The Living Wage

Purple

I wrote about both 'LOW and zero hours contracts' - many of the Dunnes Employees you're apparently supporting are on 'low' as opposed to 'zero hours contracts'.

Am I correct in understanding that you support 'low hours contracts' but not zero hours contracts? If so, do you only support the percentage of Dunnes employees on zero hours contracts and not those on low hours contracts? Is the practice of Dunnes paying 25% of someone's wages really OK?

What - besides opinion - are you basing the following statement on 'The problem of a minimum wage which is higher than the economic value of a potential employee is that they will never get a job'.

How about my point re. lack of mobility for US workers on minimum wage? Surely, moving to London or some other UK destination is just as easy for an Irish worker as it is for a US worker to move state?

Purple said:

Do you think someone who works part time should get a higher hourly wage than someone doing the same job at the same skill level but working full time?

Click to expand...

Of course that is not what I am saying.

It is your line of reasoning that State aid should cover the shortfall in the living wage that is the problem.

Where a business, on an ongoing basis, requires State aid to provide its employees with a living wage and that cost outweighs what the business contributes in taxes, then that business is a drain on State resources, regardless of differing views on how labour should be valued.

Purple said:

Do you think people should be paid based on their need rather than their value and if so should a person with a large family and mortgage be paid more than someone else doing the same job who is single and has no mortgage?

Click to expand...

Here's the thing, in Switzerland we basically have not labour law and yet these are the very reasons employers give when coming to staffing decisions:
- Hans gets paid 500 per month more than you because he has a family to support
- I'm cutting your hours because you are single and the impact will not be as big as on Hans
- Hans gets first dibs during the annual holidays because he is limited to the school holiday period
- In general workers with kids will be fully paid for all time off to take kids to medical appointments, cover for a sick care giver etc...

Apart perhaps from the MNCs, most employers do not make their decisions on nearly as clinical basis as you seem to thing.

I wonder would be be more advantageous for all if, rather than just increasing the minimum wage, employees shared in either a % of revenue or a % of profits, especially for smaller companies (workers in a large company might just "free load", but in a small company it would be more difficult)?

Firefly.

epicaricacy said:

I wrote about both 'LOW and zero hours contracts' - many of the Dunnes Employees you're apparently supporting are on 'low' as opposed to 'zero hours contracts'.

Click to expand...

No, you said; “'Minimum wage' and 'low / zero hours contracts' are indivisible.”
That is incorrect, in fact and in law and in practice.
I do not agree with a contract where the employee doesn’t know what hours they are going to get next week (or this week) and so do not have certainty of income. That, in my opinion, is exploitation.

epicaricacy said:

Am I correct in understanding that you support 'low hours contracts' but not zero hours contracts? If so, do you only support the percentage of Dunnes employees on zero hours contracts and not those on low hours contracts?

Click to expand...

Yes, part time work suits many people, particularly women with children in school who have low skill levels. As long as they are happy to work for the wages and have certainly in what hours they will be working then I don’t see a probem.

epicaricacy said:

Is the practice of Dunnes paying 25% of someone's wages really OK?

Click to expand...

It looks like you don’t understand that element of a zero hours contract. If the contract is for 20 hours but the employee gets no hours that week then the employer must pay 25% of the contracted hours, 5 hours, even though the employee didn’t work any hours. It’s still unfair on the employee though.

epicaricacy said:

What - besides opinion - are you basing the following statement on 'The problem of a minimum wage which is higher than the economic value of a potential employee is that they will never get a job'.

Click to expand...

Logic; employers don’t employ people who lose them money every hour they are there.

epicaricacy said:

How about my point re. lack of mobility for US workers on minimum wage? Surely, moving to London or some other UK destination is just as easy for an Irish worker as it is for a US worker to move state?

Click to expand...

Where did you make that point? I observed that there was more labour mobility in the US than here. It’s a 300 million person market that’s almost all connected by land, have similar laws and everyone (just about) speaks English so of course there’s more mobility.

Jim2007 said:

Here's the thing, in Switzerland we basically have not labour law and yet these are the very reasons employers give when coming to staffing decisions:
- Hans gets paid 500 per month more than you because he has a family to support
- I'm cutting your hours because you are single and the impact will not be as big as on Hans
- Hans gets first dibs during the annual holidays because he is limited to the school holiday period
- In general workers with kids will be fully paid for all time off to take kids to medical appointments, cover for a sick care giver etc...

Apart perhaps from the MNCs, most employers do not make their decisions on nearly as clinical basis as you seem to thing.

Click to expand...

That's what SME's do here (including where I work) but it shouldn't be how we legislate.
Is it the law in Switzerland or just practice?

Sophrosyne said:

Of course that is not what I am saying.
It is your line of reasoning that State aid should cover the shortfall in the living wage that is the problem.
Where a business, on an ongoing basis, requires State aid to provide its employees with a living wage and that cost outweighs what the business contributes in taxes, then that business is a drain on State resources, regardless of differing views on how labour should be valued.

Click to expand...

I'm confused as to what you are saying as your two points above contradict each other.
Do you think that people should be paid based on their value to the organisation they work for or should they get paid based on their economic need?
State aid currently covers the shortfall in the living wage through Family Income Supplement, Child Benefit, Disability Allowance etc. Are you suggesting that this should change?

Firefly said:

I wonder would be be more advantageous for all if, rather than just increasing the minimum wage, employees shared in either a % of revenue or a % of profits, especially for smaller companies (workers in a large company might just "free load", but in a small company it would be more difficult)?

Firefly.

Click to expand...

If the small company is run properly then it could and should happen.

I take on board that wages cannot exceed profitability.
I take on board we must be realistic in what welfare cover we can or should give.
I take on board that experience has proven that too many employers cry wolf on wages.
I take on board that some employees don't do a good days work.
I take on board that most employers need to be (squeezed ) a bit to give increases.
I take on board that some Unions can be un-realistic.

What I mostly take on board is that we have incrementally managed to design in Ireland a system whereby (for all its flaws) we have a reasonable Welfare System and a reasonable wages system , and an ability for Companies to make profit.

I would be vehemently opposed to a return of (market forces) decide.
Let that loose and we will eg. re-end up bailing out AIB for the 3rd time!

ps. Would some of you explain to me , this governments wish to now sell AIB?

Gerry Canning said:

I take on board that wages cannot exceed profitability.
I take on board we must be realistic in what welfare cover we can or should give.
I take on board that experience has proven that too many employers cry wolf on wages.
I take on board that some employees don't do a good days work.
I take on board that most employers need to be (squeezed ) a bit to give increases.
I take on board that some Unions can be un-realistic.

What I mostly take on board is that we have incrementally managed to design in Ireland a system whereby (for all its flaws) we have a reasonable Welfare System and a reasonable wages system , and an ability for Companies to make profit.

I would be vehemently opposed to a return of (market forces) decide.

Click to expand...

I agree with all of that.
This thread is about the idea of a Living Wage.
That implies that the employer should carry the social burden of providing "Job Blogs" with a wage that provides him with a certain standard of living/ lifestyle. I contend that this social obligation and so if we collectively deem it to be a good idea it should be born collectively. That's all.

Purple said:

I agree with all of that.
This thread is about the idea of a Living Wage.
That implies that the employer should carry the social burden of providing "Job Blogs" with a wage that provides him with a certain standard of living/ lifestyle. I contend that this social obligation, if we collectively deem it to be a good idea, should be born collectively. That's all.

Click to expand...

Purple.
..........
We agree therefore on most things on a living wage, the trick is getting it to work in society.
I think the employer/employees should all be taxed in a way that provides a reasonable net minimum payment to any employee.
I do not think that means the employer carries the {burden}, nor should the State ie us , subsidise employers.

I still believe we ain,t managing too badly on this.