Living Wage

Discussion in 'UK politics, current affairs and news' started by friendofdorothy, Jul 7, 2018.

  1. friendofdorothy

    friendofdorothy it is so much worse than Thatcherism now

    Not the pitiful previously named 'minimum wage' but actual wage people can afford to live on.
    There has been quite a debate about this in the Herne Hill chitter chat forum and it needs a wider debate, so I thought I'd start this here - editor.

    Living Wage Foundation | For the real cost of living

    Can we use this thread to praise employers who do pay good wages.

    Also to shame big employers who don't pay a living wage.

    Perhaps we can also discuss what the rates are and actions by employees to raise wages to this level. I'd be interested to know facts and figures about how many people earn below the LW.
  2. friendofdorothy

    friendofdorothy it is so much worse than Thatcherism now

    Some quotes from Herne Hill realating to should businesses be accredited by the LW foundation:

  3. friendofdorothy

    friendofdorothy it is so much worse than Thatcherism now

    Also from the Herne Hill thread but of more general interest:
  4. quimcunx

    quimcunx Too tall.

    Well Tesco certainly don't pay the London living wage.
    friendofdorothy likes this.
  5. friendofdorothy

    friendofdorothy it is so much worse than Thatcherism now

    I don't think Sainsburys do either. Aldi and Lidl do.
    chainsawjob likes this.
  6. Puddy_Tat

    Puddy_Tat meh

    there's a lot of data generated by the office of national statistics - here - not sure i can face trying to find any specifics in it all.
    friendofdorothy likes this.
  7. ska invita

    ska invita back on the other side

    Is there much to debate? What was the argument about?
  8. weepiper

    weepiper Jock under the bed

    I earn under the Living Wage but over NMW, I think it's £8.19 an hour? I had a payrise in April, before that it was under £8 an hour. My employer is a workers' co-op and I'm absolutely certain that if they could afford to pay me more they would but we're in bricks and mortar retail and as everyone knows that's firmly on its arse at the moment. We have a tied pay ratio so even our chief executive can't earn more than 8 times what the lowest paid employee gets, at the moment he's on 5 times. Our grade 1 staff that are under 25 get the over 25 NMW rate too. No-one is making a fortune out of our co-op at the moment. When times are fat we get a bonus share of the profits paid once a year but that hasn't happened in the 5 years I've worked here.
    Duncan2, Gramsci, chainsawjob and 2 others like this.
  9. cupid_stunt

    cupid_stunt Dyslexic King Cnut the Great.

    Funny how the low price stores can pay higher wages, isn't it?

    Bit like my little business, which I fell into, as I couldn't face another day working for a corporate monster. Best prices for the clients, best rates for the team, which despite being basic unskilled work is paid at slightly higher than the London living wage, despite not being in London.

    It brings the best out of people, I have such great loyal team, all have been with me for years, whereas my competitors seem to be constantly advertising for people.

    I know several other small businesses doing the same locally, and it doesn't surprise me that they regularly win industry awards, because they are the best, with great teams, that are treated well.

    It's hardly rocket science. Although, I accept, not all small businesses are in the position to do so, but there's no excuse for the big employers.
  10. ska invita

    ska invita back on the other side

    Me and you have had this conversation before...ive worked in two co-op/workers control situations with pay parity and in both cases we had to give ourselves pay cuts and generally sweat our own labour. As I half-joked at the time, in a co-op everyone is a boss!

    in terms of limited demands, at its simplest the question is what's the maximum the employer can afford to pay, and why aren't they.
    chainsawjob likes this.
  11. friendofdorothy

    friendofdorothy it is so much worse than Thatcherism now

    go read it - last 3 pages from page 74 #2194
  12. MickiQ

    MickiQ Well-Known Member

    Aldi and Lidl are both German based companies, I've worked with or for lots of big multinational companies over the years and European ones tend to be better employers than UK ones (though it's not a hard and fast rule)
    American companies are almost universally dire in how they treat staff.
    Gramsci, chainsawjob and cupid_stunt like this.
  13. Mr Smin

    Mr Smin Registered Luser

    If the business is on its arse, how come the chief exec is still worth five normal workers? Why not make that pay contingent on the business doing better over some period of time?

    I know bricks and mortar retail is in hard times generally and I would make the same argument about the house of Fraser too.
  14. Last time I worked for someone else was in Victoria, doesn’t get more central London than that. I was on 43k/pa, the highest paid manager was on 29, ( I wasn’t a manager, I was inherited). They wanted me out as I was paid too much.

    On 43k I could afford a car that cost 2k max. Everything was a struggle, gas,leccy, mortgage (was lucky to get on the ‘ladder’ in 1997, would be fucked after that!). 43k was fairly subsistence living for a central London job, yet most people there were on a lot less.

    Point being, when the ‘market’ dictates that my job is worth £26k, and it somehow can get experienced people to do the job for that, why would it pay more?
    Duncan2, alcopop and chainsawjob like this.
  15. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    Very much a Brixton Forum argument. Ed noticed new business didn't offer Living Wage. Posted this up.

    Eds post got us into the depressingly usual debate on "discrepancies" (aka Brixton Forum language for your hypocritical lefty). Not the Eds fault. Its how life is on Brixton Forum. Why I know some posters on politics have Brixton Forum on ignore.

    My posts were in reaction to this.

    Living Wage has come up on Brixton Forum due to long standing Ritzy cinema workers dispute.

    Reaction to that has been mixed. With "some" posters questioning Living Wage Foundation ( ie are they ideological) and Ritzy strikers ( there are more "deserving cases" . The whataboutery" argument.).

    Arguing for something that most would see as beyond question is uphill struggle on Brixton Forum. Page after disheartening page.
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2018
    friendofdorothy likes this.
  16. Dogsauce

    Dogsauce Lord of the Dance Settee

    Up in Leeds I dropped down to three days when the recession kicked in and was on about 15k for two years. Lived very comfortably on that, saved money even. No car or family and years as a student/doley meant I’d got used to living pretty modestly.

    It’s daft just focusing on living wage when there’s such an imbalance in the cost required to live in certain areas compared to others - we additionally need living rents and universal access to cheap transport etc. to even things out. In other bits of the country I’d have sunk.
  17. Puddy_Tat

    Puddy_Tat meh

    Frankly, :hmm: to that.

    That's why the Living Wage foundation (not the tory government who have hi-jacked and misused the 'living wage' term) do set a different 'London living wage' - although this does not cover the fact that housing costs in some bits of the rest of the country are nearly as high
  18. Should qualify that with...and support a wife and kids, plus the pisstake that passes for train fares from just outside zone 6...
    friendofdorothy likes this.
  19. Puddy_Tat

    Puddy_Tat meh

    Micawber and all that sort of thing, but can't help thinking that a significant majority of people get paid a heck of a lot less, even in London...
    Duncan2, romeo2001 and teuchter like this.
  20. Oh yes of course, and the only way to survive and raise a family etc. in London on the national average wage is with state assistance. Fucked up situation.
    friendofdorothy and chainsawjob like this.
  21. Mr Retro

    Mr Retro Beware hedgehogs

    We had this discussion a few months ago about LLW etc. (can’t remember which thread). Good points raised and discussed. I’ve been thinking a lot about it since and the situation now where tens of thousands of people London and the UK can’t afford to live.

    How to solve it? I think first is a massive project of actual social house building. Remove right to buy. Tax everybody fairly to pay for it. See where that gets us and review. Too simplistic I know.
  22. alex_

    alex_ Well-Known Member

    You could probably do a lot of this without taxing taxpayers.

    Let councils tax and keep some decent percentage of capital gains where land changes use ( let councils get some cash from granting planning permission, also gives nimbys an upside ).

    Let councils charge council tax on all properties given planning permission from date of grant of planning permission ( discourage land banking and encourage speedy building ).

    Let developers have rebates off the above - if they build x % social housing.

  23. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    We already have s106 agreements.

    Giving councils large financial incentives to grant planning permission seems like a bad idea in principle, unless you think the whole concept of town planning is a pointless one.

    And giving developers tax breaks in exchange for building social housing ties the construction of social housing to house prices - the higher house prices are, the less incentive there is for them to include social housing. I don't see what the advantage is over the current quota based system (which could be enforced differently/more strictly).
  24. alex_

    alex_ Well-Known Member

    I think currently far too little value in property development goes to communities and too much to whoever gets the planning permission.

    At its most extreme farmland cost a couple of grand per acre but with planning permission granted it’s a couple of hundred grand, and any tax here either via company or income tax goes to the treasury.

    Giving villages and towns a direct incentive would seem to make sense - no s106 which can be gamed and requires monitoring isn’t enough.

  25. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    You can't magic the money from nowhere though - developers will still want to make a profit so would it not either result in higher house prices or less housing being built?

    It also risks making communities/councils who are lucky enough to have desirable development in their area disproportionately wealthy.
  26. Mr Retro

    Mr Retro Beware hedgehogs

    Why can’t councils just employ building contractors to build social houses and keep developers the fuck out of it?

    I think private developers should build private housing. I think government should build social housing. Government tried to get private developers to solve their social housing problem.

    I was naive enough to think developers building blocks with a % of (real) social housing was a brilliant idea. That these blocks would have a great mix of people and communities would be built not destroyed. Look how that turned out
    quimcunx likes this.
  27. friendofdorothy

    friendofdorothy it is so much worse than Thatcherism now

    The ridiculous cost of housing is to blame for many people, even those who have a good wage, struggling financially without the govt assisting with tax credits etc. Housing shouldn't seen as a 'market' rather its a social necessity and a basic human right. Private providers will never provide enough housing while a shortage yields them better profits.

    But lets get back to the living wage, please.

    Big profitable companies than can afford a profit for share holders and huge, if not obscene, bonuses for management - but don't pay a reasonable wage. Why should the govt, which means us as tax-payers, subsidise these profitmaking companies - many of whom use complex structures and looholes to avoid paying their share of tax too. Name and shame them I say.
    NoXion, mango5, baldrick and 7 others like this.
  28. friendofdorothy

    friendofdorothy it is so much worse than Thatcherism now

    From Herne Hill thread again:

    (I'm trying and failing to put snowy_again and Rushy posts here)

    I'm bringing this here as it is clearly a wider political debate.
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2018
  29. friendofdorothy

    friendofdorothy it is so much worse than Thatcherism now

    this is what I was trying to copy:
  30. snowy_again

    snowy_again Slush

    Lambeth doesn't appear to have LLW Foundation 'accredited employer' status, unlike 5 other London councils. From looking i can only see 'funder friendly' status, which means its grant programmes ensure recipients in grant contracts pay LLW where staff are employed through LB Lambeth funds.

    Gramsci kindly shared the Barrow Cadbury report on trends and gaps in LLW take up - which confirms that LLW Foundation first prioritised FTSE orgs and large public owned bodies (LAs etc), over SMEs; as with a limited campaigning resource, influencing these employers would have a direct impact on more people more quickly. Got to get back to work now but more later.
    friendofdorothy likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice