Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
Arthur, I agree with you - employers should pay the minimum, actually the living, wage.
However, it is common sense if you pay out more wages, your profits are less*, so we will have to differ on that statement....
*if you bring in £100,000, and pay out £60,000, profit is £40,000 - if paying the minimum/living wage, and this means you pay out £70,000, profit is £30,000.
Profits affected, reduced by £10,000.
|
This is what worries me about the tax credits overhaul and the push for £9ph
As for the thread topic, most people probably knew they were paid less than minimum but feared for their jobs should they kick up a fuss, in an already dire job market they probably felt a bit less was better than nothing at all. I've seen companies pay minimum wage but skim hours instead. Employees swearing they'd worked more hours than there payslip says.
Source for the hours being skimmed: Myself at my previous employer, security work that also did a lot of other illegal things like exploitation of workers and blatant racial discrimination, asking two black males to pull 48 hour shifts every other weekend... Myself and colleagues at the time calculated the hours being skimmed by matching payslips with all the on site SIA log books that require to sign in and out, it's an offence to tamper with these as they're subject to audit at any given time by the SIA. Typically pages were ripped out soon after.