| The Breakroom > The Water Cooler |
| The proposed 'living wage'. |
| << < (4/4) |
| Brass_Machine:
--- Quote from: DavidA on July 29, 2015, 05:11:29 PM ---... This thread was locked not long ago, It was considered an 'edgy' subject. So we need to keep it friendly. ... --- End quote --- David is right, I did lock it, granted it was an off the hip decision... reversed after some discussion. I am happy to see this progressing without any fighting/flaming (since anything political can set off a firestorm). Very proud of the members here! :mmr: |
| awemawson:
Up until now I've steered clear of this discussion as it can potentially be very partisan, with entrenched views. I am very uneasy to have any government manipulation of either wages or prices, as in any market, be it goods or labour, it distorts what generally would be a system that reaches its own equilibrium. I can see that in some circumstances businesses will not recruit if artificial barriers are put in place, and on the other hand I also can see that staff need a certain level of remuneration to keep body and soul together. I think that the administrative and financial barriers to employing people stop many small companies taking on youngsters and giving them a start in employment. Some years back we had a service centre in Holland supporting a limited number of industrial customers who would need our services for a specific period - a few years. In the last couple of years we could not afford to take on new staff as the office would close, and their departure costs would bring the company down. Net result was poorer service and over worked existing staff. If we could have recruited then those new staff would have been trained and able to get better jobs when we closed the office. |
| trapper:
Yes if you noticed before l posted l said l was PLEASANTLY surprised this topic was allowed normally l would shy away from any topic concerning politics,football or religion as we all have different views but when l read a few posts on the subject l thought l would reply like it has been said if its correct we will have to wait and see-thats the end of it as far as l,m concerned back to machining its easier (sometimes) |
| DavidA:
I have to admit that I was somewhat surprised when this topic was considered to be toxic. I can see why some may say 'well, that job doesn't deserve so much 'etc. And I don't want to get involved in that. But my concern was that it is a 38% increase for a huge number of people. In these straightened times the company I worked for (still occasionally do) gave 2% increases across the board in three of the last five years; in two on them they didn't get a pay rise at all. It seems to follow from this that if the next five year follows the same pattern then the most they will get is , say, 10 percent total. Some could easily be leapfrogged.And what about those on state pension ? It does seem that this has not been thought through at all. I shall watch the approaching financial circus with some added interest. No doubt that nice Mr Osbourne has it all worked out. Dave. :scratch: |
| Brass_Machine:
--- Quote from: DavidA on July 30, 2015, 01:13:28 PM ---I have to admit that I was somewhat surprised when this topic was considered to be toxic. ... Dave. :scratch: --- End quote --- Not sure about over there, but here State side, there are 2 main camps (on our minimum pay hike). One saying it needs to be done to be fair to everyone. The other saying, if it gets done, people will lose jobs and costs will go up so companies can afford the pay hike. Naturally, politics can create some fired up debates as some people will not listen to the opposing side. Thus erupting into flame wars. I try to head these things off early. That's all. As long as it stays civil, I am happy. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Previous page |