Living Wage 2020... is it right?

Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,634
What a pointless move, that just pushes up prices and achieves nothing but devalue the jobs if people currently just above that wage. Meaning you end up with leas financial spread. And more people at either end of the scale.
 
Associate
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Posts
1,389
...and he'll be told that that the extra the boss needs to pay to make up the 'living wage' for the other workers means they won't be able to.

If you really believe businesses are going to think "we must pay our lowest paid workers more so we'll increase our costs even further by giving everyone above them a pay rise as well" is living in cloud cuckoo land.

It's obvious that they won't want to, but it's equally cloud cuckoo land for employers to think that all of their employees will be satisfied taking the same wage.

Some of my friends have been placed in similar positions by their companies.

'Would you like to become manager and take responsibility for x, y, and z and be on call for emergencies?'

'What's the pay rise?'

'10p per hour'

'I'm good, thanks.'

Point is, if you're not willing to pay people for extra stress / qualifications / effort then they're not going to take the jobs. OK, the old-timers are probably a bit stuck, but ultimately you've got to find an incentive for people to make the step up.
 
Associate
Joined
16 Jun 2008
Posts
1,240
I'm not annoyed that the minimum wage is getting a decent increase for the first time in many years, it's just rubbish that the public sector have a 1% cap for 4 years after years of freezes and cost of living increases.

I don't want to move from working for the NHS as I enjoy my job and feel that I'm making a small contribution to society even if indirectly.

I just don't think this has been thought through by the government when it comes to banding, if the NLW becomes the lowest pay point of the first band then people in entry level jobs in the NHS won't have anywhere to go.

£17,500 is currently the mid point of band three, where jobs such as HCAs, senior department admin staff are situated and I very much doubt that everyone is going to be moved up a band or two to allow for the same type of progression.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
26,053
There was a bloke on the radio this morning who works up north as a lorry driver for a small firm who is currently on £7.50 p/h. He said there are a couple of lads who work in their waste disposal yard who sort through waste all day and don't have the licence and responsibility he does.

Next year they'll get a significant pay rise meaning he'll be on just 30p p/h more than them and rightfully asked what was the point in doing the training to drive the lorries and take on those extra duties now.

So you don't have to sort through rubbish?
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Mar 2007
Posts
10,938
It's obvious that they won't want to, but it's equally cloud cuckoo land for employers to think that all of their employees will be satisfied taking the same wage.

Some of my friends have been placed in similar positions by their companies.

'Would you like to become manager and take responsibility for x, y, and z and be on call for emergencies?'

'What's the pay rise?'

'10p per hour'

'I'm good, thanks.'

Point is, if you're not willing to pay people for extra stress / qualifications / effort then they're not going to take the jobs. OK, the old-timers are probably a bit stuck, but ultimately you've got to find an incentive for people to make the step up.

I see what you're saying and agree to an extent but that only really works if everyone is fired on March 31st 2016 and then is free to renegotiate their own role.

Over time things will adjust but there will be a long period where many people will see people with significantly less skills than them getting paid nearly what they do. Some people like what they do, like the security of the job they have and aren't the types to move jobs the second they feel an unfairness is introduced.

Lest we forget that in the last parliament, the coalition made it effectively legally to sack anyone that had been in their jobs for less than two years for any reason they like (outside those protected by the Equality Act. Race, gender, sexual orientation etc).

This now means changing your job adds the risk of no job security in your new job for at least 2 years. This is a big thing to give up unless the wage you can get is significantly higher to offset that risk.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Apr 2009
Posts
7,580
I find it so pointless. Increase in wage, increase in costs, increase in prices. The wage increase eventually just gets passed back onto the consumer. It doesn't actually change anything.

You haven't really thought that through, have you?

1. Wages aren't the only factor that influences prices.

2. It's only wages at the bottom that are set to increase dramatically. Any pay increases further up are likely to be less pronounced. As a result, average wages aren't about to jump up by 10%.

The 'National Living Wage' will affect prices, but not enough to make the move pointless. Not even close.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
26,053
This now means changing your job adds the risk of no job security in your new job for at least 2 years. This is a big thing to give up unless the wage you can get is significantly higher to offset that risk.

2 years is about right to start looking for a new position anyway. I've never stayed in the same job for 3 years, think the longest I managed was about 32 months before moving on.
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Mar 2007
Posts
10,938
2 years is about right to start looking for a new position anyway. I've never stayed in the same job for 3 years, think the longest I managed was about 32 months before moving on.

Wouldn't the next employer look at your CV and think "why employ this person if it's highly likely he'll bugger off in 2 years' time"?
 
Associate
Joined
14 Jun 2013
Posts
558
All this whining about wages!

Get better skills and sell yourself for more money. Forcing companies to pay unskilled people more money is stupid. As is propping up low wages to indirectly subsidise unsuccessful businesses.
 
Associate
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Posts
1,389
I see what you're saying and agree to an extent but that only really works if everyone is fired on March 31st 2016 and then is free to renegotiate their own role.

Over time things will adjust but there will be a long period where many people will see people with significantly less skills than them getting paid nearly what they do. Some people like what they do, like the security of the job they have and aren't the types to move jobs the second they feel an unfairness is introduced.

Lest we forget that in the last parliament, the coalition made it effectively legally to sack anyone that had been in their jobs for less than two years for any reason they like (outside those protected by the Equality Act. Race, gender, sexual orientation etc).

This now means changing your job adds the risk of no job security in your new job for at least 2 years. This is a big thing to give up unless the wage you can get is significantly higher to offset that risk.

Yeah, it will take time for what I mentioned to take effect. I guess it's more a riposte to those who act like they're going to get screwed over by every Tom, Dick and Harry suddenly matching their £9 p/h. As long as you've got some sort of marketable skill, and aren't being paid over the odds purely due to some legacy quirk, I'd expect over time you would be paid appropriately. The question is how long companies can wait - too soon, and as you point out, they've been daft and wasted their money. Too long, and you start to lose your staff and fail to replace them.

As a side note, some companies are quite keen to remain competitive - more so than your initial post implied. When I was in retail as a part-timer, our salaries were effectively pegged to minimum wage +£1.50 or something like that. Not contractually, but effectively. And if you want to avoid losing your staff to competitors, it's not a bad approach.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Apr 2009
Posts
7,580
...and he'll be told that that the extra the boss needs to pay to make up the 'living wage' for the other workers means they won't be able to.

If you really believe businesses are going to think "we must pay our lowest paid workers more so we'll increase our costs even further by giving everyone above them a pay rise as well" is living in cloud cuckoo land.

The marketplace works both ways.

Let's say a business currently employs supervisors at £7.20/h. If that business chooses not to increase the supervisors' wage next year then two things will happen:

1. Their existing supervisors will feel devalued, demotivated and productivity will fall.

2. They'll struggle to find anyone to fill supervisor vacancies.

Eventually, the business will have to give the supervisors a meaningful pay rise that is representative of the extra responsibility. How long it takes depends on that business's tolerance for pain.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
26,053
Wouldn't the next employer look at your CV and think "why employ this person if it's highly likely he'll bugger off in 2 years' time"?

Employers with that attitude would generally be the ones who think "why would I train my staff when they could just go and get a better job afterwards" and not worth working for in the first place.

Moving jobs every 2-3 years is fairly common in the IT field I work in. The guys I meet who have been in the same role for 8+ years are absolutely hopeless at it.
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Mar 2007
Posts
10,938
The marketplace works both ways.

Let's say a business currently employs supervisors at £7.20/h. If that business chooses not to increase the supervisors' wage next year then two things will happen:

1. Their existing supervisors will feel devalued, demotivated and productivity will fall.

2. They'll struggle to find anyone to fill supervisor vacancies.

Eventually, the business will have to give the supervisors a meaningful pay rise that is representative of the extra responsibility. How long it takes depends on that business's tolerance for pain.

You can turn that argument around though and ask why anyone would take a job on less than the "living wage" now and before when they could get more on benefits.

Some people like working to feel value and I've met plenty of people who take on supervisor roles for very little extra because they like the fact they become a pseudo boss and are happy with just the extra job title/perceived power.
 
Associate
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Posts
1,389
Some people like working to feel value and I've met plenty of people who take on supervisor roles for very little extra because they like the fact they become a pseudo boss and are happy with just the extra job title/perceived power.

You're not wrong, but it's not the greatest model for a successful business!
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Mar 2011
Posts
4,908
In reality furniture, technology and most staple foods have stayed the same for donkeys years. ;)

Housing, utility bills, house prices, car running costs, booze and fags have grown exponentially. :eek:
 
Back
Top Bottom