are higher costs of living in some areas compared to others.

But I think that the term 'Living Wage' certainly has its uses.

richw said:
I believe like many companies that varies by area. Most companies pay competitive rates for the area, so a low pay area like Cornwall they can get away with minimum wage, where as somewhere with a higher average pay, they pay more to attract good staff

I don't believe that Tesco have a standard starting rate that applies everywhere in England.

Butts · 9 Nov 2014

I nearly fell of my chair when reading The Independent Travel Section today.

There was an article saying that some holiday firms had to change their catering arrangements at Ski Chalets as apparently the Minimum Wage for Hospitality Workers in Switzerland has been raised to ......

£34,000 per annum

hock:

Xenophon PCDGS · 9 Nov 2014

Butts said:
Whilst that may be commendable in many ways, the urgency is at the other end.

Do you include footballers in your maximum wage ?

I am certainly old enough to remember when footballers were governed by the "maximum wage". There will a good number of other forum members who will remember this.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Butts said:
Interestingly there was an article by Polly Toynbee in The Guardian the other day (I saw it today in an old copy) advocating that Labour should abandon it's barely above inflation 2020 £8 Minimum Wage pledge and adopt the Living Wage.

The Labour Party have made so many references to the Living Wage (in addition to the Minimum Wage) whilst they have been in Opposition that I automatically assumed that this has been part of their manifesto draft which will be hardened nearer to the time of the election. Is this not the case?

21C101 · 9 Nov 2014

Paul Sidorczuk said:
I am certainly old enough to remember when footballers were governed by the "maximum wage". There will a good number of other forum members who will remember this.

I must admit I had this in mind when I made the slightly tongue in cheek suggestion of a maximum wage. I think the wisdom of earlier football authorities has been proven by the way football has gone.

In reality a general maximum wage would be very difficult to enforce. The only way it can practically be done is with very high rates of income tax and wealth taxes combined with an exit tax (ie anyone emigrating has to hand over 50% of the value of any assets taken out of the country over, say £50,000, to the treasury.

radamfi · 9 Nov 2014

Butts said:
The problem is that there does not seem any political will or urgency to alleviate the situation of the poor with regard to the minimum wage. Although a sizable minority many of them are not voters and to inarticulate or fearful of losing their employment to voice their protestations

I think the main issue is that most people already earn more than the Living Wage, so it isn't that interesting to most voters and most voters will remember a time before the minimum wage, so many of them probably think that the minimum wage is a big enough concession as it is.

Paul Sidorczuk said:
I am certainly old enough to remember when footballers were governed by the "maximum wage". There will a good number of other forum members who will remember this.

American football has a wage cap, but that is still in the region of millions of dollars a year. The idea is to ensure that no one team gets all the best players. They can probably do it there because the players wouldn't earn more outside the US.

richw · 9 Nov 2014

Paul Sidorczuk said:
I am certainly old enough to remember when footballers were governed by the "maximum wage". There will a good number of other forum members who will remember this.

A number of sports have salary caps in place, however this is over the entire squad.

Butts · 9 Nov 2014

radamfi said:
I think the main issue is that most people already earn more than the Living Wage, so it isn't that interesting to most voters and most voters will remember a time before the minimum wage, so many of them probably think that the minimum wage is a big enough concession as it is.

This exactly highlights my point with regard to the lack of political will, and exposes the empty platitudes of most people towards the poor. Let's bash the Bankers but forget about the five million who earn less than the Living Wage.

Which is the more pressing problem ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

richw said:
A number of sports have salary caps in place, however this is over the entire squad.

I've nothing against footballers earning millions of pounds, but hey can't we ensure those working for the same club at the other end at least get paid a Living Wage - or can't they afford it ?

sutty · 10 Nov 2014

Butts said:
So on that basis you are against the introduction of a living wage ?

Been away from this over the weekend. That's not at all what I meant. I technically earn a little more than minimum wage and still struggle. A living wage (for people with rent and kids, for instance) would need to be closer to £20k.

We 'budgetted' our son only to run into unforseen financial difficulties

Would a living wage be means tested? A single person, of 18 doing their first job in a warehouse vs a mid-thirties person with children?

I'm not against it, but it does get messy

Butts · 10 Nov 2014

sutty said:
Been away from this over the weekend. That's not at all what I meant. I technically earn a little more than minimum wage and still struggle. A living wage (for people with rent and kids, for instance) would need to be closer to £20k.

We 'budgetted' our son only to run into unforseen financial difficulties

Would a living wage be means tested? A single person, of 18 doing their first job in a warehouse vs a mid-thirties person with children?

I'm not against it, but it does get messy

A Living Wage would not be means tested, all it effectively means is raising The Minimum Wage to a more realistic level.

richw · 10 Nov 2014

Back when I worked on minimum wage it was less than a fiver an hour, 40 hour weeks yielded me a take home of around £650 a month after tax and NI (tax codes were much lower then) and renting a bedsit cost me £330 per month. I ended up working 70+ hours a week to sustain luxuries in life but in the end though it burnt me out. I have the utmost thoughts to anyone having to live life like that.

Amberley54 · 10 Nov 2014

Butts said:
This exactly highlights my point with regard to the lack of political will, and exposes the empty platitudes of most people towards the poor. Let's bash the Bankers but forget about the five million who earn less than the Living Wage.

Which is the more pressing problem ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've nothing against footballers earning millions of pounds, but hey can't we ensure those working for the same club at the other end at least get paid a Living Wage - or can't they afford it ?

Do not many overseas player here in the UK get paid via off-shore company's in tax havens so they pay something ridiculously small in taxation and no NI?

Also, haven't Manchester City had their squad size reduced in the Champions League because of excessive size of their wage bill last season?

Genuine questions - perhaps someone could confirm, correct or rebut.

455driver · 10 Nov 2014

Butts said:
A Living Wage would not be means tested, all it effectively means is raising The Minimum Wage to a more realistic level.

So you are saying a single bloke (with no kids) living in a flat needs the same amount of money as a married man (with 3 kids) living in a house are you?

GB · 10 Nov 2014

"needs"...perhaps not, but I would say a singleton should certainly be entitled to the same legal living wage as a family man.

Butts · 10 Nov 2014

455driver said:
So you are saying a single bloke (with no kids) living in a flat needs the same amount of money as a married man (with 3 kids) living in a house are you?

If we are talking solely about rate of pay, then yes.

Bletchleyite · 10 Nov 2014

455driver said:
So you are saying a single bloke (with no kids) living in a flat needs the same amount of money as a married man (with 3 kids) living in a house are you?

Having a family is a choice you should exercise only when you are able to afford it (edit: within the constraints of your salary and the benefits available to you at the time such as housing).

The difficulty comes where people have had children, lose their job (or their marriage fails) and then cannot afford the unplanned financial burden - that is I guess where benefits need to come in.

Neil

ainsworth74 · 10 Nov 2014

455driver said:
So you are saying a single bloke (with no kids) living in a flat needs the same amount of money as a married man (with 3 kids) living in a house are you?

But there will be extra support available for the married man with his wife and kids compared to the single guy.

The family, from some back of a fag packet calculations, will be able to get about £190 per week in Tax Credits, £47 per week in Child Benefit, probably a £5 per week off their council tax bill and possibly £50 per week in Housing Benefit (assuming they're privately renting). Add in all the extra support and the family's weekly income will be something like £550 per week.

The single person on the other hand will get absolutely no extra help whatsoever and will have only his £256ish per week in wages to live on.

Does the family have higher costs all round? Yes, of course. But they qualify for a lot of extra help as a result. On the basis of that I don't see why the Living Wage should be means tested when there are benefits out there to support those who need extra support.

(All calculations done on basis of living in my area and earning £294 per week before tax and NI)

Neil Williams said:
Having a family is a choice you should exercise only when you are able to afford it (edit: within the constraints of your salary and the benefits available to you at the time such as housing).

Should you therefore abstain from sex unless you can afford kids? No contraceptive, other than not having sex, is 100%...

Bletchleyite · 10 Nov 2014

ainsworth74 said:
Should you therefore abstain from sex unless you can afford kids? No contraceptive, other than not having sex, is 100%...

There is always a small risk with contraceptives, but it is not excessively high. It would IMO be irresponsible to deliberately have unprotected[1] sex when you were not in a position to bring up a child properly.

[1] I would include in that the use of "contraceptive" methods known to be of poor effectiveness, without going into far too much detail!

Neil

Butts · 10 Nov 2014

ainsworth74 said:
Should you therefore abstain from sex unless you can afford kids? No contraceptive, other than not having sex, is 100%...

I beg to differ the solution is to marry Ann Widdicombe or Susan Boyle - both effective contraceptives.

ainsworth74 · 10 Nov 2014

Neil Williams said:
There is always a small risk with contraceptives, but it is not excessively high. It would IMO be irresponsible to deliberately have unprotected[1] sex when you were not in a position to bring up a child properly.

Of course but you said 'Having a family is a choice you should exercise only when you are able to afford it' and the risk remains that even if you are careful that choice might be taken out of your hands.

But I realise I am, perhaps, being a tad factious

Neil Williams said:
[1] I would include in that the use of "contraceptive" methods known to be of poor effectiveness, without going into far too much detail!

Indeed! This is a family friendly forum! So kids if you've got questions about anything we've discussed tonight please ask your parents. They'll be happy to answer your questions! :lol:

Minimum Wage should be a Living Wage

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Emeritus Moderator

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff