Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sorry, not attacking in the sense of being abusive or anything. However, your immediate reaction was to assume I was trying to undermine the LLW and therefore, instead of reading my posts carefully, you immediately went into the mode of defending your position and trying to undermine mine rather than engaging with the substance of what I was saying.


Perphas saying that some on this thread have a strong defensive attitude towards the issue would be a better choice of words.


Eitherway, I think this issue is so much larger than the Picture House, continuing to discuss it here is really hijacking a thread meant to spread information about a new facility in the area.

I sort of agree about "singling out the picture house isn't fair" thing btw - but then again teh thread IS about the picture house and their staff have recently gone on strike on the matter, so it's germaine to the discussion. But on the wider topic we can assume we are also talking about other companies I guess

I just looked at the pay scales for my employer (a London Local Authority), and the bottom scale pays out in incriments as follows.


7.9078

7.9701

8.0388

8.1874

8.4016

8.6110

8.7644

8.8683 MAX


So you'd have to be in that job a while to work your way up to the top of the scale and hit ?8.80.


I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS RIGHT!!!!!!


But if a local authority aren't paying LLW, this illustrates just how pointless it is banging on about Picturehouse.


Edit because the data all came out funny.

Okay, fair enough SJ, I am not always very clear.



My point / position is that it is difficult to pay an individual more than the value they contribute to your business. Therefore any strategy to increase low-skilled workers wages should involve increasing their skills over time. The economy still has shortages of various types of skilled labor and this needs rebalancing. This has to be part of the broader discussion on the LLW.


My other point, is that unskilled jobs that pay a lower wage have a genuine roll to play in the economy, particularly for younger employees. Of the circa 16% of employees earning below the LLW, it would be interesting to see how many of them are students. Given how young London?s population is, 16%-20% doesn?t strike me as terribly high. This becomes a more significant issue of course, if young unskilled workers remain in unskilled work for life.


My last point concerns increasing wages as a matter of law. The research on this is mixed but there is growing evidence that in certain circumstances minimum wage increases can be positive for the wider economy including job creation and lifting people out of poverty. However, when done without analyzing the impact it will have on business, it can result in spiraling inflation, job losses (particularly amongst the unskilled) and business closures. There are independent bodies both in the US and the UK that exist solely to assess this and advise government. Any increase in the minimum wage will result in some job cuts and closures in certain businesses but if enough businesses can absorb the increase via either cutting higher wage earners salaries, increasing prices moderately, increasing the productivity of low skilled workers etc, the net impact can be neutral on total employment as the increased spending power of low wage workers tends to stimulate growth faster than other segments of the population resulting in jobs growth. To simplify this point?forcing a minimum salary on the economy / London has to be done very carefully for it to be a net positive for low wage workers and the economy as a whole.

Otta


In the pay scales you attached, is there any element of London Weighting (often paid by public bodies) and if not, what would LW do to change these scales? When I worked for public bodies London Weighting and the basic pay scale were separate, as they were not increased in step with each other. Often LW was a lump sum increment, paid regardless of grade (and so of more relative value to the low paid).

LM wrote: "My point / position is that it is difficult to pay an individual more than the value they contribute to your business."


More than the value they contribute? The Ritzy workers contribute enormous value. How would Picturehouse get their tickets checked or drinks served at the bar or the premises cleaned ready for the next batch of cinema-goers without these workers who are not even being paid a living wage?


Do you really think businesses in this economic climate, especially small businesses, would employ anyone who wasn't vital to their business? Everyone has a part to play to enable a business to exist never mind prosper. It's just that when profits are made, the owners or shareholders forget this.

"Therefore any strategy to increase low-skilled workers wages should involve increasing their skills over time"


I'm not sure this makes sense does it? You increase your value by going up the career ladder, but this is a hierarchichal thing, there simply can't be positions for everyone higher up the chain as they all get older.


"Picturehouse programming director, Clare Binns, ... who worked her way up from an usher at the Brixton Ritzy" must surely be the exception amongst her ex usher peers.


In theory it'd be nice if people got paid more for increased experience, seniority in the literal rather than hierarchical sense of the word, but we know in low/unskilled professions this isn't really the case.


I've spent my entire career at the coalface, but am fortunate that it's an industry that pays well to begin with and my seniority has risen with experience, not responsibility, but professional erm professions aren't exactly the issue here.


So in reality doesn't society, well shareholders, depend on the work force not increasing its value in any way?


In fact given the levels of youth unemployment it would seem that older more experienced staff are being kept on at low wages rather than being replaced with cheap inexperienced youngsters.


Sorry, just musing really.


*edited for shameless grocers apostrophe

Beddug, I simply mean that if the cost of employing someone is unprofitable, a business cannot afford to do it. Not everyone contributes more than the LLW to the earnings of the company they are employed for. The fact that a business may not be able to run without them is irrelevant and staff costs can cause a business to close or fail.


Similarly, when certain low-skilled work becomes too expensive, the cost- benefit of using technology tips in favor of technology, which results in low-skilled jobs being lost. Collecting your ticket only from a machine and installing ticket scanners with security gates for example could reduce the need for certain low-skilled jobs in a cinema.




buddug Wrote:

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

> LM wrote: "My point / position is that it is

> difficult to pay an individual more than the value

> they contribute to your business."

>

> More than the value they contribute? The Ritzy

> workers contribute enormous value. How would

> Picturehouse get their tickets checked or drinks

> served at the bar or the premises cleaned ready

> for the next batch of cinema-goers without these

> workers who are not even being paid a living wage?

>

>

> Do you really think businesses in this economic

> climate, especially small businesses, would employ

> anyone who wasn't vital to their business?

> Everyone has a part to play to enable a business

> to exist never mind prosper. It's just that when

> profits are made, the owners or shareholders

> forget this.

Otta


Thanks for that clarification - and I would guess that many paid on these low scales would not, in fact, be full-time employees - these look like unskilled wages, which are often part-time or short-hours jobs (such as cleaning).


Of course, depending upon the terms of the contract, if part-time the staff member might also do another job as well, but probably at a similar low wage.

Given the "flexibility" of staff on these wage levels (plus zero hours contracts), isn't it just tempting for many businesses to say they can't pay LWW. Just as Amazon says it pays all the tax it's legally required to?


All legal of course, but not exactly ideal

Cineworld had ?31 million of profit last year. I think they can afford it.


And on a wider scale, an increase in pay also leads to wider societal benefits: people have more money to spend - it stimulates the local economy; people have to claim less or no additional benefits resulting in a lower tax burden; staff are more likely to be loyal to the employer resulting in fewer costly recruitment processes, training, etc.

"Like most businesses care about ideal."


well this is it Otta - historically, most of thr 20th century had some link between business and social goals. that has been eroding for the past few decades and is reaching a tipping point


And it's not just a bunch of lefty liberals wringing their hands over this - in last few days we have had head of IMF and the Bank of England talking about the disconnect


http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/27/carnney-lagarde-city-primeval-will-survive


http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/27/capitalism-critique-bank-of-england-carney

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> Given the "flexibility" of staff on these wage

> levels (plus zero hours contracts), isn't it just

> tempting for many businesses to say they can't pay

> LWW. Just as Amazon says it pays all the tax it's

> legally required to?

>

> All legal of course, but not exactly ideal



Yes, of course. However, job losses and business closures do occur every time the minimum wage increases. However, job creation also takes place when the rate is set correctly . Clearly some firms cannot pay the higher wage and they fail. The trick when increasing the legal minimum wage is to make sure not too many are in that position given based on the size of the increase.


The firms least able to pay are those for whom the product they sell has elastic demand (meaning people are very price sensitive and will stop using it if prices go up), where a large portion of their employees are affected (for Goldman Sachs who do pay the LLW, only a small fraction of their workforce is unskilled and they can spread the increased cost of these limited number of employees through very small reductions in other staff costs or other efficiency gains) or when it?s impossible for the employees to become more productive (ie increasing targets etc which can happen after a hike in the min wage).


How large the increase is plays a role in how many businesses will find the change unsustainable without layoffs or closing all together.

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

    • That's actually why the Sherlock Holmes stories were so popular. There was so little crime people found it exciting to imagine robberies and murders happening in London.
    • Yes, because of course there were no violent robberies in the olden days. Pretty much no crime happened at all I believe through the entire Victorian era.
    • Hi all, Im a Southwark council leaseholder and live downstairs in a ground floor flat, there is one flat above me, it's a house with individual front doors leading from the street into the shared pathway. My neighbour told me he has had a ring doorbell installed, no discussion as to how I would feel being on camera everytime I go in and out or in my front garden. I was told it's only for deliveries and doesn't record and only activates when pressed, however I don't know this and I feel really uncomfortable everytime I'm out in garden or on doorstep talking to people. Everytime I walk in/out, it lights up and in the eve it has a  infra red  light. Now I've read up that as he said its only for deliveries, he could set it so it only activates when pressed, however it activates with its motion sensor. Had he said to me about getting it installed, I could have had the opportunity to ask about it recording etc but nothing except it's being installed and when I arrived home it was there. I don't like being horrible to people however I feel I have not been considered in his decision and I feel very uncomfortable as, some times I have to stand on doorstep to get signal for my mobile and I really don't like the idea of being watched and listened to. Has anyone got any advice as I'm beginning to get angry as I've asked about it once and was told it only activates when pressed. I believe this is not true. I know southwark council say you need to ask permission to make sure the neighbours are OK with it, I don't really want to go down that road but I don't know how to approach the subject again. They also put a shed approx 3 foot from my back room window, these places are built so my window faces their rear garden and there upstairs window  faces mine. They said it's there temporarily, that was over a year ago and it does affect the light, plus I'm hoping to sell up soon and the view from window is mainly a dark brown shed. When I've mentioned this, I was told they have no where else to put it, whereas originally they said its only temporary, Also the floorboards above are bare and I get woke early morning and at night, the thudding is so bad my light shakes and window rattles, so I mentioned this and asked if they have rugs, I was told when they get the boards re sanded they will get rugs, I should have asked if they could get rugs and just take them up when boards being done, which I would have done had it been me living above someone, their attitude was I can just put up with it until they are ready. so they had the floor boards done, and the workmen was hammering screws, yes screws, in the floorboards, I spoke to workmen to ask how much longer and they said yes, are using screws to make less noise! I could hear the cordless screwdriver, not an issue but for every screw there were at least 8 whacks, the owners had gone out to avoid the noise  so I  spoke to workmen as the noise was unbearable, the sanding, not an issue at all, people need to get things done to their home and I'm fine that on occasions there will be temporary noise. now I have a nice crack on my bedroom ceiling, I mentioned this to owner but no response, he said there were alot of loose floorboards and it will be much better now, not so noisy, as though I don't know the difference between squeaking floor boards and thudding, and nothing was mentioned re the crack or that they now have rugs, which if it were me, I'd be trying to resolve the issue so we can get on with feeling happy in our homes. so I'm feeling it's a total lack of consideration. these places are old and Edwardian and I've lived here over 40 years, had 4 different neighbours and it's only now the noise of thudding is really bad and the people before had floorboards but nothing like this. As you can probably tell I'm really wound up and I don't want to end up exploding at them, I've always got on with neighbours and always said if there's a problem with my dog, pls let me know, always tell me, however I feel it's got to the point where I say something and I'm fobbed off. I know I should tell them but I'm angry, perhaps I should write them a letter. Any suggestions greatly appreciated and thank you for reading my rant. 
    • Sadly, the price we now all pay for becoming a soft apologetic society.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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