Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#1
Britain's worst double-dip recession since the 1950s has left a fifth of all workers struggling to get by on less than the living wage, a major report to be published today will reveal.
Almost five million workers are being paid less than the amount considered necessary to afford a basic standard of living - £8.30 an hour in London, and £7.30 outside the capital.
Care workers, bar staff, waiters and retail staff on low incomes have been hit hardest by the downturn, the report, commissioned by accountancy firm KPMG, found.
The research is being published ahead of Living Wage Week, which starts on November 4 and will see new rates announced for London and the rest of the country.
A number of employers have voluntarily adopted the independently calculated standards, which compare with the statutory national minimum wage of just £6.19 an hour.
But that has been dismissed as hopelessly inadequate by campaigners, who report low-paid workers across Britain are bearing the brunt of a brutal double-dip recession that has been characterised by a squeeze on incomes combined with rising taxes and high levels of inflation.
The study, carried out by Markit on behalf of accountancy giant KPMG, reported bar staff, restaurant workers, catering and retail staff had been worst affected by the downturn. Official figures showed that the UK economy roared back in the last quarter, surprising economists with growth of 1 per cent after a bleak first half of the year.
But any benefits are evading those earning low incomes in the UK, the report showed, with four in 10 low-paid workers admitting their finances are worse now than they were just a month ago. That compared with just 25 per cent of workers on incomes above the level. By proportion of the population, Northern Ireland has the highest level of people earning wages beneath the living wage level, closely followed by Wales (23 per cent). London and the North West are the highest by number with 570,000 each.
Some 38 per cent of respondents below the living wage say they have poorer cash availability now than a month ago, compared with 27 percent of those earning above, indicating that the recovery is failing to benefit those most in need.
TUC general secretary-designate Frances O'Grady called on companies to adopt the standard describing the figure of one in five workers surviving below it as "shocking".
She added: "The living wage is not a luxury, and means that low-paid workers don't have to make tough choices over whether they can afford the everyday things that most of us take for granted, such as their fuel bill or a winter coat for their children," she said. "Now more than ever is the time for employers to put an end to poverty pay."
Rhys Moore, director of the Living Wage Foundation, said: "Paying a living wage makes a huge difference to the quality of life of thousands of cleaners, caterers and security staff across the country. It is encouraging to see nearly 100 organisations now signed up and accredited. But that still leaves many more organisations that aren't."
Marianne Fallon, head of corporate affairs at KPMG, said there were sound business reasons for adopting the standard including "improved motivation and performance" together with "lower leaver and absentee rates among staff in receipt of a living wage" offsetting the extra costs of paying it.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#2
All so true.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#3
The post bears no relation to the thread title.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#4
The addition of the word 'While' at the beginning of the thread's title would fix that Peter.
I'm sure the Grocer's apostrophes are there for the fun of it.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#5
Jobs not paying enough to support the minimum needs of the workers that provide the wealth peter .
Tax payers expected to subsidise the Greed of business
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#6
How would pushing up labour costs help those on low wages when it drives an employer into bankruptcy?
Many, many business are on the edge in this recession, indeed even in the best of times many business work on tight margins and under capitalisation is a common problem. All this 'living wage' stuff is just another daft idea to drive the UK deeper into recession.
A far better way to help to the less well off is what you might describe as 'counter intuitive' it is to do away with the tax credit system and the minimum wage while having much tighter controls over immigration. Cutting other state benefits for those of working age and able to work would also help.
The low paid are best helped by market forces driving up wages not subsidy or benefits.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#7
The low paid are best helped by market forces driving up wages not subsidy or benefits.
Yes Barry a destabilized employment market lowering wages
Its spending that drives the economy, at the moment it's hedging to the bottom because the spenders have no money ,its all in the Cayman Islands
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#8
Barry, your phrase:
"it is to do away with the tax credit system and the minimum wage", makes me wonder. This way, you would put overnight a few million people on the JSA list!
At the very least a few million people in Britain would simply give up working and go straight to the Job Centre and sign on.
Most people I know are on minimum wage and quite a few get working tax credit if working, say, part-time.
This includes mothers who simply could not work full time.
Sorry, Barry, I am almost tempted to use your common phrase directed at me in almost every post of yours: "you really don't understand anything on this issue", however I won't, lest I start sounding like you!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#9
Having said that, it occurred to me that once several million more people had joined the dole queue overnight following Barry's suggested abolition of the minimum wage and the working tax credit, a few million workers would come straight over from the East of Europe to get the millions of vacant jobs.
They wouldn't pay a dime into the tax system, would get free access to every service from clinics to free school for their families, would send the cost of rent rocketing due to a sudden increase in the population of the UK by about 10 million...
Not even Chancellor Osborne would do that, and that means quite something, Barry
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#10
KeithB - No, removing the mechanisms that are currently undermining the jobs market, building in inconsistencies while creating a 'norm' that locks people into low wages and benefits.
We need to undo the damage done since 1997. Job security and better standards of living can come only from a strong, vibrant and sustainable economy. Excessive government meddling in that damages this.
Once again Alexander you are talking total tosh, based on a wild imagination bearing no relationship to what I said and that does not deserve a reply.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#11
Barry, you wrote that the State should do away with working tax credit and the minimum wage:
Because there is no law preventing an employer paying more than the minimum wage, your idea can only mean one thing, and that is allowing employers to pay people LESS than the minimum wage.
This would automatically entitle workers to working tax credit and housing and council tax benefit.
So if you did away with working tax credit too, and cut the other benefits, the only option left would be to sign on.
Fortunately, Barry, the Government will never implement your scheme, neither this nor any government, so we can all remain secure in the knowledge that millions of people will not suddenly end up on the dole overnight due to an utterly senseless and reckless idea!
You should also take into account, Barry, that many part-time workers receive both working tax credit and housing benefit, because they are on the minimum wage. This includes mothers, and people who have found themselves fortunate enough to get a part-time job rather than no job at all.
There has been an enormous increase in part time jobs lately, owing to a decrease in full-time work on offer.
You really should calculate the implications of your philosophies Barry, before sounding them off!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#12
i fully agree about tax credits and the minmum wage alex, i would add that many full time workers would not survive and pay their bllls without some help from george at number 11.
roger's brother springs to mind and i do know of others.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
#13
Who's good at maths.
Whats best?
10 men working part time, zero/partime contracts on a basic wage, who cant make ends meet.
or 5 men in fulltime employment, on a basic wage, just about making ends meet?
Another question. Who benefits from zero/partime contracts?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#14
It seems a bit odd that the minimum wage is £6.05 (?) and yet a living wage is calculated at £7.25 (outside of London). It's getting towards the idea that if wages were £10.00 per hour and the Governmernt paid the businesses the difference, instead of paying individuals any allowances. Would it cost any more ? It would certainly get more people into employment and more money in their pockets to spend.
Roger
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#15
That's where working tax credits and housing/council tax benefits come in, Gary.
When through working you can't make ends meet, be it part - or full time employment, you rely on working tax credit and housing benefit, but you do live better and in a more worthy manner than signing on.
Barry's idea of paying people less than the minimum wage and scrapping the working tax credit and cutting other benefits (housing, for example), would lead to the immediate end of the Government. There would be mass protests - albeit peaceful ones - as many millions of working people would be affected. It would mean making it impossible for them to work other than as slaves living off bread and water.
What Barry suggests did not exist in the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages, and possibly only during the Industrial Revolution, and when people were deported to the colonies, or on galleys.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#16
I agree with you, Roger, and say the same myself.
But what Barry suggests ... is the opposite!
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#17
My (younger) brother has been told that he must pay back the WTC he was awarded/given last year; it is £2,400 and they want it back. He just manages to pay his bills, but doesn't have any money left over for himself or his wife, so how can they insist that he owes that money and must pay it back ?
Roger
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#18
an unconsidering department roger,one minuite you have it then they deside your not and expect every penny back weather you can afford to or not.and its been going on for years now.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#19
Roger, I do believe that working tax credit can only be demanded back if a person's financial circumstances have changed (to the better) without them having stated it previously to the paying-authority.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#20
not nessasary alex,