Brixton Ritzy staff in pay dispute for London Living Wage with Picturehouse Cinemas
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
ska invita
back on the other side
yeah, sorry, i am being confusing - ive gone into this conversation reluctantly a bit, and so am dragging my feet and not expressing things too clearly... not sure this will be much better, but:
the £12per hour thing was to make a point that the reason you couldnt introduce a blanket £12 per hour min wage is the same why at the moment I think it would be wrong to introduce an £8.80 one, namely that its too high. Not too high because people dont deserve it, or dont need it, but because lots of small businesses couldnt pay it. The two main jobs i've had in the last 6 years, neither could, or can now, pay it. They would both have to close and i'd be out of a job. They can pay more than min wage though. I'd love them to pay more, but we can't afford it. And thats true for lots of small businesses.
So setting a min wage is partially based on what people need to live and also at what rate business can exist. The economy is (institutionally/politically) fucked so you cant please both sides.
Another example: a close relative of mine has gone to Norway to drive busses, to save for his retirement. Bus driving in Norway can be a well paid job on which you can even save up if you live within your means. A proper living wage. Scandinavian countries tend to have more equality between their top paid and lowest paid jobs - this is something that is clearly a good thing. But how do we get from where we are now in the UK to that point?
I have some inclinations on that, but im really not convinced its by upping the minimum wage - or crucially at least not on its own. Rather than pushing up from the bottom i think the key thing is to cap and squash down the top end, which includes top pay and top costs for things like rent. Without a ceiling, pushing up from the bottom wont work. Thats at least the jist of what im saying. Lots of business cant afford an 8.80 minimum wage. But then lots can - especially the multimillion pound businesses who not only have massive profits, but often employ on the lowest wages. A one-rule-for=all minimum wage of 8.80 may not work right now, but LLW should definitely be used to push on those, like Cineworld, who can afford it.
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
As above
Rushy
basically a scrotum
The one thing I'd add to this, which I touched on above, is that making it compulsory for large businesses but not for small businesses might actually cause a problem for small businesses as large businesses would be able to cream off the hardest working / most capable people because their wages are higher. Alternatively - maybe they would contract out particular services (e.g. cleaning, running the bar) to small companies to avoid the higher wages.
In Norway - is there a cap on upper wages? What controls the wage gap?
You are essentially arguing against capitalism, good to see you are making progress.
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
I wonder how this compares to the mean UK full-time salary? Does any one know where to get that figure?
I can't find it easily as the ONS reports median:
"For the year ending 5 April 2013 median gross annual earnings for full-time employees (who had been in the same job for at least 12 months) were £27,000" (source = ONS).
Rushy
basically a scrotum
If you say so DD. If you say so.
ska invita
back on the other side
the thing about fighting for a higher wage is that its relatively easier to do that than fighting for a reform of the entire economy so its kind of inevitable that discussions about it look towards raising wages - and then if you look at railworkers who have successfully fought for better wages over years they've shifted the playing field for all public service sector workers somewhat. Just to be triple-clear, I'm not against employees in non-worker-controlled situations trying to get the maximum wages they can out of their profiteering employer. Its a good thing.
My understanding is Scandinavian economies and cultural norms in regards to economics/capitalism/work were shaped by socialist revolution in the 30s
http://peacenews.info/node/6624/how-swedes-and-norwegians-broke-power-‘1’
...both countries have drifted to the right in recent years, but the broad legacy of equality, co-operatives and a cultural sense of embarrassment at earning more than others has remained. So official wages are often much closer together as a ratio (in private and state sector), though a Norwegian friend tells me its not unusual for a big boss to find ways of awarding themselves bonuses and so on.
Anyhow, a socialist-reformist state had decades of controlling, influencing and shaping the economy and culture... Id love to read more about it tbh, cant find much on the net. If anyone knows a book on it Id be interested...
that link is worth a read
My understanding is very limited (surprise surprise) - the picture i have painted myself is based on a conversation ive had and the odd snippet ive read...
My understanding is Scandinavian economies and cultural norms in regards to economics/capitalism/work were shaped by socialist revolution in the 30s
http://peacenews.info/node/6624/how-swedes-and-norwegians-broke-power-‘1’
...both countries have drifted to the right in recent years, but the broad legacy of equality, co-operatives and a cultural sense of embarrassment at earning more than others has remained. So official wages are often much closer together as a ratio (in private and state sector), though a Norwegian friend tells me its not unusual for a big boss to find ways of awarding themselves bonuses and so on.
Anyhow, a socialist-reformist state had decades of controlling, influencing and shaping the economy and culture... Id love to read more about it tbh, cant find much on the net. If anyone knows a book on it Id be interested...
that link is worth a read
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
Does the median not give a more reflective comparison? I would have thought that the mean would be heftily skewed by the disproportionate spread in salaries and therefore makes for a bigger difference in this comparison... i.e. Great if you want to make £24k look low but not really an indicator of a "liveable wage"
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
Yes, I think the median is more useful which is why it is more often used. I was just anticipating the likely argument (on here) that everybody should be paid the same amount no matter what job they do and wondering how the resultant mean salary would compare with £24K.
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
Understood
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Companies have been contracting out services for some time. Did not always be like this. A lot of jobs that used to be inhouse are now contracted out. Companies have been doing this anyway over recent years to cut costs. Large companies used to employ canteen staff , cleaners and post room staff inhouse. This used to be the norm. Its all changed over last 30 years. Its not just low pay thats the problem its also the worse conditions of employment when jobs are outsourced. Zero hour contracts, short term contracts etc. It suits employers.
A division between those who supposedly work hard and those who supposedly do not is an employers way of looking at it. I have seen people work hard and then get burnt out. Suddenly they are seen as slacking.
Plenty of people are worked hard by small business. In fact can be more pressure on one in a small business.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Mostly true but not sure how it relates to my point about whether LLW could be applied to larger businesses and not to smaller businesses. Maybe it was not intended to?
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
The biggest difference is usually that the 'outsourced' staff are also no longer eligible for the pension scheme that the 'employer' has...
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Rushy
basically a scrotum
My comment was that an unlevel playing field would not work and would cause the scenario I described.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Nor redundancy. Knew someone who was the last employee in a post room who was permanent staff. Been there for 20 years in same postroom.They could not get rid of him as they would have had to pay big redundancy.
And he was old school British worker. Did not like getting up off his arse. Moaned and groaned if he had to.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Its not how things work.
A jobs a job. A "hard working" person might apply to BFI for LLW cinema usher not get it and end up at Ritzy or another cinema.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Might happen. I explained in an earlier post how when I was employing people directly and paying over LLW I was able to choose people who performed best, showed most promise and could grow. Although the jobs I was recruiting for were often menial (digging holes, moving rubbish) I wanted people who would think for themselves and could learn to manage other people and who I could trust. A surprising number of people were just not up to it. I only had that luxury because I paid more than others.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
No, £12 an hour is only "£24k per annum" if you're fortunate enough to be working a 40+ hour week. Most of the Ritzy's employees aren't, and neither ae a significant minority of employees in the rest of the UK either.
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
I think everyone realises that
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
It sounds great, but it's still about £7,000 a year under the average London f/t wage, and about £4,500 a year under the UK average f/t wage.
Also, if you take into account percentage expenditure net of tax and NI that goes on rent/mortgage payments, the average runs at more than 50% of net salary.
35 years ago, before a woman called Margaret dropped a large steaming turd on us, that figure was around 30-35%. part of the difference resides in a massive loss of social housing, but the rest resides in the rapaciousness of the rentiers, playing on their knowledge that an economy falsely sustained by house price inflation won't take very many measures to increase supply even minimally.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
So why the disingenuous (bordering on idiotic) comment talking about eraning £24,000 a year for selling popcorn, you donkey?
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
Because irrespective of whether they sell popcorn for 12 hours at £12 per hour or sell popcorn for 40 hours at £12 per hour, a lot of people (myself included) put salaries into perspective on an annual basis.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
The corollary to that is that your two employers are probably, through being unwable or unwilling to pay more, effectively having their businesses subsidised.
I'm aware that this is more complex than a simple "low wages get subsidised through in-work benefits" argument, and that businesses are forever being injuncted to diversify/open for longer hours/save money through "efficiencies", but the costs of those injunctions (if the employer heeds them) are rarely paid by the employer - they're paid by the employee who's expected to accept shitty T & Cs; ZHCs or part-time employment etc etc.
The economy isn't, however, financially fucked, and the political and institutional arguments very often confuse what business states that it can afford, with what it can actually afford.
Sometimes the arguments are almost as fatuous as the rail companies who claim they can't afford to invest in their service and need larger subsidies, while paying out record-breaking dividends to their shareholders.
As things currently stand, with neoliberal capitalism standing as it does effectively outside of governance, we'll never get there. That was pretty much part of the intent of accepting neoliberalism - to allow the boss class to act in such a way as to enrich itself at the expense of the working class (and increasingly, as they're finding out, the bourgeoisie too).
The only effective way under our current "democracy", is to push the struggle at both ends of the argument - to campaign for a "maximum wage" while also campaigning to raise the minimum wage toa "living" wage.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
And a lot of people, when they do so, acknowledge that such calculations are pro rata. You didn't.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
The latter being far more likely than the former.
Yes, they have a legislated upper cap of 15x (IIRC) the lowest full-time salary that company pays. The limit itself effectively controls the wage gap, IYSWIM.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Companies have made (and are still making) attempts to get round TUPE agreements too, making any security that used to come with privatisation of a public service dubious to say the least.
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
Apology accepted
