Mr Retro
Beware hedgehogs
It is government funded. But in my opinion too little and too short
Brixton Ritzy staff in pay dispute for London Living Wage with Picturehouse Cinemas
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
Statutory Maternity Pay is, yes, but it’s tiny. After the first 6 weeks (when you get 90% of your salary) it’s a token amount - £141 a week.
Maternity pay and leave: Pay - GOV.UK
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I don't understand this. From what's been said here and my own Google search maternity leave pay can be reclaimed back from the government by small business. In effect if you run a small business the government covers at least 92% of statutory maternity leave pay.
This link is bit old but I m assuming the same principle is in place.
Is there Government help for small business to fund maternity pay? | This is Money
So maternity leave pay issue isn't relevant to living wage issue.
There may be argument that small business need help with unforeseen events like maternity leave.
The issue of business big or small paying Living wage,which after all the Living Wage foundation sets as the bare minimum needed, is imo a social rights issue.
For better or worse the capitalist economy is here to stay for now. As a worker one has to sell one's labour power to survive.
As this is basis of society at present it should be social right to get at least the Living Wage as set by the Living Wage foundation.
And small business shouldn't get help to do this. If a business can't pay its workers a wage that is bare minimum for a half decent life it is not a good business imo.
Last edited:
Mr Retro
Beware hedgehogs
It’s obviously not just the cost of the maternity pay per se. 2 people leaving for 9 months or so at the same time will take their expertise and experience with them. So you have to bring in 2 new staff before the other 2 leave to manage the handover. So for a while you are paying 4 people to do 2 jobs. This you cannot claim back.
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
As far as I'm aware, the company can claim back part of the cost of statutory pay (which is nominal), but not whatever the company policy on maternity pay is (which could be full pay). That's the company's responsibility to cover.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
My partner has just gone back after a year off. She's in a small specialist department of three or four. They really struggled getting someone appropriately experienced to cover her. And that person had no established business contacts. So billing was way down whilst she was away and her colleagues were horribly stretched picking up the slack. Painful but survivable because they are part of a big firm. Would be much more tricky as a small company.
Mr Retro
Beware hedgehogs
£3.50 or so an hour. Disgraceful. Parental leave should be paid at the same level as the living wage. I think it should be for 12 months and split between the parents as the parents see fit.
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
Absolutely. Best I've seen is 6 months full pay for one parent followed by 6 months full pay for the other parent. So in effect you get 12 months full pay but it has to be split.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
So I take it capitalism is rubbish at covering the costs of social reproduction. Which was always the case. Discussion on maternity pay shows this.
During WW2 with increase in woman in workforce much better social provision was made for women. Increase in nurseries for example. After war women lost these. In the west not in the Soviet union where social welfare rights were guaranteed in workplaces.
It's only in recent times since 70s that maternity pay in this country has become standard. Not because of generosity of business or business enlightened views on women but because the state has compelled them to. I would think it is also related to resurgent women's movement in 70s. In 70s women were regularly got rid if they were pregnant.
It was under New Labour and EU directives that things improved.
During WW2 with increase in woman in workforce much better social provision was made for women. Increase in nurseries for example. After war women lost these. In the west not in the Soviet union where social welfare rights were guaranteed in workplaces.
It's only in recent times since 70s that maternity pay in this country has become standard. Not because of generosity of business or business enlightened views on women but because the state has compelled them to. I would think it is also related to resurgent women's movement in 70s. In 70s women were regularly got rid if they were pregnant.
It was under New Labour and EU directives that things improved.
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
You could say that for small or large concerns. Why up to 1970s business regularly got rid of women when they became pregnant. Which from a business point of view was a sensible business decision based on living in the real world.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
My reading is that they can claim back 100% if small business.
If a company has its own policy then it should factor that into its business plan.
Mr Retro
Beware hedgehogs
You’re not actually replying to the points being made
sparkybird
ask the bird...
As has been said, the company cannot claim back the costs of employing the maternity cover workers. They can claim back Statutory maternity pay (which is bog all) but a good employer will pay more than this minimum, which they can't claim.
And it would be impossible for a small business to fully factor this into a business plan since they won't know who's planning on getting pregnant or even the ratio of male to female workers as this changes. Believe you me for this reason there is still discrimination.. .many small businesses are running on a very fine financial line, 1 or 2 maternity covers could make a huge difference to this. And then the business folds and no one has a job
I've worked for small businesses and charities and now run my own small business. The bosses, which sometimes included me were not so highly paid. Maternity cover was a nightmare financially and in terms of skills gaps.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Spam said part can be claimed back. My reading is all can be claimed back if a small business.
So I am replying to the points being made.
On a general note you might not agree with my posts. That's up to you. But my posts on past couple of pages have been relevant to how the discussion has gone. So my posts have been relevant to points being made.
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
Mr Retro who shifts goalposts to a discussion about small businesses, when the thread was about the ability of a UK chain running cinema's owned by the 2nd biggest global cinema empire to pay living wage, says you're not replying to the points
sparkybird
ask the bird...
From. .gov.uk
As an employer, you can usually reclaim 92% of employees' Statutory Maternity ( SMP ), Paternity, Adoption and Shared Parental Pay. You can reclaim103% if your business qualifies for Small Employers' Relief.
As an employer, you can usually reclaim 92% of employees' Statutory Maternity ( SMP ), Paternity, Adoption and Shared Parental Pay. You can reclaim103% if your business qualifies for Small Employers' Relief.
Mr Retro
Beware hedgehogs
It’s now message boards work. It surprises me not at all you don’t understand this.Mr Retro who shifts goalposts to a discussion about small businesses, when the thread was about the ability of a UK chain running cinema's owned by the 2nd biggest global cinema empire to pay living wage, says you're not replying to the points
Mr Retro
Beware hedgehogs
If you believe that fair enough
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Where have I not been addressing points?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Mr Retro who shifts goalposts to a discussion about small businesses, when the thread was about the ability of a UK chain running cinema's owned by the 2nd biggest global cinema empire to pay living wage, says you're not replying to the points
It was Spam who started it.
The concern for small employers is rather touching.
Many the times been when Ive woken up at night worrying about my boss and how he/ she will cope.
Mr Retro
Beware hedgehogs
The concern isn’t for the owners of a small business. The concern is for their employees and these small businesses ability to pay them the living wage.
You contend they shouldn’t be in business at all if they are unable to pay a living wage. I argue that running a small business is often tiptoeing along a line of viability. I would rather see these businesses get some help to remain viable and employing people at the living wage than to stop trading, employing nobody.
editor
hiraethified
For the record - and you really are excelling yourself in your patheticness here - my DJs get paid around double the London Living Wage and very often much more on top. And they get loads of free drinks all night, and a cab home if needed.
So now you look very stupid indeed as your wildly off topic attempt at a personal dig has crumbled into dust.
But while we're all being so candid, perhaps you could tell me how much rent you charge your tenants and how much you pay your workers?
I'm happy to provide names to verify my claims, so I'll expect you to do the same.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
You really do sound like an employer.
The reason I have posted up in way I have is because I do not like the language.
If you think that small business people should receive government handouts to pay the bare minimum that is required to give employees the right to life that only just covers decent living then let's use the right language.
It's social welfare for capitalism. It's government handouts. It's "dependency" culture.
Why I posted up about signing on. Even if you get part time work your supposed to "actively" be seeking full time work.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
As I'm experienced poster on Brixton forum I'm not suprised that finally accusations of left wing " hyprocisy" have finally surfaced. Which is part of what last several pages have been leading to.
Right wing posting dressed up as fair minded.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Mr Retro who shifts goalposts to a discussion about small businesses, when the thread was about the ability of a UK chain running cinema's owned by the 2nd biggest global cinema empire to pay living wage, says you're not replying to the points
I find it tiresome. I don't really come on urban to have to deal with this.
It's part of the" of course I want the workers to be paid well and have good conditions but this isn't the way to go about it" line of argument. Of which there's been a lot of here.
The if you want workers to have decent pay and conditions you have to face up to reality and face the consequences you have brought on the workers. Which of course employers understand and wanted to avoid but people with ideological axes to grind pursue to the detriment of real people.
And of course the old chestnut that lefties are all hypocrites anyway.
I don't really regard myself as ideological lefty. Just someone who works and thinks workers should have rights.
Last edited:
editor
hiraethified
And what a twat he made of himself. Basing an argument around someone 'liking' a post is bad enough, but it's totally backfired in his face.
I hope they pay tax on all those benefits in kind they get.
Since you are being candid...
editor
hiraethified
Thank you for reminding me of the cancer that is killing the Brixton forum. It's people like you and Mr Retro who are happy to disrupt important threads just to pursue personal vendettas.
This thread is about workers fighting a multinational company for a decent wage. It has nothing to do with DJs or their private tax matters.
