Would anyone like a sensible discussion about low pay?

[Onthebrightside]

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

It's nice though that they've had long term jobs there and know everyone in the town Hopefully, their husbands have a long and happy life

The East of England Co-Op in the centre of our town seems to have a quite different policy, their staff are on full-time contracts and they do school hours jobs. Their products are a little more expensive but I always shop there because the staff are so happy and helpful, always laughing. They did though recently cut back on store staff and installed some auto-pay check points, but I forgive them that because they simultaneously created 'happy shopper' where you can spend just £15.00 and get it delivered within the hour!. As we have a lot of old people in the town their relatives, however far away, can order and have food sent to them for a charge of about £4.00 (sometimes cheaper). Now that I think is a good service. Additionally they do microwave meals that are the handmade type, which are also ideal for our elderly residents (listen to me! I nearly am one of the elderly residents!).

I shouldn't imagine their wage is anything more than basic pay, but at least they do the type of jobs that parents with school aged children can go for. The gaps here then seem to be filled with a mixture of the middle aged and young student types.

But then getting back to the skills required to be a shop assistant they now have to shop these 'happy shopper' things on the app and get it there within a time period, sort out the parcel delivery swipe codes, then there's the lottery machine, self service tills needing sorting out and the actual tills - I wouldn't say life is as easy as shop assistants say 40 years ago.

 

[japancool]

Why do childcare costs take 26% of a working couple's income in the UK, while it only takes up 9% in the rest of the developed world?

 

[Newchodge]

Why do childcare costs take 26% of a working couple's income in the UK, while it only takes up 9% in the rest of the developed world?

Possibly:

• childcare provision from private companies who have to keep shareholders happy?
• 'free childcare for large number of children, paid for by the government at rates that are half cost, so other parents are charged more to make up the difference?
• low wages/high taxation reducing working couples' income?
• regulation of childcare resulting in higher costs?
• higher amount of childcare in UK compared with free family assistance elsewhere?

 

[UKSBD]

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?

That's basically what I am saying

Control it with the tax system rather than the wage system

Tax the lower paid less, small business owners won't need to pay higher wages

 

[UKSBD]

It's nice though that they've had long term jobs there and know everyone in the town Hopefully, their husbands have a long and happy life

The East of England Co-Op in the centre of our town seems to have a quite different policy, their staff are on full-time contracts and they do school hours jobs. Their products are a little more expensive but I always shop there because the staff are so happy and helpful, always laughing. They did though recently cut back on store staff and installed some auto-pay check points, but I forgive them that because they simultaneously created 'happy shopper' where you can spend just £15.00 and get it delivered within the hour!. As we have a lot of old people in the town their relatives, however far away, can order and have food sent to them for a charge of about £4.00 (sometimes cheaper). Now that I think is a good service. Additionally they do microwave meals that are the handmade type, which are also ideal for our elderly residents (listen to me! I nearly am one of the elderly residents!).

I shouldn't imagine their wage is anything more than basic pay, but at least they do the type of jobs that parents with school aged children can go for. The gaps here then seem to be filled with a mixture of the middle aged and young student types.

But then getting back to the skills required to be a shop assistant they now have to shop these 'happy shopper' things on the app and get it there within a time period, sort out the parcel delivery swipe codes, then there's the lottery machine, self service tills needing sorting out and the actual tills - I wouldn't say life is as easy as shop assistants say 40 years ago.

Do you live in the same town as me

I think the Co-Op are great

My lad has started working there temporarily until he passes his driving test and can look for an apprenticeship.

He's contracted to work 18 hours but most weeks works between 25 and 35, he knows the hours he is going to work at least 3 weeks in advance, is paid the living wage rate for a 24 year old, he could get 10% employer pension contribution, he 30% off own brand products (which any member of household can use), during cost of living crisis they all get an extra £50 a month put on their coleague cards too, plus other perks.

Co-Op may be more expensive but I do majority of my shopping there, I switched to Tesco during Pandemic, but are back to shopping at the Co-Op now.

Like you say, the tills are complicated with all the different membership/colleague cards/ vouchers, etc. They have one till there that none of the staff like to use as it's easy to not take payment when they think they have resulting in people getting free shopping and the staff member getting a b*****

 

[Onthebrightside]

Possibly:

• childcare provision from private companies who have to keep shareholders happy?
• 'free childcare for large number of children, paid for by the government at rates that are half cost, so other parents are charged more to make up the difference?
• low wages/high taxation reducing working couples' income?
• regulation of childcare resulting in higher costs?
• higher amount of childcare in UK compared with free family assistance elsewhere?

If you have family assistance with childcare you're far less likely to be in a lower paid job. You can go for the full time admin jobs, even a basic reception job often pays more than, say, supermarket jobs.

 

[japancool]

Control it with the tax system rather than the wage system

Then you're subsidising large numbers of unviable businesses. No wonder wages are low.

I don't see how putting the burden on taxpayers is fair. It's the business owners who want to hire those people, they should be the ones to pay for it.

 

[Onthebrightside]

Do you live in the same town as me

I think the Co-Op are great

My lad has started working there temporarily until he passes his driving test and can look for an apprenticeship.

He's contracted to work 18 hours but most weeks works between 25 and 35, he knows the hours he is going to work at least 3 weeks in advance, is paid the living wage rate for a 24 year old, he could get 10% employer pension contribution, he 30% off own brand products (which any member of household can use), during cost of living crisis they all get an extra £50 a month put on their coleague cards too, plus other perks.

Co-Op may be more expensive but I do majority of my shopping there, I switched to Tesco during Pandemic, but are back to shopping at the Co-Op now.

Like you say, the tills are complicated with all the different membership/colleague cards/ vouchers, etc. They have one till there that none of the staff like to use as it's easy to not take payment when they think they have resulting in people getting free shopping and the staff member getting a b*****

My son had a Saturday job at Tesco on the deli and when the old people came in he'd weigh up the sliced meat (or whatever) print the label off and then shove a bit extra into the bag. He had to stop it after a while though because every Saturday there was a queue of old people for him

 

[UKSBD]

Then you're subsidising large numbers of unviable businesses. No wonder wages are low.

Not if the balance is right

I'm saying if a small business is paying a fair rate it shouldn't be chastised if that rate isn't enough for an extreme example

If £15 an hour is a fair rate for 95% of people but someone else can't live on the equivalent of £20 an hour it should be the duty of the State to cover the difference for that person, not expect the business to put up their rate to £20.

 

[japancool]

If £15 an hour is a fair rate for 95% of people

Well, the minimum wage isn't £15 an hour. And again, WHY is it the duty of the other taxpayers to cover that difference? It should be incumbent upon the person to find a job that pays £20 an hour, if that's what they need to survive, certainly in the long term.

 

[UKSBD]

WHY is it the duty of the other taxpayers to cover that difference?

Because that's what a caring society does

 

[japancool]

Because that's what a caring society does

No. That's what a profligate society does. It is not the responsibility of the taxpayer to enable someone to live beyond their means.

If they've fallen on hard times thorugh no fault of their own, then society should help them get back on their feet.

It is NOT for the taxpayer to subsidise someone if they want to live somewhere they can't afford.

And a "caring society" has no obligation to subsidise and business owners underpay their staff.

 

[MBE2017]

The Government would have to set a minimum wage, based on say 37.5 hrs a week, and it should apply to all companies equally. Benefit top ups should never take you to the same level IMO, so as an example if minimum wage was set at £27k PA, anyone on benefits should get a lower maximum IMO, for example £20k pa.

This would help incentivise people to take even the most menial jobs, the only exceptions to the above would be those born with a severe disability, or those that have developed one through say an accident.

These figures are just made up, it would take much cleverer people than myself to sort out this mess.

 

[UKSBD]

This would help incentivise people to take even the most menial jobs, the only exceptions to the above would be those born with a severe disability, or those that have developed one through say an accident.

Or those with accidental children, or if partner dies or deserts them ?

It's almost impossible for a single parent to get any type of job that covers the cost of childcare when they are working

 

[UKSBD]

The Government would have to set a minimum wage, based on say 37.5 hrs a week, and it should apply to all companies equally

I agree but as @Newchodge has pointed out several times a some companies only offer 16 hour contracts and make it impossible for the employee to have a 2nd job because they are on very short notice of which shifts they are required to work.

 

[Newchodge]

Well, the minimum wage isn't £15 an hour. And again, WHY is it the duty of the other taxpayers to cover that difference? It should be incumbent upon the person to find a job that pays £20 an hour, if that's what they need to survive, certainly in the long term.

And what if they cannot find a job that pays £20 an hour. Let them starve?

 

[MBE2017]

Or those with accidental children, or if partner dies or deserts them ?

It's almost impossible for a single parent to get any type of job that covers the cost of childcare when they are working

Like I said, it would take a much cleverer person than myself to sort out this mess. The minimum wage could be topped up with a child benefit or similar. As for second jobs, employers would have to adapt rates and times to attract people.

In my youth, part time work was paid at a premium for many, to get the workers, who still had to travel to and from work as if they were full time. That has been replaced with WTC and UC etc.

 

[Newchodge]

Let me add something to think about.

Why do so many large profitable companies pay their staff starvation wages? Did they influence their friends in government to set up an income support sysytem that facilitated them doing this, so they can pay their shareholders huge dividends, instead of paying their staff appropriate wages?

 

[japancool]

And what if they cannot find a job that pays £20 an hour. Let them starve?

Then they should either move to somewhere where they can find such a job, or skill up. The government should support them while they enable themselves to do either of those.

I would not mind the government providing them a grant to do either, or even both. In the long term, it's beneficial for them and for society as a whole.

Unless they have a long-term reason why they cannot get themselves off benefits, government support should be limited. The point of the welfare system is to provide a safety net, not lock someone into a permanent state of reliance.

If they can't survive because they have children and the partner is not contributing to the cost of bringing up the children, the government should be more to force them to.

It's different if the other partner cannot contribute through death or disability, but if they are alive and well, they need to pay for the children they brough into this world.

 

[japancool]

There are plenty of circumstances where the government should provide long-term support. If someone is another person's carer, for example.

But if a person is fit and able, there's no reason why they should expect the government to support them forever. If they choose to have children when they can't afford to look after them (as opposed to finding themselves in that situation through no fault of their own), well, the childrens' needs should be met, not the irresponsible parent's.

 

[japancool]

And Tesco, for example, made £2 billion profit in 2021/22. You're telling me they need the government to subsidise their wages with UC?

 

[UKSBD]

Let me add something to think about.

Why do so many large profitable companies pay their staff starvation wages? Did they influence their friends in government to set up an income support sysytem that facilitated them doing this, so they can pay their shareholders huge dividends, instead of paying their staff appropriate wages?

Because going rates aren't set by extremes

If 19 small companies can just about afford to pay £15 an hour but 1 large profitable company can easily afford to pay £25 an hour should the going rate be £25 an hour?

Or are you suggesting large profitable companies should pay higher wages than small companies who are making nowhere near the same profit?

Why not use the taxation system to control the large companies profits which effects just them rather than wage control that effects the other 19 companies too?

 

[japancool]

If 19 small companies can just about afford to pay £15 an hour but 1 large profitable company can easily afford to pay £25 an hour should the going rate be £25 an hour?

Yes, if the small companies want to compete with the large companies for staff. That's how the market works.

Except the large company *won't* offer £25 an hour, unless they're desperate for workers. They'll offer £15 an hour.

So why should the taxpayer subsidise the large company's wages if they afford to pay £25 an hour?

 

[UKSBD]

So why should the taxpayer subsidise the large company's wages if they afford to pay £25 an hour?

I didn't say they should, I said it should be controlled via the taxation system rather than through wage control

 

[MBE2017]

I didn't say they should, I said it should be controlled via the taxation system rather than through wage control

Profits are controlled to some extent via taxation, which is set by the Government. They would also set a minimum salary, just as they do now, except it should be enough to live on without subsidies from the tax payer.

Since I have not seen anyone question the Governments ability to set a minimum wage, regardless of whether you agree with the figure, the only difference is a new higher figure should take millions out of the benefit system, with companies finally paying the true cost of labour.

Prices would rise, which would have to be taken into account, but theoretically I see no major issue regarding an employer paying the salary, rather than paying a low salary knowing the tax payer picks up a lot of the slack, all whilst for many companies record profits and senior management increases keep increasing.

 

[Newchodge]

If 19 small companies can just about afford to pay £15 an hour but 1 large profitable company can easily afford to pay £25 an hour should the going rate be £25 an hour?

Or are you suggesting large profitable companies should pay higher wages than small companies who are making nowhere near the same profit

I a suggesting that every employer should pay staff what they can afford.

 

[Newchodge]

And Tesco, for example, made £2 billion profit in 2021/22. You're telling me they need the government to subsidise their wages with UC?

No. They need the government to subsidise their sahreholders with UC. Because that is what is happening.

 

[simon field]

No. They need the government to subsidise their sahreholders with UC. Because that is what is happening.

I sometimes think you seem to not like business. As in, profits are ok up to a point, but beyond that they ain’t!

Without knowing about shareholders (investors) in a company, ie the number of shareholders and their level of investment, how can you ever say ‘that’s just too much profit’.

How much money should someone have before you class it as too much, go on put a figure on it ?

 

[japancool]

I didn't say they should, I said it should be controlled via the taxation system rather than through wage control

Subsidising wages IS a form of wage control.

 

[NickGrogan]

If there was no UC, then taxes could be lower.

Therefore employees would keep more of their wages, so they would not need so much support.

UC costs £40B, Corporate tax raised £67B

 

[Newchodge]

If 19 small companies can just about afford to pay £15 an hour but 1 large profitable company can easily afford to pay £25 an hour should the going rate be £25 an hour?

I am not talking about state mandated wages. I am talking about differential wages - a large profitable company can afford to pay more to their workers who make their profits. So they should do so.

 

[pentel]

a large profitable company can afford to pay more to their workers who make their profits. So they should do so.

The scale of the operation can distort the perceived cash available to increase wages.

A large profitable company may be making £1billion profits on turnover of £100 billion. This is a 1% profit margin. The £1billion profit looks huge in relation the the individual employee (probably one of many thousands) but when equated as profit per employee may only be in the area of £100's.

That 1% margin can soon vanish, what then?

 

[Newchodge]

The scale of the operation can distort the perceived cash available to increase wages.

A large profitable company may be making £1billion profits on turnover of £100 billion. This is a 1% profit margin. The £1billion profit looks huge in relation the the individual employee (probably one of many thousands) but when equated as profit per employee may only be in the area of £100's.

That 1% margin can soon vanish, what then?

Look at the increase in dividend payments. If dividends go up 10%, why can't pay go up 10%?

 

[NickGrogan]

Look at the increase in dividend payments. If dividends go up 10%, why can't pay go up 10%?

Because the wages bill is far higher than the past dividend.

Also dividends go up and down, wages can't. Many companies pay no dividends when they have a bad year, not an option with wages,

 

[IanSuth]

Because the wages bill is far higher than the past dividend.

Also dividends go up and down, wages can't. Many companies pay no dividends when they have a bad year, not an option with wages,

A JL partnership style set up would be better then.

Staff get pay and then each year they also receive a dividend based on profit.

Maybe we ought to develop a corporation tax system that incentivises corporate structures where the staff are literally more invested in the business which "should" lead to more efficiency but also them being rewarded accordingly.

What you would have to be very careful in legislating against would be companies having a central shell (with high paid workers taking the rewards) and lots of sub companies contracted to run specific sections with low paid staff at zero profit so no disbursement was needed

 

[simon field]

Look at the increase in dividend payments. If dividends go up 10%, why can't pay go up 10%?

Which risks and investments do the employees make?

 

[NickGrogan]

A JL partnership style set up would be better then.

Staff get pay and then each year they also receive a dividend based on profit.

Maybe we ought to develop a corporation tax system that incentivises corporate structures where the staff are literally more invested in the business which "should" lead to more efficiency but also them being rewarded accordingly.

What you would have to be very careful in legislating against would be companies having a central shell (with high paid workers taking the rewards) and lots of sub companies contracted to run specific sections with low paid staff at zero profit so no disbursement was needed

Works for the banks.

Problem is that in many businesses, the staff feel that they are too far from the heart of the business to make a difference, and when you've got a lot of staff, the "extra" work of one, gets swallowed up by the averages.

Creating a business like JL is hard, but does work very well.

 

[pentel]

Look at the increase in dividend payments. If dividends go up 10%, why can't pay go up 10%?

Would you be happy that when dividends are halved then wages are too? Or do you want your cake and eat it?

 

[Newchodge]

Which risks and investments do the employees make?

Their lives.

 

[Newchodge]

Would you be happy that when dividends are halved then wages are too? Or do you want your cake and eat it?

If dividends are halved it is usually after staff have been made redundant