The argument - perhaps not unreasonably was that the commission would find a limit that was of benefit to both sides and "affordable" whereas Chancellors are usually just after a vote or two. I think he has a point. About the vote catching that is. What gets my blood pressure rising is that there is an argument at all.
Minimum wage is not for the super rich. The people who are subjected to minimum wage are at the bottom of the food chain so to speak, the lowest skilled and lowest educated. It is a near pittance. I don't see the CBI getting irate about top executives pay. If a company cannot afford to pay minimum wage it must surely question whether it can afford workers at all! I know we are in a difficult time and jobs are hard to come by but just having a job does not get you out of poverty these days - I have told you all before on my blog.
I saw a web page today but cannot find it at the moment. It highlighted a street in Kensington and Chelsea in London and a selection of how it's occupants had become wealthy. One of the "named and shamed" was the CEO of Tesco. A UK Supermarket chain employing thousands of minimum wage workers. This got me thinking.
Those on minimum wage also qualify for benefits - benefits that the tax payer foots the bill for. This is because as a nation we believe everyone has the right to certain basic needs and where the individual cannot attain those needs we are prepared to pay for it.
Accepting this is the case why the hell are WE paying for this and not the employers. Surely, as a nation, we have selected a baseline we consider acceptable so therefore an employer who does not pay enough to achieve that level and gets the government to pay the rest is not paying the going rate.
Therefore the minimum wage is our tool to ensure that big business pays what it costs to live
This idea the CBI gives credence to of "affordability" does not take into account how much extra the tax payer puts in to make up the difference between minimum wage and the cost of a living wage.
I know that the argument is that this will cost jobs and employment opportunities but it is a truth that we are an expensive nation. It costs a lot to live here. However we have been leaching work to the for east for almost 50 years on this basis. So why should we make the 1.5 million recipients of minimum wage in this country pay the penalty?
The concept of loss of jobs was also used before minimum wage came into force, and yet we are all still here. This all leaves a nasty taste in the mouth, of the "haves" trying to take from the "have nots".
- What should minimum wage be?
- Who should get to determine it?
Those on minimum wage also qualify for benefits - benefits that the tax payer foots the bill for. This is because as a nation we believe everyone has the right to certain basic needs and where the individual cannot attain those needs we are prepared to pay for it.
Accepting this is the case why the hell are WE paying for this and not the employers. Surely, as a nation, we have selected a baseline we consider acceptable so therefore an employer who does not pay enough to achieve that level and gets the government to pay the rest is not paying the going rate.
Therefore the minimum wage is our tool to ensure that big business pays what it costs to live
This idea the CBI gives credence to of "affordability" does not take into account how much extra the tax payer puts in to make up the difference between minimum wage and the cost of a living wage.
I know that the argument is that this will cost jobs and employment opportunities but it is a truth that we are an expensive nation. It costs a lot to live here. However we have been leaching work to the for east for almost 50 years on this basis. So why should we make the 1.5 million recipients of minimum wage in this country pay the penalty?
The concept of loss of jobs was also used before minimum wage came into force, and yet we are all still here. This all leaves a nasty taste in the mouth, of the "haves" trying to take from the "have nots".
No comments:
Post a Comment