Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
Point missed completely.....
Why shouldn't businesses, whose profits (which are a good thing) are at their highest point in two decades, pay their employees a living wage?
When we hired students in their placement year, they got the same salary as trainees (around £18k) - this motivated them, so everyone benefited (more productive, better work experience, happier employees).
We are talking about people, not 'resources' - I treat those who work with me how I would I would like to be treated if I were in their shoes; with dignity, and paid a fair wage.
If your business model can't afford a living wage, the model isn't right.....
|
"Highest point in 2 decades" is meaningless as in the other 19 years it was lower, but they would still have been expected to pay that wage. And it wasn't for all companies and wasn't just businesses that employ a lot of people, eg financial businesses. Rate of return is not the same as profit.
How does a salary enough to not "need" tax credits etc, for a couple with 4 kids, some or all needing childcare, have any relevance to a single person with no kids living with their parents. That could be in the region of £60,000 minimum wage.
Try starting up a new business with those sorts of silly costs. Even a couple with 4 kids not needing childcare would apparently need over £35K living wage. A cleaner on £35K?
Being motivated by higher salaries depends on the job and the business. So again using that is completely meaningless.
And why don't we scrap the main tax-free allowance as that is also state aid. The list goes on.
Which planet has a minimum "living wage" enough to not need state aid in one form or another for a large proportion of the population? Double the cost of a business and the "living wage" goes up in response and so on. China and India becoming cheap production powerhouses was a one off. Any benefits from that can't be repeated again.