Living wage forcing busineses to cut back on staff and hours?

Things change I've changed

Things change I've changed

Things change I've changed

Soldato
Joined
27 Jul 2005
Posts
13,302
Location
The Orion Spur
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...itment-overtime-pay-Osborne-s-wages-hike.html

Yes I know know it's a daily mail link but I'm wondering what people think of this, I work in the 'low-paid' sector and I am legitimately starting to see the negative effects of the living wage already taking effect on local businesses and hotels in my area.

As someone that is living on minimum pay I actually didn't agree with the 'living wage' as I predicted that it would probably mean a lot of businesses would have to cut hours and staff, my GF's Hotel which is part of the Shearings group have now said they will aim to only employ people under 25 which I think is not only wrong but ageist, but at the same time I can understand they want to employ cheaper staff, for a company of that size the living wage is costing them millions, I've also heard rumors they want to try and convert many to part time hours, this will only lead to increasing the in-work benefits bill.

My company which is a local business is also cutting hours and staff, I'm hearing the same thing happening to a lot of local businesses, I have a bad feeling I'm going to end up earning less and working more due to this living wage which is ridiculous.

So do many people on here think the living wage is a good idea?
 
Last edited:
It's not affecting us, even bottom end jobs our on way more than min wage. Although I do expect a big push for a pay rise at lease in line with it at next review.

In principle I'm all for it. In reality I'm not sold, it actually achieves it's goal.

What I'm annoyed about, is no one is using this opportunity to do a full review of it and see what changes actually happen, to help form further choices in the future. Or maybe I just haven't heard about such research happening
 
Yup same thing happening in my town. I know several people who are telling the same story.... "Letting people go" then rehiring under 25's on zero contract hours.

yes i know they arent legally allowed to do it but they are and nothing seems to be done about it.

Large companies cannot get away with rehiring for the same job after making people redundant but seems smaller places can do it with impunity. And of course if you are there for under 2 years they just say its due to failing your "probation" period.

I also hear far more people working cash in hand, seems to be the prefered method of employment lately.... no records, no paper trail and everyone but the tax man is a winner. I work in a games shop so i get to talk and chat about things like this a lot.

And how come they are allowed to only hire under 25's? age discrimination anyone? how come this is allowed yet "no blacks" "no women" "no disabled" is scoured... its the same thing.... discrimination based on something you have no control over.

This is only going to get worse.
 
Last edited:
I think it is wrong to have different levels of minimum wage based on age. This is mostly low/no skill work, being a bit older doesn't necessarily mean you're any better at shelf stacking or flipping burgers etc... The fact that businesses are keen to hire under 25s just highlights that they don't perceive any value in any additional life experience for a lot of these minimum wage jobs.
 
Last edited:
It's fair enough to have a u-25 exemption. Gives young people a competitive advantage to allow them to get a foot on the ladder. Youth unemployment is crazy high, so gives them a chance.
 
lowrider007 said:
my GF's Hotel which is part of the Shearings group have now said they will aim to only employ people under 25
Click to expand...

One of the lesser publicised aims of the living wage was to increase youth employment, so it sounds like it's working.

AtreuS said:
I also hear far more people working cash in hand, seems to be the prefered method of employment lately.... no records, no paper trail and everyone but the tax man is a winner.
Click to expand...

In the long run even the tax man benefits in that scenario (as at that level they'd probably only be earning enough to pay NI but not income tax). No NI conts - no contributory unemployment benefit/pension etc.


Overall, I think the living wage is a good thing. If your business can't afford to pay it's staff a living wage, then maybe you shouldn't be in business? Vacate the market and let a more competent business owner fill the gap.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
amigafan2003 said:
One of the lesser publicised aims of the living wage was to increase youth employment, so it sounds like it's working.
Click to expand...

But more youths will be looking for work as the parents who now cant get jobs can no longer afford to have them living for free at home while going to college etc... i guess the long term effect will be interesting to watch.
 
i don't see it in my job but i'm not surprised its happening.

Sure, it would be great if everybody in the world got a good wage but i don't live in that world.
In reality every country is in competition with each other and globalisation will only drive the standard of living for us down - other countries will go up at our expense.
 
amigafan2003 said:
.............

Overall, I think the living wage is a good thing. If your business can't afford to pay it's staff a living wage, then maybe you shouldn't be in business? Vacate the market and let a more competent business owner fill the gap.
Click to expand...

Yeah those pesky business' trying to make a living providing others with work :rolleyes:

I'm curious what business did you run to become such an all knowing guru? Whereas there are undoubtedly poorly run business' an arbitrary rise in pay for staff will either mean less staff, or a more expensive service/end product.


Dowie: working wage I was referring to not minimum, and I don't see why so many people's wage going up (not everyone's :p) won't simply result in price increases leaving people no better off. No reason business' will simply absorb the additional expenditure?
 
Last edited:
By the time the living wage comes in business will have access to a pool of free labour (working for benefits schemes) so it won't harm businesses, meanwhile as those workign for benefits increases the government will continue to manipulate the figures and claim that unemployment is dropping (eg. by counting those people working for benefits as employed).
 
Last edited:
There are a few roles where I work that won't be replaced when people go and/or roles merged because of this, they also re-jigged a recent project (temp contracts so no comeback) whereby they all had to agree to lower hours to offset the increase or some wouldn't be taken on permanently.

EDIT: Looks like they are pushing a policy of paying everyone the top level though rather than paying under 25s less.
 
Last edited:
More youth employment and employers having an incentive to increase productivity instead of simply hiring more people? Sounds like its working as intended.

It will be interesting to see the effect of peoples actual pay though. If it results in people on low pay taking home less, then something has gone wrong.
 
helpimcrap said:
It's encouraging youth employment however it could have worked a bit fairer.
Click to expand...

Its going to be pretty grim for certain groups of people in certain age ranges - can bet for seasonal temp work, etc. the uptake will focus on the younger ones leaving those above that but below the level of having significant experience to draw on finding it very tough.

Judgeneo said:
More youth employment and employers having an incentive to increase productivity instead of simply hiring more people? Sounds like its working as intended.

It will be interesting to see the effect of peoples actual pay though. If it results in people on low pay taking home less, then something has gone wrong.
Click to expand...

Leaning on people at the bottom of the ladder? more companies trying to get away with i.e. pushing people into doing unpaid hours at the end of their shift, etc.? its going to be the ones where the buck stops taking the hit not an increase in effective management, etc.
 
Last edited:
Small businesses who rely on minimum wage workers to get a profit will suffer. I absolutely support increase in living wage... as long as cost of living is kept under control, so people can pour a larger proportion of spending to support these businesses, so the small ones can still keep survivable margins.

We thought pubs were dying out before...

How many pubs in your area pay staff at living wage or above, certainly none of mine unless the position is something skilled/managerial.

Raising minimal wage to living wage does not achieve much by itself and has all sorts of effects on small businesses. You can counter and say 'if you cant afford to operate, then you should close' ... well the aim of the game is to reduce unemployment and make sure the cost of living is not beyond the means of people.

Quite a few businesses like pubs/restaurants pay cash in hand to avoid tax and keep margins, wonder how many more will follow.
 
It will help some on minimum wage (whose who keep thier jobs) and hinder others (those who lose thier jobs)

I just don't see how you can create wealth this way. If it worked just Jack up everyone's wage. Every action...

If anything it may increase social divide?

Overall I see little net gain
On personal level.. Swings and roundabouts


It's the cost of living that needs handling. Particularly that you can't rent and save minimum wage due to rent/house prices
This won't help there
 
I wonder if money as a currency is even the way forwards any more? Granted, life is better now than it was in the 1930s, but it seemed to have stagnated now. Those round pieces of metal and sheets of paper is the one thing that is holding the whole world to ransom. It causes recessions and people lose their jobs etc. Surely there got to be a system now where everyone can get a job, everyone has access to health care and mod cons, and there is enough food to go around to feed the whole world, except that the distribution is still rather one-sided. There is in principle enough resources for everyone.

And there's this: Wealth of richest 1% equal to other 99%.

BBC News said:
The richest 1% now has as much wealth as the rest of the world combined, according to Oxfam.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom