Living Wage 2020... is it right?

[Kenai]

I'm getting tired of typing on my phone now, so I will just leave it at this:

I feel a NMW increase of nearly 50% coupled with the rest of the sector being limited to 1% will prove to be unsustainable. It will result in resentment from those who are effected by the compression of wage gaps that currently exist and will lead to problems, be they people leaving for work elsewhere or groups striking etc. On individual levels, there are easy solutions, I just don't think an entire sector can sustain those solutions from the whole affected workforce.

Nothing you've said has convinced me that everyone can progress sufficiently to avoid this compression, whilst I've obviously said nothing to convince you that this compression will even be an issue to start with, so I'll leave it there, no point wasting both our days failing to convince the other of anything at all

 

[dowie]

some examples

the Army:

New Entrants £14,637
Private 1 £18,125
Private 3 £19,099
Private 4 £20,727
Lance Corporal 5 £21,816
Corporal 1 £27,324
Sergeant 1 £31,058
Staff Sergeant 1 £34,380
Warrant Officer Class 2 5 £37,304
Warrant Officer Class 1 1 £39,944

You don't stay as a new entrant for long, you can move up through the bands for private

you should be Lance Corporal after 3 years or so...


Not everyone can expect to reach Warrant Officer levels... but progressing beyond private is expected

the 1% rise is needed to keep in line with inflation but it isn't just that rise... people don't join and stay at the very bottom rung... everyone progresses beyond recruit

 

[dowie]

Frankly if you still remain at the very bottom rung of whatever skilled vocation you chose after 5 years then you're likely a **** and giving you 1% a year is generous

 

[Kuros]

For people that say "Just get a promotion" is somewhat missing the point, for public sector Jobs. Whilst it is fine for some (I was quite fortunate myself to jump into an IT manager role after a year), it's quite often filling a dead mans shoes. You have to wait for someone to retire before you can move up to that role, you can't just be given a new job title and more money that you can do in the private sector.

 

[Angilion]

Could this not cause a surge of unemployment? For those companies who only pay minimum wage, and maybe they do so because of financial difficulties. Once they start having to up the wage, it means more of a loss on the company, so wouldn't these companies try and reduce the payload to avoid damaging the business?

Two things are likely:

Decreasing paid hours and phasing out older employees.

The two will work together because having less people to do the same amount of work will damage them and make the job increasingly more difficult for people over 25 or people who've been doing it for some years and have thus accumulated damage. It's already standard policy for most employees to deliberately make low-status employees suffer so that the pain and inconvenience from the resulting chronic medical problems serves as a constant reminder of their inferior status. Sure, it's illegal but that doesn't matter because custom is stronger than law. More of the same is an obvious response to increase hourly pay, especially in a society with a constant propaganda campaign against poor people in general and the welfare state in particular (except for money spent on the elderly and, at least for the time being, children in need of protection). The weaker the safety net for people without a wage they can survive on, the more they will have to put up with for that wage.

Businesses with more spare money will probably increase the reduction in paid hours with automation where possible. That happens anyway, but this will increase it somewhat.

I think the basic idea of having the minimum wage being a living wage is a good one because the current system is just dishonestly spending "welfare" money on paying part of the payroll costs of most businesses, but I'm not at all sure the way this is being done will benefit anyone.

 

[Diagro]

So you class my role as Entry level?
It's a senior role, I'm responsible for the schools Internet image... facebook, twitter, website management along with the design and implementation of the VLE and other stuff.

Entry level is the young person being paid NMW to put in cables and replace mmice and keyboards. With no further responsibilities...

But I'm just referring to people at entry level such as the OP... you get fewer jobs higher up, not everyone can be a team leader or a manager but moving from an entry level position to the next level should be possible over 5 years in plenty of skilled fields

you don't joint he army and expect to be a private for your entire career, or train to be a nurse and be stuck on the lowest possible band... people above you move up or retire and people get hired below you - unless there is some issue with a glut of people in a certain age bracket and very few retirees then it is sustainable to have some progress through bands below the point where you're having to take on management duties and the number of roles becomes limited

 

[balky12]

So you class my role as Entry level?
It's a senior role, I'm responsible for the schools Internet image... facebook, twitter, website management along with the design and implementation of the VLE and other stuff.

Entry level is the young person being paid NMW to put in cables and replace mmice and keyboards. With no further responsibilities...

So what's the problem?

In 5 years time you will be on more than the 1% increases year on year you are concerned about. (if you are indeed as skilled as you are suggesting).

Either because you will find a new job or your current employer will see your value and do something to keep you. (also sitting down and asking your employers for a decent pay rise never hurts as long as you can justify it to them, worst they can say is no)

If neither of these things happen over 5 years then you aren't as skilled as you might think.

 

[GAC]

If neither of these things happen over 5 years then you aren't as skilled as you might think.

on this forum everyones a ninja in their jobs earning £100k or so it seems

as for the new tier of min wage on wrinkle i can see it throwing up is people 25+ being used less by agencies as they look to maximise their profit margins even more, wouldnt be surprised if a few companies do it also. seen it at a couple of places before where anyone 21+ would be used as a last resort.

now we all get to wait and see how much of a knock on this actually has on wages across the board, will someone on say £8 an hour now get a bump to say £9 an hour or will it be like when the min wage came in and some employers used the old "cant afford it" and let wages slowly go down to the min wage level.

then we have the cost the new living wage will have on services which for now no one can get a handle on. plenty of companies will cry they wont be able to afford it and will go under, to them i suggest they should have gone under years ago as their business wasnt a viable one and without the gov paying working tax credits you'd have closed shop years ago. while not a nice thing to say it is right. getting really annoyed of late how people in business claim their companies are on a knife edge like they have just landed at this point, if you couldnt see more money going out than coming in then maybe you shouldnt be running a business at all.

 

[adam98150]

No point even discussing this, it's not going to happen. The only way it is going to happen is if the cost of living goes through the roof and we'd see none of the extra cash if that's the case.

 

[Rroff]

then we have the cost the new living wage will have on services which for now no one can get a handle on. plenty of companies will cry they wont be able to afford it and will go under, to them i suggest they should have gone under years ago as their business wasnt a viable one and without the gov paying working tax credits you'd have closed shop years ago. while not a nice thing to say it is right. getting really annoyed of late how people in business claim their companies are on a knife edge like they have just landed at this point, if you couldnt see more money going out than coming in then maybe you shouldnt be running a business at all.

The period around 2008 was pretty tough for a lot of businesses mind - even just things like rising fuel prices have pushed businesses that had a reasonably healthy model into having to take aggressive measures to manage costs - there is a point under increased pressure that any business could become an unviable one no matter how well managed.

 

[MrMoonX]

The period around 2008 was pretty tough for a lot of businesses mind - even just things like rising fuel prices have pushed businesses that had a reasonably healthy model into having to take aggressive measures to manage costs - there is a point under increased pressure that any business could become an unviable one no matter how well managed.

If you can't pay your workers enough to live on, it's not a business it's slavery

 

[McPhee]

No point even discussing this, it's not going to happen. The only way it is going to happen is if the cost of living goes through the roof and we'd see none of the extra cash if that's the case.

Yawn.

So, post and run basically. Your ill-formed opinion has already been debunked in this thread. The debate is now about whether or not businesses can afford the rise in wages, with a little "I'm a poor public sector worker" cry thrown in for good measure.

 

[McPhee]

So you class my role as Entry level?
It's a senior role, I'm responsible for the schools Internet image... facebook, twitter, website management along with the design and implementation of the VLE and other stuff.

Entry level is the young person being paid NMW to put in cables and replace mmice and keyboards. With no further responsibilities...

To be fair, it sounds like you're already pretty well paid for what you do. Part of my job within a large retail store is doing PR work - maintaining a strong social media presence, organising events, partnering with charities, building media presence etc. I work practically every weekend and earn around £7 an hour.

But of course, I work in retail and am therefore inferior to the public servant overlords, and undeserving of a pay rise, right?

 

[icehot]

on this forum everyones a ninja in their jobs earning £100k or so it seems

getting really annoyed of late how people in business claim their companies are on a knife edge like they have just landed at this point, if you couldnt see more money going out than coming in then maybe you shouldnt be running a business at all.

What a sweeping statement, obviously its this simple, you should start a business!

 

[balky12]

on this forum everyones a ninja in their jobs earning £100k or so it seems

I can't work out if that was aimed at me? Or where it actually came from tbh.

I was merely stating that if someone has concerns about a rise in minimum wage devaluing their worth, then perhaps they are not as skilled as they perceive.

 

[icehot]

To be fair, it sounds like you're already pretty well paid for what you do. Part of my job within a large retail store is doing PR work - maintaining a strong social media presence, organising events, partnering with charities, building media presence etc. I work practically every weekend and earn around £7 an hour.

But of course, I work in retail and am therefore inferior to the public servant overlords, and undeserving of a pay rise, right?

So your good at using twitter and facebook? so is the entire connected world. Sorry to be blunt.

I think you deserve your payrise, hell after the 7 years I served in retail, I applaud anyone who does it full time / for a career.

 

[McPhee]

So your good at using twitter and facebook? so is the entire connected world. Sorry to be blunt.

I think you deserve your payrise, hell after the 7 years I served in retail, I applaud anyone who does it full time / for a career.

I'm not suggesting it's a job that requires any amazing and rare skills, but I do consider myself and many of my colleagues underpaid. My current role has been eye-opening, as the more people I have met outside of this business, the more sure I have become that this is true. My sister recently moved to the events team at the council, doing work that isn't dissimilar to what I do now. She's getting £22k pa. And yes, she's moaning about the pay rise cap.

FWIW, I'm looking to get out of retail. I enjoy my job, but it's not exactly challenging and the only way it will ever be 'well paid' is if I sell my soul to the company. I've spent my free time lately setting up my own business with the intention to go 'live' next month. One of the benefits of retail is the flexibility - I'm not quitting right away, but I'll reduce my hours and responsibilities as the business grows.

 

[SeriousBusiness]

So what's the problem?

In 5 years time you will be on more than the 1% increases year on year you are concerned about. (if you are indeed as skilled as you are suggesting).

Either because you will find a new job or your current employer will see your value and do something to keep you. (also sitting down and asking your employers for a decent pay rise never hurts as long as you can justify it to them, worst they can say is no)

If neither of these things happen over 5 years then you aren't as skilled as you might think.

Currently, the job I have in the public sector starts at just under £24k and tops out at £29k. My job requires a degree as well as to being able to complete certain courses and certifications over the next 12 months.
Yes, every year I will probably get more then a 1% pay rise as I will rise up though the pay scales. The main issue is that in 4 years time, the top and bottom pay for this role will only rise by £1k or so.
Private sector jobs doing the exact same thing already having higher salaries, couple that with 2-5% rise every year to those salaries and it would make it very difficult to not only keep the current staff, but to attract new people in.

If we are then to outsource our work because we can't get the people in, the taxpayer ends up paying for it, and trust me, doing our work in house is a LOT cheaper then giving it out.

 

[balky12]

Currently, the job I have in the public sector starts at just under £24k and tops out at £29k. My job requires a degree as well as to being able to complete certain courses and certifications over the next 12 months.
Yes, every year I will probably get more then a 1% pay rise as I will rise up though the pay scales. The main issue is that in 4 years time, the top and bottom pay for this role will only rise by £1k or so.
Private sector jobs doing the exact same thing already having higher salaries, couple that with 2-5% rise every year to those salaries and it would make it very difficult to not only keep the current staff, but to attract new people in.

If we are then to outsource our work because we can't get the people in, the taxpayer ends up paying for it, and trust me, doing our work in house is a LOT cheaper then giving it out.

I don't understand where you are coming from?

You arguing that the public sector will struggle to employ new people because it is 'so much better in the private sector'? That simply is not true.

Also, I don't know what you do, but a 'job' that only has a £5k pay band (£24k - £29k)? Doesn't sound right to me. You talking a certain level (job title?)within that job role? £29k sounds awful low for a job that requires a degree.

 

[Trifid]

£29k sounds awful low for a job that requires a degree.

That is what a standard ward nurse tops out at after 8 years experience, in 2020.