Would anyone like a sensible discussion about low pay?

Interesting topic on AI, and interesting contributions from hg5guy who appears to be working on the front line of this - thanks.

My view is any change will be disruptive in the short term but beneficial in the long run. We can't stop technological progress just so someone retains a job sweeping a floor or taking an order at a McD's drive-thru when a robot or AI (or both) can handle the same function. Isn't freeing people from drudgery supposed to be an aim of a developed society? We used to plant crops by hand. And one day people in the future may also look back and say "they actually used to hand out bags of food at drive-thrus with people". Or disbelieving they're used to be 1000 people packed into a building answering calls for a single company.

Humans won't be redundant but will have to be redeployed. Clearly some humans will be around even in very highly automated set-ups. I imagine even for a "fully" automated McDs well into the future (suspect they're working on the kitchen staff too) they'd have 2-3 staff on site, opening up/closing up, performing the role of security, maintenance of equipment, trouble-shooting, dealing with issues for customers when computer says no etc. These jobs probably will be high paying too as be skilled to be able to do all of that. So replace 20 relatively low paid jobs with a few higher paid ones.
I'm hoping the robots get involved with making the burgers at McD's because the last time I got one the burger and cheese was half out of the bun and had adhered itself to the outside of the bun so I couldn't push it back into the centre, the sauce had been squired into the corner of the carton. I mean, however difficult is it to put a burger together? Perhaps robots are the ? way forward :) I won't talk about the fries!
 
Upvote 0
Increased productivity is great if it is done by a UK based company who is taxed adequately in the UK and keeps all the profits in the UK.

Increased productivity isn't so good if it is done my a foreign based company, profits aren't taxed in the UK and all money is filtered out to another country.
Is there any rule that states Government contracts have to go to UK tax paying based companies I wonder?
 
Upvote 0
Unlike supermarket checkout operators some 50 years ago when product and department knowledge was an essential part of several days training, todays operators need only to pass each product over a scanner and point to where the customer scans their card. Do they need any training?

I'm not disputing what you say about the general staffing ethos but our nearest Tesco has had many of the same people on checkouts for years. Mainly older women, perhaps they are on longstanding different contracts?
 
Upvote 0
I'm not disputing what you say about the general staffing ethos but our nearest Tesco has had many of the same people on checkouts for years. Mainly older women, perhaps they are on longstanding different contracts?

I've probably used our local co-op for 20+ years.

There are 5 or 6 ladies who have been there in all that time, 2 or 3 who have been there about 10 years, a couple of guys about 10 years, the manager about 7 years, and 4 or 5 18 - 24 year olds who come and go.

It's the 4 or 5 18 - 24 year olds who tend to do the 15:00 - 22:00 shifts
 
Upvote 0
And of course, the supermarket contracts are just above the 16 hour threshold to allow people to qualify for UC, because the supermarkets know that no one would work for them without that government subsidy. It's a cynical ploy.
 
Upvote 0
And of course, the supermarket contracts are just above the 16 hour threshold to allow people to qualify for UC, because the supermarkets know that no one would work for them without that government subsidy. It's a cynical ploy.

At least 5 of the woman at our local Co-Op are married (grown up children), so probably no UC

The 2 guys appear to work full time, so probably no UC

I doubt the manager gets UC

The 18 -24 year olds (mainly lads) appear to work 30+ hours, so probably no UC

The 2 or 3 younger ladies (late 20's - mid 30's) possibly on UC as don't tend to see them so much.

This is just a small local Co-Op in small town though not a big supermarket where things may be different
 
Upvote 0
Unlike supermarket checkout operators some 50 years ago when product and department knowledge was an essential part of several days training, todays operators need only to pass each product over a scanner and point to where the customer scans their card. Do they need any training?

I'm not disputing what you say about the general staffing ethos but our nearest Tesco has had many of the same people on checkouts for years. Mainly older women, perhaps they are on longstanding different contracts?
Mmmm, there were quite a few of the older ladies who had worked M&S for 20 or more years, now trapped there in awful contracts until their pensions were due, but didn't feel anyone would employ them elsewhere at their age if they tried to move and therefore had to accept every awful contract change. They were bitter and resentful, but you wouldn't know it at the check out. Now in one week they can have two 4am starts stocking shelves and 2 9pm finishes multi-tasking.

As a 15 year old I worked in woolworths on Saturdays and I can assure you it was far easier than working in a supermarket nowadays. The tills you only bleep things across, in fact throw up an array of messages, there are vouchers, loyalty cards, deals, the stores insist you point to place on the receipt to try to get good feedback and the tills demand you read certain messages to customer on certain items. Bakery and fruit veg items you have to weigh and find the right code for. If the newbies stick the wrong thing in the wrong place on the shelves the ticketing pricing is wrong so by the time it comes to the till customers are sometimes shocked at the price. If newbies on the till get the sequencing wrong on the till and the little darling thing just comes to a full stop and doesn't tell you why. If you don't know how to get out of its endless circle you'll have to ring and wait for a manager - have you seen to the look on peoples faces if they are stuck in a queue waiting for a manager?

To be fair this was a large M&S next to a huge Tesco and I was only there for 6 months whilst I was waiting for an operation, to take my mind off it. Made some fantastic friends there and we had a good laugh, but it was the type of spirit you might find in a concenration camp, everyone was waiting to break out, through pension, further education or just finding another avenue of work. The assistant store manager left and told me that never when he started at the M&S training academy did he think he would have to treat people so badly as part of his job. He left and got a basic job in sales after spending 15 years of his life working his way up to a management position.

Good luck with your AI on the automated tills, those little feckers have the devil installed as standard :-) I have seen people standing and shouting at them so many times, throwing the food they were going to purchase across the store, just walking off with shopping without paying saying it wasn't their fault the till didn't work - frankly I should have stopped them, but they simply weren't paying me enough to get involved in my opinion.

I did find the people I was working with really lovely though and so many varied people there for different reason, all really lovely. You are right though, younger ones do tend to leave after a couple of months, once they realise they do have to work, their Mum can't come in and help them and they've failed to hide in corners and let other people do the work for them.
 
Upvote 0
I must admit I feel for supermarket workers these days. In my youth on Saturdays I worked at a huge Tescos, it was great fun, I worked hard, but it was never real work, we all had a laugh as well.

Today employers try to squeeze every drop of joy out of their staff believing it results in more profits, I don’t think it does. My list of stores I no longer use stretches a long way, mainly down to miserable over worked staff overrun with too much work and not enough help.

In the run up to Xmas I asked one young lad to get his manager. He appeared sheepishly and looked worried when I stated I wanted to talk about the young worker and his attitude. He started apologising until I managed to tell him the young lad was a credit to the store for his knowledge, patience and attitude. I also mentioned he should give him a decent pay rise.

Happy workers tend to make their employers a lot more than miserable ones, a good checkout worker can mean a returning client. There is a lot of skill unseen in most menial jobs.
 
Upvote 0
I must admit I feel for supermarket workers these days. In my youth on Saturdays I worked at a huge Tescos, it was great fun, I worked hard, but it was never real work, we all had a laugh as well.

Today employers try to squeeze every drop of joy out of their staff believing it results in more profits, I don’t think it does. My list of stores I no longer use stretches a long way, mainly down to miserable over worked staff overrun with too much work and not enough help.

In the run up to Xmas I asked one young lad to get his manager. He appeared sheepishly and looked worried when I stated I wanted to talk about the young worker and his attitude. He started apologising until I managed to tell him the young lad was a credit to the store for his knowledge, patience and attitude. I also mentioned he should give him a decent pay rise.

Happy workers tend to make their employers a lot more than miserable ones, a good checkout worker can mean a returning client. There is a lot of skill unseen in most menial jobs.
 
Upvote 0
That was so nice to hear and I agree, there are unseen skills. I was totally confused by their old computer system, it has layers upon layers, you'd have to be mystic meg to know where some of the stuff was.

I was so happy with one young lad on the pharmacy at Boots that I fished through the internet to find the Chairman of Boots and sent him an email direct advising him that he needed to look at the customer care and capability of the young man and use it as a training example. He was promoted (to another store ao I sort of shot myself in the foot although the next lady was very good too). I think it would be great if people did more of that, so that the people that put in more effort get rewarded in some way (we don't seem to do that much nowadays).

Isn't that self worth and enjoyable workday what we should be aiming for as a society rather than the drudgery of a basic top up wage working for a shite supermarket.

I agree also, voting with ones feet makes changes (if you are financially able to) so I buy at the butchers, local bakers etc. using cash so they don't pay the credit card people. N.B. these are people that can pay bills using cash, so they don't have to pay bank charges to bank it. The butchers also buys from a local far, so the meat is fresh and the farms earning direct without going through supermarkets. Although to be fair apparently the East of England CoOp is quite fair with suppliers.

I think low wages are OK if they are 9-5 in good conditions, but when you're asking people to start work at 4am I really do think a bit extra should be due.
 
Upvote 0
And of course, the supermarket contracts are just above the 16 hour threshold to allow people to qualify for UC, because the supermarkets know that no one would work for them without that government subsidy. It's a cynical ploy.
Well, according to the girls at M&S @japancool there's some sort of agreement between Universal Credit and M&S/Tesco etc. It is the Universal Credit agency that find them the jobs at the supermarkets for 17 hours a week and tells them they have to go for the job or risk a reduction in their universal credit if they don't because they aren't 'meaningfully looking for a job'.

It makes you wonder doesn't it!

Actually you'd be surprised @UKSBD whose on universal credit, most of the elderly ladies kids have left the house and she may be a widdow, as was the case with a couple of the ladies in our shop. They were both on UC. To be fair they carried on working there so that they had somewhere to go some days, we all helped them out stocking some of their stuff because they struggled in the early mornings as its so cold in the foodhall, but they were also trying to work long enough to get the M&S pension they paid into, but a lifetime on your feet and a new set of silly hour contracts makes that very difficult for them. A lot of the managers are trainees at the M&S university and on terrible wages so as they grow older and their partners fall pregnant they often end up on UC as a top up - the pay ain't great mate.
 
Upvote 0
Actually you'd be surprised @UKSBD whose on universal credit, most of the elderly ladies kids have left the house and she may be a widdow, as was the case with a couple of the ladies in our shop.

I agree but for the fact it's a small town/large village I've been shopping there 25+ years and if one of their husbands died everyone in the town would know :)

This is probably a rarity and not the norm as it is such a small town and a small co-op
 
Upvote 0
Going a bit of topic, so going back to the original question

Do you think it is wrong that Universal Credit is used to subsidise low wages or do you think it is a good idea/system? Edit to add: Or something in-between.

From most replies here I would say;

Some people think most employers should pay enough that state subsidies shouldn't be required if the company is making reasonable profits.

Some think the wage rate should be high enough that if a couple with children where only one of the couple is working, that person should be paid enough so the state shouldn't have to subsidies.

Some say that if a small business can't pay that rate they shouldn't be in business

Biggest contention appears to be the companies who only provide low hour contracts and short term notice of what hours are to be worked.

Some say there should be less state intervention even if it means people really struggling

Is that a fair summary?
 
Upvote 0
Going a bit of topic, so going back to the original question



From most replies here I would say;

Some people think most employers should pay enough that state subsidies shouldn't be required if the company is making reasonable profits.


Is that a fair summary?

My point is simple, the UK Gov promotes a system which encourages low pay to control the population, you are much less likely to bite the hand that feed you.

We should go back to a honest salary, State benefits should revert to those in true need, unemployed, disabled etc, not topping up over half the countries salaries every month for the rest of their lives.

In todays money, this would mean probably a minimum wage of £15 hr, but it would apply to all companies equally, prices would need adjusting in the beginning. If a company couldn’t compete on a level playing field, then they are not profitable, sad but true.

Do I think this will happen? Not a chance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UKSBD
Upvote 0
In todays money, this would mean probably a minimum wage of £15 hr, but it would apply to all companies equally, prices would need adjusting in the beginning. If a company couldn’t compete on a level playing field, then they are not profitable, sad but true.
To do that, you would have to have a stable currency and that means abolishing the Bank of England and returning to the gold standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bodgitt&scarperLTD
Upvote 0
We should go back to a honest salary, State benefits should revert to those in true need, unemployed, disabled etc, not topping up over half the countries salaries every month for the rest of their lives.

The thing is,
Should that honest salary be based on a person working at least 37.5 hours a week?

People tend to use the extremes as examples

Some say £15 an hour isn't enough because people only work 16 hours

Others say £15 an hour is more than fair for those working 37.5 hours

If £15 an hour is more than fair for one person, why should the employer pay more based on someone elses circumstance?

Should the default be that everyone is given 37.5 hour contracts (salaried) with the employee having a choice of if they work less hours and not the employers?
 
Upvote 0
To do that, you would have to have a stable currency and that means abolishing the Bank of England and returning to the gold standard.
You'd also need sensible house prices. An average house should cost a sensible multiple or proportion of an average wage, to buy or rent.

An 'economy' based upon selling ever increasing houses to each other and occasionally a rich Russian is a large part of the reason we are in such a mess today.

Edit- @japancool must have posted whilst I was getting coffee mid reply!
 
Upvote 0
You'd also need sensible house prices. An average house should cost a sensible multiple or proportion of an average wage, to buy or rent.

An 'economy' based upon selling ever increasing houses to each other and occasionally a rich Russian is a large part of the reason we are in such a mess today.

Edit- @japancool must have posted whilst I was getting coffee mid reply!
This is the main thing

A company should not be expected to pay staff more because the govt has decided to promote property price rises through a scheme like help to buy or stamp duty holidays, but it should be expected to pay more if basic commodity prices rise.

However you look at it the elephant in the room is that property prices in some parts of the UK are unsustainable

I looked yesterday and the 2 bedroom biscuit workers terrace house I bought for £50k in 1994 and sold in 1999 for £92k is now estimated to be £310-330k - it is 10'6" 2 bedrooms but you have to go through the back one to get to the only bathroom so is not suitable for anything other than a couple with a max of 1 very young child - it is not worth 10x the median salary but that is because the house price is wrong (due to easy availability of capital to buy property) not due to the wages being too low
 
  • Like
Reactions: UKSBD
Upvote 0
A company should not be expected to pay staff more because the govt has decided to promote property price rises through a scheme like help to buy or stamp duty holidays, but it should be expected to pay more if basic commodity prices rise.

Governments since Thatcher have promoted house prices because it gives the illusion of wealth.

The person who bought your house today has the same house you bought, but paid considerably more for it. We're not richer, we're poorer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bodgitt&scarperLTD
Upvote 0
A company should not be expected to pay staff more because the govt has decided to promote property price rises through a scheme like help to buy or stamp duty holidays, but it should be expected to pay more if basic commodity prices rise.

That is my number one reason for feeling it is unfair to expect a small business owner to face the full brunt rather than the state.

If the state has a messed up housing policy that means rents are high why should a small business owner bear the brunt?

If the state has a bad policy on childcare for working parents (or parents who can't work because of lack of childcare) why should a small business owner face the full brunt rather than the state?

If the state has a poor policy on energy why should a small business owner face the full brunt rather than the state?

You could add to that why should a small business owner face the full brunt when there is a pandemic policy and a war policy.

It strikes me there are 3 main problems (amongst others)
Housing costs, energy costs, people who want to work but can't because of childcare costs.

No government appears to want to solve these problems because of short-termism
 
Upvote 0
It's not the same though as it's very soft centres. Absent fathers just have to say that they are skint and they get away with it. My next door neighbour's daughter took the father of her child to the CMS and he was ordered to make payments which he never does pleading poverty despite just having bought himslef a new BMW
It may once have worked like that but not anymore. CMS contact the employer who has to provide full salary details. And then, regardless of expenditure, the parent is told what payment they have to make each month based on a sliding scale taking into consideration many factors i.e. is there any shared care, other children, etc. If the paying parent doesnt pay, then the CMS can force the employee to make the payment direct to CMS, which includes (from memory) and 20% admin fee which the parent has to pay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ian J
Upvote 0
Well, who IS it fair for? There is no such thing as "the state bearing the brunt". The brunt falls on the taxpayer.

The State is the tax payer, so would it be fairer if the general taxation system should bear the brunt?
 
Upvote 0
The State is the tax payer, so maybe it would be fairer if the general taxation system should bear the brunt?

Why is that fairer than reducing the overall tax burden and then the tax payers can subsidise those businesses directly by buying their products and services at more sustainable prices?
 
Upvote 0
Apparently, 8 million UK adults have the numeracy skills of an 11 year old. Is it any wonder why productivity in this country is so low?
16.4% of adults in England, or 7.1 million people are functionally illiterate.

10.7M people lack basic digital skills and 5.3M adults have never used the internet.

Can someone explain how a person who lacks these skills is going to earn £15 per hour?

Should where you live affect your income?

Is someone born in Chelsea worth more than someone in Middlesborough?
 
Upvote 0
It may once have worked like that but not anymore. CMS contact the employer who has to provide full salary details. And then, regardless of expenditure, the parent is told what payment they have to make each month based on a sliding scale taking into consideration many factors i.e. is there any shared care, other children, etc. If the paying parent doesnt pay, then the CMS can force the employee to make the payment direct to CMS, which includes (from memory) and 20% admin fee which the parent has to pay.
This has never worked

My dad left my mum in 1976 he then left the gpo (BT side) and went self employed to not have his pay docked - he was paying back at 50p per week until 1993 when my brother hit 18 and then it was written off.

My stepdad kicked my mum out in 1990 when i was at uni and as his only income was the farm (which was also the house) he was set no payments to make but a charge was placed on the land based upon the fact she was unpaid help for 12 years (and had no pension). When he sold a field the 13/39ths of the sale (the amount they set) went to almost pay off the legal aid bill for the divorce - she still owes some of that and has still had no maintenance for my half brother (he was 5 in 1990 when they split up).

CMS has never and will never work for the good of the mother/child in my opinion
 
Upvote 0
I worked with a guy whose maths was appalling - it genuinely scared him to do maths. He had a GCSE grade f

He survived as an engineering recruitment consultant by having ready reckoner excel spreadsheets with things like conversions of hourly to yearly pay and different charge rates for temps all saved on his desktop (I had produced them)

the only place it really caused issue was that he didnt feel confident to challenge someone giving him finance B*llshit and he couldn't look at a set of monthly figures and immediately just go "that looks wrong let me work out where" like I can.

His household finances were also shocking but if anything that made him a hungrier salesman and he was earning over that amount
 
Upvote 0
This has never worked

My dad left my mum in 1976 he then left the gpo (BT side) and went self employed to not have his pay docked - he was paying back at 50p per week until 1993 when my brother hit 18 and then it was written off.

My stepdad kicked my mum out in 1990 when i was at uni and as his only income was the farm (which was also the house) he was set no payments to make but a charge was placed on the land based upon the fact she was unpaid help for 12 years (and had no pension). When he sold a field the 13/39ths of the sale (the amount they set) went to almost pay off the legal aid bill for the divorce - she still owes some of that and has still had no maintenance for my half brother (he was 5 in 1990 when they split up).

CMS has never and will never work for the good of the mother/child in my opinion
Like a lot of the civil service, it doesn't work.

 
Upvote 0
16.4% of adults in England, or 7.1 million people are functionally illiterate.
10.7M people lack basic digital skills and 5.3M adults have never used the internet.
Can someone explain how a person who lacks these skills is going to earn £15 per hour?
Copy what other countries do - re-education programmes. Set up a modest fund that pays a full wage to adults who do an apprenticeship in a trade for which there is a demand. On completion, they get a job at a decent wage and use some of that money to reimburse the fund so that the programme can continue at no further burden to the public purse.

The German version uses some of the money that originally came from the Marshall Plan after the war so it is a self-financing and self-perpetuating scheme. The post-war Labour government used the Marshall Plan money to finance their crazed nationalisation programmes instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MBE2017
Upvote 0
If the state has a messed up housing policy that means rents are high why should a small business owner bear the brunt?

If the state has a bad policy on childcare for working parents (or parents who can't work because of lack of childcare) why should a small business owner face the full brunt rather than the state?

If the state has a poor policy on energy why should a small business owner face the full brunt rather than the state?

No government appears to want to solve these problems because of short-termism

There would be no overnight fix, but personally the less Gov interference the happier I would be.

Gov is a necessity, and eventually all Governments like extra control and power. In such things as defence, education, health and setting the laws of the land I think most would agree they should have a role.

Benefits, such as Child benefits, marriage allowance etc to help with the correct population ratios are under their domain. Benefits for the less fortunate in society, unemployment benefits for those laid off etc. The last in particular was meant as a temporary helping hand when introduced, but as time has rolled on more and more accept this as a way of life.

Things such as housing, salaries, childcare costs should be left to the private sector to set. Houses too expensive? Their prices drop. Mortgages too expensive, the interest rates will correct etc.

Unfortunately the UK, like most countries in the West in particular are in a total mess, mainly because the public have allowed the Gov to control too much. Life, as in business can be tough. It is a useful thing to understand looking after yourself, be it health, education etc is down to yourself primarily and that end of the day, Governments do not care about YOU.
 
Upvote 0
Copy what other countries do - re-education programmes. Set up a modest fund that pays a full wage to adults who do an apprenticeship in a trade for which there is a demand. On completion, they get a job at a decent wage and use some of that money to reimburse the fund so that the programme can continue at no further burden to the public purse.

In the long term, the country needs STEM graduates. We need to change that mindset where certain people look down on education, as if being well-educated and getting good grades is something worthy of contempt. I've seen it on this forum.
 
Upvote 0
How about a differential corporation tax amount where if a certain % of your staff are receiving benefits then you are taxed more or if a lesser number are you receive a tax credit/lower rate.

As a stick/carrot to pay a higher wage rather than make excess profit/undercut better employers
 
Upvote 0
In the long term, the country needs STEM graduates. We need to change that mindset where certain people look down on education, as if being well-educated and getting good grades is something worthy of contempt. I've seen it on this forum.
There are easy ways to do this as well.

Why have an expensive system where we have nurses/physios etc going to university and racking up a huge student debt to then go work for the health service where they demand higher wages to pay back that debt.

Why not say "at the end of your 10th year in the NHS the tuition part of your student debt is wiped"

You could do the same with many similar professions - teachers, Doctors, Dentists, research scientists etc.

If they knew that £28.5k (+ interest) of debt was being wiped at 10 years you would get 10 years out of them with less complaining AND not be spending a fortune on the admin of managing the student debt industry

Plus you would incentivise people working in those useful to socienty professions
 
Upvote 0
There are easy ways to do this as well.

Why have an expensive system where we have nurses/physios etc going to university and racking up a huge student debt to then go work for the health service where they demand higher wages to pay back that debt.

Why not say "at the end of your 10th year in the NHS the tuition part of your student debt is wiped"

You could do the same with many similar professions - teachers, Doctors, Dentists, research scientists etc.

If they knew that £28.5k (+ interest) of debt was being wiped at 10 years you would get 10 years out of them with less complaining AND not be spending a fortune on the admin of managing the student debt industry

Plus you would incentivise people working in those useful to socienty professions
Why not revert to the original nurse training scenario. No univerity fees, and a bursary to cover living costs. When this government did away with those things the nursing shortage started.
 
Upvote 0
Why not revert to the original nurse training scenario. No univerity fees, and a bursary to cover living costs. When this government did away with those things the nursing shortage started.
You could but my policy covers more than nurses like teachers

There is also a sort of bursary now

Nursing and allied professions (physios, OT's etc) get £5k per year non repayable which is to cover the fact they cant work in term time due to work load and also need to do 1000 hours of unpaid placements over the 3 years of the course. Theoretically they can also claim some expenses during placement like staying in hospital accommodation etc but it requires it to exist.
 
Upvote 0
How about a differential corporation tax amount where if a certain % of your staff are receiving benefits then you are taxed more or if a lesser number are you receive a tax credit/lower rate.

As a stick/carrot to pay a higher wage rather than make excess profit/undercut better employers
Would this discourage companies from employing younger people, those with children, disabled, etc, as they are more likely to be receiving benefits?
 
Upvote 0
This has never worked

My dad left my mum in 1976 he then left the gpo (BT side) and went self employed to not have his pay docked - he was paying back at 50p per week until 1993 when my brother hit 18 and then it was written off.

My stepdad kicked my mum out in 1990 when i was at uni and as his only income was the farm (which was also the house) he was set no payments to make but a charge was placed on the land based upon the fact she was unpaid help for 12 years (and had no pension). When he sold a field the 13/39ths of the sale (the amount they set) went to almost pay off the legal aid bill for the divorce - she still owes some of that and has still had no maintenance for my half brother (he was 5 in 1990 when they split up).

CMS has never and will never work for the good of the mother/child in my opinion
It works for my wife (from her previous marriage).
 
Upvote 0

Latest Articles