Osborne unveils National Living Wage(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Osborne unveils National Living Wage
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33437115
5 comments
I read through the article trying to find details about this "living wage" (thinking it was a basic guaranteed income to all individuals), which would be quite a big thing to introduce.
Then I realized the same as you, they just hijacked the term.
Then I realized the same as you, they just hijacked the term.
Huh? I've encountered the term "living wage" before, used to mean a minimum wage set high enough to cover reasonable expenses, but never heard it used to mean anything else. Are you trying to say that 7.2GBP (11.06USD) isn't a living wage, or something else?
The current 'living wage' in the UK is 7.85 outside of London and 9.15 in London. So no, 7.20 isn't a living wage - especially in London.
You wait 15 years, when people get upset about earning this "living wage."
I would normally be with you, but in all fairness they did commit to raising it to £9/hr by 2020, which seems reasonable to me. Of course, I would like it to be higher, but given the political climate I think the current plan is one to be happy with.
At first, I thought this was a suggestion for a basic income (ala Utrecht - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9817209). I was looking forward to another financial experiment/attempt, and from the UK, no less...
£7.20 is a sick joke. Perhaps the punchline should be that MPs be paid this "living wage" with no expense allowances (because few of us get chauffeured around for free).
They might set it to something sensible then.
They might set it to something sensible then.
Considering that the wage is generally reserved for unskilled labor perhaps it might be relevant for some MPs.
Snark aside, there are many benefits most who have jobs in this range qualify for which does push their net higher. The idea is that you don't remain at entry level wages across your entire career. The problem is, no one really expected the number of people who are willing to do so if the effort is minimal and their basic (note: lower than what most of us who accept) needs are met.
Having worked in an industry where we had many minimum wage employees and scaling from there I was initially aghast at the wages. Initially, then I talked to some and was surprised that they were happy as they didn't see it as effort to get paid/etc; industry was rent-a-cop type and most were indoors and even sitting with uniform provided combined with fixed hours
Snark aside, there are many benefits most who have jobs in this range qualify for which does push their net higher. The idea is that you don't remain at entry level wages across your entire career. The problem is, no one really expected the number of people who are willing to do so if the effort is minimal and their basic (note: lower than what most of us who accept) needs are met.
Having worked in an industry where we had many minimum wage employees and scaling from there I was initially aghast at the wages. Initially, then I talked to some and was surprised that they were happy as they didn't see it as effort to get paid/etc; industry was rent-a-cop type and most were indoors and even sitting with uniform provided combined with fixed hours
When I was in college and university I worked at one of the big supermarkets. There were many 'lifers' there, usually middle-aged women who had raised a family and were bored of being at home all day. At the time the minimum wage for me was under £5 as I was under 22, but I got £6 per hour and £9 on Sunday and bank holidays - this was in a relatively cheap part of the country, I believe they paid more in London.
The benefits were also pretty good compared to what I have had in corporate life since. If you wanted to go up the ladder the company provided training schemes to get you into supervisor and management roles - I think a degree was only required for the top levels, but again they provided support for that if that's what you wanted to do.
At £9 per hour this 'living wage' works out to be a salary of £17,500. Considering as a developer in some parts of the UK £35,000 is a good salary, that seems pretty decent given this is for unskilled labour.
The benefits were also pretty good compared to what I have had in corporate life since. If you wanted to go up the ladder the company provided training schemes to get you into supervisor and management roles - I think a degree was only required for the top levels, but again they provided support for that if that's what you wanted to do.
At £9 per hour this 'living wage' works out to be a salary of £17,500. Considering as a developer in some parts of the UK £35,000 is a good salary, that seems pretty decent given this is for unskilled labour.
I have middle-aged female family members who work in a major UK supermarket, and I can tell you that conditions have deteriorated dramatically.
The supermarket in question (it starts with a W) is no longer giving full-time (39 hour) staff regular contracted hours, switching to a system where their hours changes day by day, week by week. This wreaks havoc with family life. Furthermore staff who have been there long enough to get 1.5x or double pay on Sundays are no longer being given those hours. Overtime is also now non-existent. W is even hiring and training new 17 year staff for administrative roles because it's cheaper than paying older, more experienced, already trained, staff, who are contracted at a higher rate, for the hours they need them to do.
The general feeling is people who have been there for 20-30 years are simply no longer wanted and seen as cost burdens.
The supermarket industry is in a race to the bottom brought on by the likes of Lidl and Aldi
The supermarket in question (it starts with a W) is no longer giving full-time (39 hour) staff regular contracted hours, switching to a system where their hours changes day by day, week by week. This wreaks havoc with family life. Furthermore staff who have been there long enough to get 1.5x or double pay on Sundays are no longer being given those hours. Overtime is also now non-existent. W is even hiring and training new 17 year staff for administrative roles because it's cheaper than paying older, more experienced, already trained, staff, who are contracted at a higher rate, for the hours they need them to do.
The general feeling is people who have been there for 20-30 years are simply no longer wanted and seen as cost burdens.
The supermarket industry is in a race to the bottom brought on by the likes of Lidl and Aldi
There is an argument that if you can train a 17 year old in a couple of weeks to do the job of somebody who's been there 20 years, perhaps the experience shouldn't earn them more money.
Just existing for a long time doesn't add value. You have to do more or do it better.
I'm not for a minute suggesting that these lifers aren't performing their roles better, but when you can pay 4× 17 year olds on zero-hours contracts for the price of one long-term manager, the sums become hard to ignore.
I don't think it has very much to do with Lidl and Aldi at all. Supermarkets have sucked every corner of their supply chain and workforce dry to get the most profit and biggest market share. That level of competition is going to take its toll.
It's a shame W is the one you mention though. I always thought they were more expensive because they were better to their staff.
Just existing for a long time doesn't add value. You have to do more or do it better.
I'm not for a minute suggesting that these lifers aren't performing their roles better, but when you can pay 4× 17 year olds on zero-hours contracts for the price of one long-term manager, the sums become hard to ignore.
I don't think it has very much to do with Lidl and Aldi at all. Supermarkets have sucked every corner of their supply chain and workforce dry to get the most profit and biggest market share. That level of competition is going to take its toll.
It's a shame W is the one you mention though. I always thought they were more expensive because they were better to their staff.
These are not the basic incomes you are looking for.
Load of bollocks.
A cynical political move, and completely in character for this Conservative government.