editor
hiraethified
You can't see that you're contradicting yourself here, no?
And try reading posts properly before engaging knee jerk mode. I asked a question. Perhaps you missed the question mark at the end too.
Brixton Ritzy staff in pay dispute for London Living Wage with Picturehouse Cinemas
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
And try reading posts properly before engaging knee jerk mode. I asked a question. Perhaps you missed the question mark at the end too.
Mr Retro
Beware hedgehogs
So you do not think you can pay a LLW and consider small businesses while you do so? Is your thinking really that binary?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
You havent answered my question.
Mr Retro
Beware hedgehogs
I think the LLW should be law. But imo you cannot do this without providing for small businesses or they will reduce the amount of people they employ due to increased cost of doing business. I believe you will drive some out of business
I would try to help them by looking at tax. Firstly make the whole thing far simpler for a business to be compliant. Surely that alone will save a business money in first place.
Perhaps then a sliding scale on corporation tax or increasing the threshold at which they pay VAT or decreasing the really unfair business rates. Or a combination of these. I’m no expert here. Make up for lost revenue by (the old chestnut) making large companies who avoid tax to pay it.
DJWrongspeed
radio eros
thx for the clarification ,good to know
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Ok. Thats an answer.
I don't agree increasing minimum wage to Living Wage will necessarily cost jobs. As I pointed out in post #182 when the Labour government brought in minimum wage Tories and business argued that it would be disaster. Now it's accepted even by Tories.
As T & P points out if business plan can't pay decent wages then business shouldn't survive. This is fair enough imo. I'm no great supporter of capitalism. But it's about sink or swim. The State protecting property rights but also enforcing bottom line of how capitalist competition should work. Left to its own devices capitalism imo will lead to the "car wash" economy.
So yes I think some business should be allowed to fail if they can't pay decent wages. The introduction of minimum wage didn't lead to worse life for the working class. Despite warnings from business lobby and Tories. And Im not saying that to be harsh. Capitalism works on basis of crestive destruction/ competition. Not my idea. But that's how it is.
One argument , reformist, would be that the state should set the bottom line in which capitalism should operate. Capitalists can't do that.
8ball post @869 makes correct point imo that its
8ball is right there is a lot of ideological obfuscation dressed up as being "realistic" we are supposed to swallow.
And I still hold to what I said back in #870 Since the beginning of modern capitalist economy in 19c bosses have been crying wolf at any improvements for the working class. Capitalism doesn't like it but has adapted to social reform. Last thirty years seen capitalism getting more of iit's own way. I think thats changing now.
On business rates agreed. But that's not purely an issue of wage levels. I know small business who are really worried about hike in business rates for the long term future of there business. And these aren't employers. They are sole traders or family run business. Large concerns can absorb it. Not small independent business.
Last edited:
editor
hiraethified
Greedy, blood sucking scum landlords would have to be dealt with too as they're one of the prime movers in making poor people's lives full of hardship.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
It should also be acknowledged that a lot of people were lured into buying and renting out properties after certain parties started helping themselves to pension funds that they claimed to be "managing".
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
It's all gone quiet here.
Perhaps I can summarise discussion of past few pages.
All on this thread agree that the Living Wage should be applied to all business. In fact it can be argued that the Living Wage foundation have set the bar to low and it should be higher in London.
Personally I would agree to level set by the Living Wage foundation. Me being a reformist not an ultra leftist.
This may have unfortunate consequence that some business may be unviable if its introduced.
Posters here can live with it that if ordinary working people get the Living Wage as a minimum wage.
If any posters think my summary is incorrect can they post up and say why.
Perhaps I can summarise discussion of past few pages.
All on this thread agree that the Living Wage should be applied to all business. In fact it can be argued that the Living Wage foundation have set the bar to low and it should be higher in London.
Personally I would agree to level set by the Living Wage foundation. Me being a reformist not an ultra leftist.
This may have unfortunate consequence that some business may be unviable if its introduced.
Posters here can live with it that if ordinary working people get the Living Wage as a minimum wage.
If any posters think my summary is incorrect can they post up and say why.
friendofdorothy
Solidarity against neoliberalism!
I think any business that says it can't afford a Living Wage is obviously a rubbish business. Govt ought to make them pay up.
I think there should be legislation saying if you make x profit or have x employees then a proper living wage should be a legal requirement. Perhaps there could be an exemption for startups or really small businesses.
But as it is at the moment enormously profitable global mega businesses let the British state ie tax payer pick up the bill for supporting millions of their low paid workers. That can't be a sustainable system, how can that be good for us as a county or our tax system, or as individuals. The wealth of the nation is moving up the pay chain and out of the country.
Naming the minimum wage 'living wage' was a joke - it is far too low - it has to be set at a level that means most employees would nor qualify for benefits or tax credits. I'm not sure what figure that would be.
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
I think you're right about small businesses. An acquaintance of mine runs a small business and two of the staff went off on maternity leave at the same time. It really crippled him. It hit home how finely balanced some businesses are. I think most companies could cope with a wage increase but some of them would have do some hard thinking about how to manage the change; I don't think it would be a simple case of "I'll just pay myself a bit less".
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
Auto-enroll pensions have been set-up so that small businesses get a transition period in which they don’t have to pay into them but they know they will have to a few years later. A similar thing could be done with the introduction of the LLW. Gives them time to plan.
aka
Brixton Hill
That period for pension is now gone, in fact they are cranking up the contributions from April this year - only if you pay annual salary below the limit (£10k per year) or only employ under 22 year olds are you let-off (as an employer) even if you only employ 1 person. There's a tonne of other stuff, but that's the gist. It's a ball ache, but I reckon it's the correct thing to do given the state pension, so we just suck it up and deal with it.
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
Would you say that the interests of the small business (capital) is more important than the interests of women having a family (social)?
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
If you are asking me if businesses should pay parental leave then yes. And that's parental leave, not maternity leave.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
The whole point of maternity leave is that a parent can have time off with a new born and be confident that they have a job to come back to (my partner went back this week after taking a full year).
If the reality of a small business is that it will struggle with two of its employees on leave at the same time (and it may not just be costs but the problem of having to replace experienced, trained or connected individuals) then it is surely in everyone's interest for such circumstances to be acknowledged and protected against.
Even if the business stays afloat but loses business, this will impact on jobs and wages. A wholly binary approach might have been appropriate whilst establishing core maternity rights. Now that maternity leave is well established, arguably with room for improvement, identifying ways to help smaller businesses disproportionately affected by the legislation would seem progressive.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
If LW became obligatory it would not help small businesses to be offered an exemption, I don't think. It would make them uncompetitive in terms of attracting good employees because they would be paying less. Some sort of VAT, NI, CT allowance would possibly be more appropriate.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Is there not some kind of insurance for small businesses to deal with things like maternity leave? You can get things like lottery insurance, so if there isn't insurance for unexpected staff shortages then there should be
Rushy
basically a scrotum
I don't know. I've read a couple of recent basic articles on how to manage maternity leave but not seen it mentioned. I can't quite imagine what cost would be insured. Unless it were very affordable, I'm not sure that yet another fixed cost would be a great solution, in any case.
snowy_again
Slush
Living Wage and paternity leave are wildly different things though...
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Define viable business.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
One that pays everyone who works there, and not just its owners, enough to live on
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i think gramsci's caught the concept of 'viable' more than you have: the business must be able to afford to pay this if it is to survive, to be viable.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
one thing about maternity, it doesn't come out of the blue. where i work maternity cover is arranged before the member of staff goes on leave. if they can do this in my line of work i'm sure they can in others.
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
A suggestion.
If I lose my job and try to claim benefits I'm expected to show I actively seeking full time work. And that means full time. Had a friend recently who told her "jobs advisor" that she had applied for part time job in a supermarket. She was promptly sanctioned for not seeking full time employment.
If a small business person is incapable of paying living wage to their employees perhaps they could "sign on" to get subsidy from the state giving them a welfare handout to prop up their business and pay the Living wage. As long as they go through all the same aggravation that I know friends of mine have had when they lose a job or for health reasons are limited in what they do.
If I lose my job and try to claim benefits I'm expected to show I actively seeking full time work. And that means full time. Had a friend recently who told her "jobs advisor" that she had applied for part time job in a supermarket. She was promptly sanctioned for not seeking full time employment.
If a small business person is incapable of paying living wage to their employees perhaps they could "sign on" to get subsidy from the state giving them a welfare handout to prop up their business and pay the Living wage. As long as they go through all the same aggravation that I know friends of mine have had when they lose a job or for health reasons are limited in what they do.
Last edited:
Maternity pay is paid by the government at least it can be claimed back. I'm nearly 100% certain of this.
