Jump to content

Recommended Posts

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Will you be paying your staff the London Living

> Wage?


Is this group confirmed to not do so? I notice that Mr Social Media Engagement has swerved this twice now.


Definitely has a bearing on whether or not I'll use them (or the Ritzy again).

Then I suppose that you will have to give up going to the cinema, cle, because I would bet that few, if any, cinema owners pay the living wage.


For heaven's sake, lets be positive - we stand a damn good chance of getting a cinema in ED. To quote (ironically) the late Mrs T - rejoice!

We've already done this argument to death on another thread. No cinema pays the LL. Hardly any London businesses do, only around 300 at the last count. Unless you're going to grow all your own food and never go out again, realise that this is a highly complicated issue not helped by unilateral statements that get us nowhere.

maxxi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> david_carnell Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Will you be paying your staff the London Living

> > Wage?

>

> No but they will be screening a grainy documentary

> about their plight.


:)

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I work for an independent business and we pay

> (more than) the London Living Wage. Why do you

> think small businesses should be exempt? And what

> about 'unsuccessful' chains?



I don't think they 'should' be, but I'm realistic about the struggles of running a small, independent business - retail or F&B.

"Hardly any London businesses do, only around 300 at the last count."


300 is, I think, the number of employers formally accredited. The GLA report reveals that 88% of full time workers in London are paid the LLW or more, but that falls to just over 50% for part time workers.


I think the idea of calculating and publishing a LLW is a good one, because it puts forward a more realistic view of London living costs than the NMW, and is a good aspirational target for employers. But a single figure based on living costs across all types of households, and which is heavily skewed by the impact of benefits, is always going to be slightly arbitrary when applied to a specific job in a specific place. Consequently it's a bit foolish IMHO to treat it as a gold standard to judge the ethics of businesses.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
    • I guess its the thing these days to demonstrate an attitude, in this instance seemingly of the negative kind, instead of taking pride in your work and have standards then 🤷‍♀️
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...