Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Not paying the minimum wage.; Named and shamed
Topic Started: Jan 15 2015, 08:59 AM (908 Views)
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
I suspect this list is the tip of the iceberg:-

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-names-and-shames-37-national-minimum-wage-offenders

•Kings Group LLP, Hertfordshire, neglected to pay £53,808.91 to 53 workers
•Kings Group Lettings LLP, Hertfordshire, neglected to pay £26,893.43 to 49 workers
•Chi Yip Group Ltd, Middleton, neglected to pay £15,566.78 to 13 workers
•Kingsclere Nurseries Ltd trading as Abacus Day Nursery, Newbury, neglected to pay £12,904.19 to 8 workers.
•Ms Thap Thi Ly trading as Sweet N Sour, Fleetwood, neglected to pay £11,039.14 to 2 workers
•Michael Kearney trading as Electrical Estimates, Ceredigion, neglected to pay £5,557.91 to 4 workers
•ABC Early Learning and Childcare Centre UK Ltd, Wolverhampton, neglected to pay £5,329.25 to 68 workers
•C J Hartley Ltd trading as Headwork, Sheffield, neglected to pay £4,762.64 to 4 workers
•Mrs Kelly Jayne Lockley trading as Diva Hair Design, Walsall, neglected to pay £4,103.65 to a worker
•Browncow Tanning Ltd trading as Fake Bake Hair & Beauty Boutique, Glasgow, neglected to pay £3,406.66 to 2 workers
•J Wood Joiners & Builders Ltd, Edinburgh, neglected to pay £3,373.19 to 4 workers
•Louise Ross Trading as Luxe Salon, Leeds, neglected to pay £3,368.13 to a worker
•H&M Hennes & Mauritz UK Ltd, London, neglected to pay £2,604.87 to 540 workers
•Building Projects Ltd, Dundee, neglected to pay £2,345.85 to 3 workers
•David A Farrer Ltd, Morecambe, neglected to pay £2,261.00 to a worker
•Julian’s Hair Salon Ltd, Newbury, neglected to pay £2,131.35 to a worker
•Motorists Discount Store Ltd trading as TMS Autoparts, Manchester, neglected to pay £2,025.19 to a worker
•Ms Dawn Platts trading as Level 2 Hair Studio, Barnsley, neglected to pay £1,186.89 to a worker
•Myers and Family Ltd, Wakefield, neglected to pay £1.598.82 to a worker
•Welcome Break Holdings Ltd, Newport Pagnell, neglected to pay £1,318.70 to 19 workers
•Callum Austin Ltd trading as Jason Austin Hairdressers, Kettering, neglected to pay £1,899.66 to 2 workers
•Mrs Karen Riley Trading as Crave, Preston, neglected to pay £1,179.09 to 7 workers
•RPM Performance Rally World Ltd, Maldon, neglected to pay £998.71 to a worker
•Ego Hair & Beauty (Anglia) Ltd, Colchester, neglected to pay £985.55 to a worker
•Mr Jinit Shah trading as Crystal Financial Solutions, Middlesex, neglected to pay £941.65 to a worker
•Counted4 Community Interest Company, Sunderland, neglected to pay £930.73 to a worker
•HAE Automotive Services Ltd, Harrogate (ceased trading), neglected to pay £798.16 to a worker
•Vision on Digital Ltd, Ossett, neglected to pay £683.86 to a worker
•Ultimate Care UK Ltd, Ipswich, neglected to pay £613.79 to 7 workers
•Century Motors (Sheffield) Ltd, Sheffield, neglected to pay £571.72 to a worker
•Mr D Eastwell & Mr G Brinkler trading as The Salon, Letchworth Garden City, neglected to pay £409.85 to a worker
•Rumble (Bedworth) Ltd, Nuneaton, neglected to pay £404.41 to a worker
•Shannons Ltd, Worthing neglected to pay £313.76 to a worker
•Holmes Cleaning Company, Worksop neglected to pay £240.48 to a worker
•Learnplay Foundation Ltd, West Bromwich, neglected to pay £224.73 to a worker
•Adrien Mackenzie trading as Maverick Models, Manchester, neglected to pay £205.52 to a worker
•QW Security Ltd, Hartlepool, neglected to pay £126.20 to a worker

The 37 cases named today were thoroughly investigated by HM Revenue and Customs after workers made complaints to the free and confidential Pay and Work Rights Helpline.

The scheme was revised in October 2013 to make it simpler to name and shame employers that do not comply with minimum wage rules.
Edited by papasmurf, Jan 15 2015, 09:00 AM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 07:55 PM
Well I got sick of finding research that was and had clearly been guided to be 'on message'
You mean you had this problem:-

Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 07:55 PM
Well I got sick of finding research that was and had clearly been guided to be 'on message'
You mean you have this problem. (Iain Duncan Smith has it as well.)

Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
 ::) or should that be  ::)  ::)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 16 2015, 08:12 PM
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 07:52 PM


If someone wants to take a job at £5 an hour for a little extra cash and someone else is happy to pay that but can't afford more then you want that transaction to be made illegal.

The 'can't afford to pay more' is what I was referring to earlier ........... and because he decides he can't afford to pay more, the job doesn't get done?
Of course he could get the job done if he upped his own returns (a little), but the priority is never 'can I do better if I set more staff on', it is 'can I get away without hiring more staff'.

I got annoyed in TESCO earlier in the week - mid-day, and there were six or more queuing at every check-out, the few that were open. The manager was even directing shoppers with baskets to the cigarette desk. There was panic, and very quickly more check-out ailse where opened, men in ties, back-office staff, anyone he could get it seemed.
A month ago this outlet introduced self scanning where shoppers scanned their shopping as they walked around, and simply settled the bill at a self check station (the onus on trust), with no staff (other than a single monitor watching proceedings) involved -- a policy of reducing staff numbers.

One pretty young girl was brought in from the beauty salon, seconded, and I'm not even sure she was a Tesco employee or from a franchised business on the premises ......... bad times we live in!

yes of course Tesco are making such big profits aren't they and in no way will report a loss this year

!jk!


The game is up PS and Affa. There is no company making huge profits employing Brits in large numbers anymore. The stories of exploitation are by and large a myth based on over emphasis on low wage employers employing few people to sell imported goods made by people on much less than the NMW

If we are to end the hideous evil of 2 million unemployed, indeed if we are to stop it getting worse, we are going to have to give up 1950's caricatures of employers, give up dogma for dogma sake and deal with the realities of the 21st century. When the man in the street only wants goods at world prices we need to better position our labour costs in the world market.



Edited by Steve K, Jan 16 2015, 09:11 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 09:06 PM
There is no company making huge profits employing Brits in large numbers anymore.

Care to back that up with evidence.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Zero hour contracts are just as much exploitation as paying a unacceptably low wage. Unless the employee has the right to a full time job after an agreed time.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 16 2015, 09:14 PM
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 09:06 PM
There is no company making huge profits employing Brits in large numbers anymore.

Care to back that up with evidence.
Surely it's for you to show otherwise. You just have to find one and I am certainly not going to check the records of thousands and thousands on UK companies. But I'll tell you this, I have never found one to date that is making huge profits and employing lots of people
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 09:23 PM
Surely it's for you to show otherwise.
You made the contention it is up to you to back it up.
Relevant:-

http://citywire.co.uk/money/monday-papers-ftse-100-companies-hoard-53-5-billion-in-cash/a776213

FTSE 100 companies hoard £53.5 billion in cash
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Well here's a freebie for you PS

Wiki lists G4S as the FTSE 100 listed company with the largest workforce. And hey ho when you look up the actual details you find they employ a staggering 618,260 people

but only 1 in 16 of those in the UK. And just what huge profits do they make? None, actually made a loss in the last reported year (2013) and the year before? Just 3.8% on revenue - and that's before tax and interest payments

http://www.g4s.com/~/media/3A387C7DC35049C6950D738F6AEBDB88.ashx

Your turn
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 09:38 PM
Well here's a freebie for you PS

Wiki lists G4S as the FTSE 100 listed company with the largest workforce. And hey ho when you look up the actual details you find they employ a staggering 618,260 people

but only 1 in 16 of those in the UK. And just what huge profits do they make? None, actually made a loss in the last reported year (2013) and the year before? Just 3.8% on revenue - and that's before tax and interest payments

http://www.g4s.com/~/media/3A387C7DC35049C6950D738F6AEBDB88.ashx

Your turn
G4S has not made a profit because it defrauded the UK government and had to pay the money back. It is an appallingly badly run company that has criminal tendencies.
G4S is about the worst example you could have come up with.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 16 2015, 09:50 PM
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 09:38 PM
Well here's a freebie for you PS

Wiki lists G4S as the FTSE 100 listed company with the largest workforce. And hey ho when you look up the actual details you find they employ a staggering 618,260 people

but only 1 in 16 of those in the UK. And just what huge profits do they make? None, actually made a loss in the last reported year (2013) and the year before? Just 3.8% on revenue - and that's before tax and interest payments

http://www.g4s.com/~/media/3A387C7DC35049C6950D738F6AEBDB88.ashx

Your turn
G4S has not made a profit because it defrauded the UK government and had to pay the money back. It is an appallingly badly run company that has criminal tendencies.
G4S is about the worst example you could have come up with.
Translation: you haven't got an answer.

Go on can you or can you not show me a large UK employer that is making a huge profit?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 09:38 PM
but only 1 in 16 of those in the UK. And just what huge profits do they make? None, actually made a loss in the last reported year (2013) and the year before? Just 3.8% on revenue - and that's before tax and interest payments
That'll be the Hollywood Accounting kicking in.

If you don't post a profit you don't pay tax.

Wonder why so many companies post losses AFTER shelling out small fortunes in Share Dividends.

 ::)

Just another way to move ever more of the tax burden from the Corporate sector to the individual.

All The Best
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Jan 16 2015, 10:51 PM
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 09:38 PM
but only 1 in 16 of those in the UK. And just what huge profits do they make? None, actually made a loss in the last reported year (2013) and the year before? Just 3.8% on revenue - and that's before tax and interest payments
That'll be the Hollywood Accounting kicking in.

If you don't post a profit you don't pay tax.

Wonder why so many companies post losses AFTER shelling out small fortunes in Share Dividends.

 ::)

Just another way to move ever more of the tax burden from the Corporate sector to the individual.

All The Best
Utter tosh ^

Go on what is your evidence of vast hidden profits there?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 09:53 PM
Translation: you haven't got an answer.

You haven't.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 16 2015, 10:54 PM
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 09:53 PM
Translation: you haven't got an answer.

You haven't.
Don't be stupid, you are asking me to prove a negative as anyone with an alleged IQ of 140+ should know is impossible. Meantime you have totally failed to come up with a single company making a killing out of exploiting UK workers

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 10:57 PM
Meantime you have totally failed to come up with a single company making a killing out of exploiting UK workers

It isn't single company, but the one who could not find anyone British to make sandwiches is one that springs to mind basically because it is such an appalling employer no-one wants to work for it, and there is a very long list of companies like that one.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 16 2015, 09:29 PM
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 09:23 PM
Surely it's for you to show otherwise.
You made the contention it is up to you to back it up.
Relevant:-

http://citywire.co.uk/money/monday-papers-ftse-100-companies-hoard-53-5-billion-in-cash/a776213

FTSE 100 companies hoard £53.5 billion in cash
I'd have mentioned that a few of those companies are banks and would have speculated if any of that cash came via the BoE's printing presses. ;-)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 16 2015, 11:09 PM
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 10:57 PM
Meantime you have totally failed to come up with a single company making a killing out of exploiting UK workers

It isn't single company, but the one who could not find anyone British to make sandwiches is one that springs to mind basically because it is such an appalling employer no-one wants to work for it, and there is a very long list of companies like that one.
That'd be Greencore http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/10/sandwich-firm-fill-vacancies-factory-east-european-workers

Profit before interest and tax just 4.75% of revenue http://asp-gb.secure-zone.net/v2/index.jsp?id=666/3447/9497&lng=en

As I said, not making a killing out of employing UK workers. Time for you and Affa to give up on a myth?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 16 2015, 11:09 PM
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 10:57 PM
Meantime you have totally failed to come up with a single company making a killing out of exploiting UK workers

It isn't single company, but the one who could not find anyone British to make sandwiches is one that springs to mind basically because it is such an appalling employer no-one wants to work for it, and there is a very long list of companies like that one.
You'll like this one that I've seen myself on building sites and other construction projects, you get a couple of Eastern European's who have just turned up in the country and you strike a deal with them, you employ both of them but pay the minimum wage to one and they split the money between them, if you get caught you just blame the dodgy foreigners for telling you lies!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 16 2015, 09:29 PM
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 09:23 PM
Surely it's for you to show otherwise.
. . Relevant:-

http://citywire.co.uk/money/monday-papers-ftse-100-companies-hoard-53-5-billion-in-cash/a776213

FTSE 100 companies hoard £53.5 billion in cash
That's less than 1 month of salaries, always wise to be able to actually meet your salary bill. Not such a great hoard is it really?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
In reply to the first line of the OP I wonder what you mean, the link makes itbolain how you get on the page.

I note the media make much of big name firms but the figures seem to show me the reality is most large firms on the list have underpaid peanuts per worker, probably thanks to an admin fsckup, yet they are pilloried more than firms that have cheated some workers of hundreds of pounds or more each.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 15 2015, 03:37 PM
Living Wage Employers
Employers found: 1129
Please use the filter below to refine your search by Region.
To download a PDF list of all Living Wage Employers by Region click here
Please be patient, this may take a moment.

They even have their own web-site: http://www.livingwage.org.uk/employers

Here is a few from the top of the list where top starts with the letter "a":
Academy House Service
Advice Direct Scotland
Aequitas Consulting
AIT Partnership Group Ltd
Argyle Street Housing Cooperative
Ark Academy (Brent)
Arup
ASH Scotland
Attic Removals
Attic Storage
BCD Travel
Belfast Cleaning Society Limited
Breadshare CIC
Bristol Pound CIC
Brook Young People

Look closely you will find most of the Banks and even Goldman Sachs, mind you I think they pay multiples of the NMW even to Cleaners if they will double up as Traders during the lunch break.

These companies should be applauded as they are paying more than the NMW.



Where is your synopsis and analysis. You have just done what you have accused PS of lazily doing.

It is a wonder if it is not a direct quote from the Daily Fail this time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 07:52 PM
Affa
Jan 16 2015, 05:46 PM
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 12:46 PM


Still should happen because having so many unemployed is our biggest and enduring national disgrace.


As I have stated, there are lots of jobs to be done. It is not for lack of requirement that there are so many unemployed - it is entirely from a lack of financial resources.

Another reminder - the introduction of the MW had the opposite effect of that imagined. Unemployment was substantially reduced.

If there is are negatives to raising the MW these are modest price increases and one rarely touched on ........ it would encourage, invite, more economic migrants. . . .
The truth is the NMW was introduced at a time when unemployment was already going down. I could and will just as easily argue it would have gone down further were it not for the NMW.
Quote:
 

Of the top, and without analysis, if say the MW went up £2 ph ...... a nominal increase of say £80 to the outlet per employee at McDonalds ..... something like £400 -500 pw. On a turnover of £15,000 pw that is a 2.6% - 3.3% increase. Something like 10 -12 p on the price of a Burger, fries and a coke if the business is to recover the loss.

I'd say the numerous benefits far outweigh the modest price rise for customers.

And just where is that extra money to come from? It would come from them spending less on other goods so no net benefit.

You say it is a lack of money that causes unemployment, no it is not. Seems people have plenty of money when we imported £34Billion of goods in November. That is over £500 for every man, woman and child in the UK because in a huge part they choose to buy imports from countries where the wages are less. Try asking the man in the street if he's prefer a 42inch LED TV from Taiwan or a 22inch LCD TV from the UK for the same money.

Affa
Jan 16 2015, 06:03 PM
A job that pays substantially less than unemployment benefit/dole money is not a job imo.
It is exploitation, and government should act to prevent it - the MW does that. . .

Forgive me for being blunt but that sentiment is plain evil.

If someone wants to take a job at £5 an hour for a little extra cash and someone else is happy to pay that but can't afford more then you want that transaction to be made illegal. And that's because the government doesn't want to be embarrassed at its failure to address the causes of low pay. That's beyond patronising, they and you want to victimise the less able so the well off don't have to gaze upon the lower paid

We should be protecting the less able from victimisation and actively embarrassing the hell out of those that'd use the NMW to keep the less able out of sight, work, identity, purpose etc

Here's a sobering read for you: Unemployed young people "falling apart"
You appear to be OK with the idea of people working for poverty wages. I find that sort of thinking in one of the richest countries in the world borders upon evil.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 17 2015, 09:02 AM
You appear to be OK with the idea of people working for poverty wages. I find that sort of thinking in one of the richest countries in the world borders upon evil.

Then I suggest you re-read what I actually posted then
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 11:26 PM
That's less than 1 month of salaries, always wise to be able to actually meet your salary bill. Not such a great hoard is it really?
It is for just 100 companies.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 17 2015, 10:14 AM
Steve K
Jan 16 2015, 11:26 PM
That's less than 1 month of salaries, always wise to be able to actually meet your salary bill. Not such a great hoard is it really?
It is for just 100 companies.
OK fair point but it is for the 6.5 million employees in those FTSE100 companies so is about 3 months wages
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 15 2015, 05:17 PM
RJD
Jan 15 2015, 03:37 PM
Living Wage Employers
This thread is not about those though RJD, start a thread about it, if it bothers you that much.
Doesn't bother me at all, just pointing out that your comments, as always lack balance. You have a habit of rushing to an extreme position and fail to understand the complete picture.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 17 2015, 05:18 PM
Doesn't bother me at all, just pointing out that your comments, as always lack balance.
The thread is about employers not paying the minimum wage RJD, that and no other subject.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 17 2015, 09:26 AM
C-too
Jan 17 2015, 09:02 AM
You appear to be OK with the idea of people working for poverty wages. I find that sort of thinking in one of the richest countries in the world borders upon evil.

Then I suggest you re-read what I actually posted then
I have read a couple of your posts on the subject from which at best I can deduct that the state should back-up those in the worst economic situation. This IMO would leave many working for a very low income, even lower than the minimum wage in some cases, in one of the richest countries in the world. That is the part I find difficulty in equating with.

Perhaps I'm reading you wrong ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 17 2015, 05:31 PM
Steve K
Jan 17 2015, 09:26 AM
C-too
Jan 17 2015, 09:02 AM
You appear to be OK with the idea of people working for poverty wages. I find that sort of thinking in one of the richest countries in the world borders upon evil.

Then I suggest you re-read what I actually posted then
I have read a couple of your posts on the subject from which at best I can deduct that the state should back-up those in the worst economic situation. This IMO would leave many working for a very low income, even lower than the minimum wage in some cases, in one of the richest countries in the world. That is the part I find difficulty in equating with.

Perhaps I'm reading you wrong ?
(see also the manifesto thread)

I think one of the most evil things the state can do is force someone not to take a job because it might embarrass the state. Not everyone needs the so called living wage, not everyone needs the NMW. Many workers are second earners in households where one other is earning well. But they need their identity, they need their social contact, they need their chance and no one should block that just to hide that the state has so effed up the job market with stupid interference so it does not inherently deliver better wages and higher employment.

And yes if someone is the only earner and they get below the NMW then their employer will have no security of their work and the state should ensure someone that willing to work receives enough for a decent life.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Steve K
Jan 17 2015, 08:29 PM
C-too
Jan 17 2015, 05:31 PM
Steve K
Jan 17 2015, 09:26 AM
C-too
Jan 17 2015, 09:02 AM
You appear to be OK with the idea of people working for poverty wages. I find that sort of thinking in one of the richest countries in the world borders upon evil.

Then I suggest you re-read what I actually posted then
I have read a couple of your posts on the subject from which at best I can deduct that the state should back-up those in the worst economic situation. This IMO would leave many working for a very low income, even lower than the minimum wage in some cases, in one of the richest countries in the world. That is the part I find difficulty in equating with.

Perhaps I'm reading you wrong ?
(see also the manifesto thread)

I think one of the most evil things the state can do is force someone not to take a job because it might embarrass the state. Not everyone needs the so called living wage, not everyone needs the NMW. Many workers are second earners in households where one other is earning well. But they need their identity, they need their social contact, they need their chance and no one should block that just to hide that the state has so effed up the job market with stupid interference so it does not inherently deliver better wages and higher employment.

And yes if someone is the only earner and they get below the NMW then their employer will have no security of their work and the state should ensure someone that willing to work receives enough for a decent life.

A perceptive and balanced post which hits the nail on the head. You are one of a select number of posters on this forum whose posts are worth reading.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 17 2015, 08:29 PM


I think one of the most evil things the state can do is force someone not to take a job because it might embarrass the state.
Embarrass the state, the most evil thing the state is doing at the moment is declaring people fit for work when they aren't, whilst at the same time stating the aim is to "help" people into work. Which this Freedom Of Information request reply released this morning exposes as a blatant lie. (It is only two pages.)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/395728/5384-2014.pdf
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 19 2015, 03:15 PM
Steve K
Jan 17 2015, 08:29 PM


I think one of the most evil things the state can do is force someone not to take a job because it might embarrass the state.
Embarrass the state, the most evil thing the state is doing at the moment is declaring people fit for work when they aren't, whilst at the same time stating the aim is to "help" people into work. Which this Freedom Of Information request reply released this morning exposes as a blatant lie. (It is only two pages.)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/395728/5384-2014.pdf
Some people not all. The claim that all of those forced by economic circumstances to look for work are not fit for such is a blatant lie. Clearly the Public Sector and it's Agents will make mistakes from time to time, but there are appeals processes to minimise this. What would be interesting, compared with the hundreds of thousands returning to the World of Work to discover what proportion of these were validly unfit to do so. As always the question is one of relativity, of balance and good sense.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 19 2015, 03:40 PM
Some people not all. The claim that all of those forced by economic circumstances to look for work are not fit for such is a blatant lie.
That is NOT what I stated RJD.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 17 2015, 08:29 PM
C-too
Jan 17 2015, 05:31 PM
Steve K
Jan 17 2015, 09:26 AM
C-too
Jan 17 2015, 09:02 AM
You appear to be OK with the idea of people working for poverty wages. I find that sort of thinking in one of the richest countries in the world borders upon evil.

Then I suggest you re-read what I actually posted then
I have read a couple of your posts on the subject from which at best I can deduct that the state should back-up those in the worst economic situation. This IMO would leave many working for a very low income, even lower than the minimum wage in some cases, in one of the richest countries in the world. That is the part I find difficulty in equating with.

Perhaps I'm reading you wrong ?
(see also the manifesto thread)

I think one of the most evil things the state can do is force someone not to take a job because it might embarrass the state. Not everyone needs the so called living wage, not everyone needs the NMW. Many workers are second earners in households where one other is earning well. But they need their identity, they need their social contact, they need their chance and no one should block that just to hide that the state has so effed up the job market with stupid interference so it does not inherently deliver better wages and higher employment.

And yes if someone is the only earner and they get below the NMW then their employer will have no security of their work and the state should ensure someone that willing to work receives enough for a decent life.

I suspect you tread a very dodgy line that is perhaps more likely to being blurred, especially given the present trend for some to not even pay the MW now.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 17 2015, 08:29 PM
C-too
Jan 17 2015, 05:31 PM
Steve K
Jan 17 2015, 09:26 AM
C-too
Jan 17 2015, 09:02 AM
You appear to be OK with the idea of people working for poverty wages. I find that sort of thinking in one of the richest countries in the world borders upon evil.

Then I suggest you re-read what I actually posted then
I have read a couple of your posts on the subject from which at best I can deduct that the state should back-up those in the worst economic situation. This IMO would leave many working for a very low income, even lower than the minimum wage in some cases, in one of the richest countries in the world. That is the part I find difficulty in equating with.

Perhaps I'm reading you wrong ?
(see also the manifesto thread)

I think one of the most evil things the state can do is force someone not to take a job because it might embarrass the state. Not everyone needs the so called living wage, not everyone needs the NMW. Many workers are second earners in households where one other is earning well. But they need their identity, they need their social contact, they need their chance and no one should block that just to hide that the state has so effed up the job market with stupid interference so it does not inherently deliver better wages and higher employment.

And yes if someone is the only earner and they get below the NMW then their employer will have no security of their work and the state should ensure someone that willing to work receives enough for a decent life.

There is a dilemma as some Employers who would benefit from extra hands find they cannot afford such at NMW rates, it is also true that many of these also do not wish to invest their time in training up new employees as they have precious little of that spare. If we dictate that SME's must by Law pay the NLW then I expect that unemployment levels will grow. It basically is not the responsibility of an Employers to determine the private individual financial requirements of individual employees be they single, married and/or have children. Here the Employers is blind, make him responsible and he will avoid females and men with responsibilities. If we are to compete with other emerging economies for low value adding work for our legions of poorly educated and unskilled then the only way forward is to subsidise the wages of those with family responsibilities. The question always is "to what extent"?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 19 2015, 03:40 PM
What would be interesting, compared with the hundreds of thousands returning to the World of Work to discover what proportion of these were validly unfit to do so. As always the question is one of relativity, of balance and good sense.

That is the problem RJD few of those found "fit for work" are ending up in work. I have many times referenced the DWP data sets on the subject but you never read them, like you have not read the reference I just posted despite it only being two pages that takes no time at all to look at.

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 19 2015, 03:52 PM
RJD
Jan 19 2015, 03:40 PM
What would be interesting, compared with the hundreds of thousands returning to the World of Work to discover what proportion of these were validly unfit to do so. As always the question is one of relativity, of balance and good sense.

That is the problem RJD few of those found "fit for work" are ending up in work. I have many times referenced the DWP data sets on the subject but you never read them, like you have not read the reference I just posted despite it only being two pages that takes no time at all to look at.

Best get someone else who is creditable to post such links on your behalf. I will not waste my precious time further unless I see you understand what it is you make reference to, thus far I am not motivated.

As for your claim it is only interesting if you could put some meat on the bone.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 19 2015, 04:00 PM


As for your claim it is only interesting if you could put some meat on the bone.
I have many times RJD but you refuse to read the evidence when I do copy and paste it, you refuse to read references. Your problem is you don't want you beliefs challenged because you don't want to end up with cognitive dissonance.
You won't believe the DWPs own data, you won't believe Hansard, you won't believe the Public Accounts Committee, and you won't believe the Work and Pensions Committee.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Cheers Major Sinic ;D , I try.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply