That's all well and good Jim but what about small businesses? How do they go elsewhere?
If a small to medium sized business is complying with employment, Health and Safety, environmental laws and regulations and, crucially, are paying their taxes fully and within the intent and spirit of the law then what other social responsibility do you think they should have?
Do you think a business should be forced to pay an employee more than their commercial value?
Society says X per hour is the minimum cost of labour and if you can't meet that cost, then your business is not viable, end of.
It is also worth noting that across Europe the majority of workers are employed by small to medium sized firm, so clearly such firms do flourish in the European environment.
Would you make the same argument if we were talking about the cost of raw materials or some other resource?
If a small business employs a non-skilled person to sweep the floors then the value of that persons labour is X. The same business can employ a skilled person to operate machinery, generate sales, write code etc. The value of that persons labour is a multiple of X. The business should pay a fair wage relative to the commercial value of the employees wage. If the person sweeping the floor has, due to personal circumstances, high outgoings that is not the concern of the business. That's why there is child benefit, income supplement and other welfare payments. These are funded through taxation. Our country deems these supports to be socially desirable (and I agree with that position) but the responsibility to provide that social safety net lies with the state, not with the employer.If the only way a business is commercially viable is by exploiting society, then we should not in anyway feel obliged to support such a business, because in fact it is not commercial viable!
I agree but that's not what a living wage is about. If the minimum wage is higher than the value of a persons labour then that person is unemployable and will never get a job, never get experience and will never have the chance to acquire the skills they need to be self sufficient. It is the ultimate poverty trap.Would you make the same argument if we were talking about the cost of raw materials or some other resource? Of course not! Society says X per hour is the minimum cost of labour and if you can't meet that cost, then your business is not viable, end of.
I agree but it's also worth noting that no country in Europe sets a "living Wage", rather they set a minimum wage.It is also worth noting that across Europe the majority of workers are employed by small to medium sized firm, so clearly such firms do flourish in the European environment.
.....................I heard some mutton head from Mandate (I think) on the radio this morning arguing for an increase in the minimum wage to €9.65 per hour as a stepping stone to the introduction of a living wage of €11.45 per hour.
His argument was that that's what it costs to live and that higher wages would lead to an increase in consumer spending. The economic illiteracy of the man was frightening! He was either being deliberately misleading or was a complete fool.
Is this the best the extreme left was offer? Is that the calibre of Union Leaders? I really hope not! For all his faults and blind commitment to a bankrupt ideology David Begg was a clever man. I hope there are others of his intellect left in the Trade Union movement for as long as they exert such a strong influence on the politics and governance of this country it is important that there are people there who will curb their ideological tendency towards harming the poor and vulnerable.
Yes, the burden of providing a social safety net should fall on the state, not the employer. If we consider that burden desirable then it should be paid for by all so increase taxes or waste less money.@ 8.65 and things like Family Income Supplement it means the employer gets cheaper labour and by a transfer of our taxes the employee gets up to a better wage.
Using that argument we should increase the minimum wage to €50 an hour and all of our problems would be solved.Obviously if the 8.65 increases Consumer Spending must go up , the question would not apply if the increase to 11.65 was saved , ( I doubt that).
People should get paid what they are worth in an open labour market, subject to the existing protections. The state already shares their profits by taxing them. If the state wants to share more of their profit then increase corporation tax.Whilst we can all now deride Trade Unions , I would contend that it was they that gradually and incrementally have brought Social Responsibility to Employers.
If we read the Business Papers , employers have made very good profits these last few years, I think employees are entitled to their share.
Look at the levels of youth unemployment. We are trapping the poor and low skilled in a cycle of perpetual unemployment.I am not too comfortable around ,employer affordability,
On previous minimum wage increases ,the sky was going to fall in on companies.
On balance, the sky stayed up !
Trade Unions want to help the poor, as long as it doesn’t impact on their relatively well paid members. The problem is that their policies are based on a socialist doctrine which fundamentally fails to understand how wealth is created. They work on the premise that there is a finite amount of wealth and so if one person is rich then another must be poor, if one person has a million then another has a thousand. They fail to understand that the person who has a million could have created that million and if they didn’t have it then it wouldn’t exist.If you believe Trade Unions have {an ideological tendency towards harming the poor and vulnerable} , then we are left at the mercy of employers. In fairness most employers are good but nature has a habit of reducing wages to a very low point.
A fair wage and a living wage are not the same thing and never should be.As I said at the start , maybe we have the balance better than most economies.
If employees don,t get a fair living wage , other companies can,t make profit from Joe Soap.
I have always supposed this to be a mathematical issue.
If a business costs the State more (including any welfare assistance provided to its employees) than it contributes in taxes, then it is not practicable.
One might make allowances for start-ups, but not if the shortfall continues year on year.
Epicaricary. I like your comments.Would you make allowances for part-timers? Many people opt for part-time work and supplement their incomes with welfare. Hardly the employer's choice, or indeed their business to tell them to work full-time if they don't want to.
I agree.Purple .
Quote {A fair wage and a living wage are not the same thing and never should be}
I agree with you .Would you accept these comments?
There has to be a fair mechanism that balances wages to productivity.
There has to be a fair mechanism that balances profits to risk taker/company.
With anything like luck a fair wage will be in excess of a living wage, and that means
employers/employees/the state are all winners.
This isn't about the top 1% or unions or employers.To be absolutist on anti-union or anti-employer is not sensible.
Most worker type issues seem to run with the cut and thrust of society.
It appears the TOP 1% normally need to be challenged every so often by the rest.
The trick seems to be, doing that without chaos.
Would you make allowances for part-timers? Many people opt for part-time work and supplement their incomes with welfare. Hardly the employer's choice, or indeed their business to tell them to work full-time if they don't want to.
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?It is unfair to single out part-timers.
The contention is that State should pick up the slack where businesses either cannot or will not pay a living wage to their employees.
This is particularly relevant in Ireland which has so many small businesses claiming that they cannot pay a living wage or in some cases, even the minimum wage.
From a State standpoint, the cost of supplementing employee wages of so many businesses when measured against the contributions of those businesses to the exchequer has to be material.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?