Border Force staff vote for strikes now, threatening Xmas travel. It’s a perfect storm. The Tories have suppressed public sector pay since 2010, while letting rents, taxes and local taxes increase. Add galloping inflation, poor services and the energy crisis into the mix and it’s a massive crisis unfolding.
At least we're all getting closer to acknowledging that the problems probably don't all stem from immigration... There are lots of very large companies that employ loads of people and make huge profits (think supermarkets and delivery firms) that either pay wages that are too low for people to live on or fail to offer enough hours for people to make ends meet. Zoe Williams wrote a very enlightening piece about how some companies make huge profits off the back of low paid workers whose meagre salaries are topped up by the taxpayers ten years ago. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/18/pays-tesco-ceo-wages-we-do It really is worth a read. The thought of money being paid out for in-work benefits provokes less irritation or anger than the idea of people being on unemployment benefit, which really just boils the argument down to the old deserving poor versus undeserving poor. There's always plenty of money to subsidise the wages of, say, supermarket workers or delivery company workers, which ensures profits are higher. Then, if you can convince people that SME are playing the same game as, say, Amazon and Tesco and that if raising wages is bad for SME it must also be bad for Amazon, the argument is won. The question is, what is it that has incentivised Amazon, for example, to pay brilliant wages and not seek at every turn to replace its workforce with automation? Huge profits clearly haven't been enough... It's almost as if the whole system is rigged. Edit: I suppose what it boils down to is whether in a right-leaning, capitalist economy that believes rigidly in the power of market forces to sort everything out, companies that have to rely on the taxpayer to top up the wages of lowest paid in society should actually be a going concern? Of course, that's a rhetorical question but like I said, if as a society our chief fear is that British based companies that operate here and make their money selling their goods and services to us would rather shift their workforces abroad at the first hint of any suggestion they be required to pay people who live here and pay their taxes here a proper wage, perhaps we're all looking at the wrong things in the wrong way.
You're going to be absolutely livid when you find out about the number of people who are paid in-work benefits by the taxpayer! Employment and Support Allowance = 1.7m people; Universal Credit = approximately 44% of the 5.6million claimants are in work. Plus around 200,000 people still on the old Income Support scheme.
Do you not think it is an indication of the problem I am recognising? All these things you say are happening, and yet we are talking about how things need to change because employers are not being responsible. Are you suggesting that more of the same will cure the problem? Are you suggesting this as a cure the cure, whilst saying it is part of the problem? Or are you making the assumption, that because it is your preference, that it is not part of the problem. Consider the possibility here that you may be strengthening my point.
If what you want is already happening, why are you suggesting we do it again? If it is already happening, and we all agree that change is desperately needed, why do you think that more of the same is the cure? And how do you think that offering these benefits world wide, to all comers, will make things better for the UK tax payer job hunter? All you would do is create massive competition for jobs, and that would, as it always has done, will bring down working conditions and increase unemployment, even if (and I doubt it) the state could maintain the payments you suggest. And presumably you would also want the state to pay the unemployed a living wage too? In my opinion, that is not going to work, and is the belief of a fiscally uneducated fantasist. But you are welcome to your opinion, and do not have to take me serious if you don't want to.
I think you may have meant to say "simpleton's question." Figure out the meaning of 'Fundamental Human Right," then have a think about the twisted way you see reality and understand how the F you came up with the concept of a fundamental human right that is only valid if you are a human in the UK, or some other 'rich' country. A fundamental human right that is not fundamental. This is what you give me to work with. You are clearly intelligent, but your attachment to reality is non-existent. I think the list of human rights is adequate, and that a living wage is not one of them. Better people than the two of us have pondered what should be, and if they haven't decided that a living wage should be among them, I will accept that they have good reasons decide so. If you think they are wrong, take it up with them. I do feel it is a fundamental right for any human to provide work for money, or that they not be forced to work without recompense. But if you are suggesting that it would be a fundamental right for a person employed in the same job as me, but chooses to do no work, get the same living wage as me, then I say no. F it. I'll ask you a simple question. Do you think that someone who chooses not to do any work or do anything productive should, as a Fundamental Human Right, get the same living wage as someone who is productive and hard working? And how long before the hard worker decides it is not worth it? Fundamental Human Right right my eye! I've answered your question. Try answering one of mine. A fair days WORK for a fair days pay.
Is this forum going crazy? Saying a fundamental human right only exists in the richest countries of the world, is the same as saying that people living in the poorer countries are not human. It is the exact Elitist twaddle that I most despise in people’s views of the world, whether conscious or casually unconscious. I would hope that some sort of retraction or clarification will follow. Please, someone tell me that implication is not true. Yet I am the one called a clueless white supremacist bigot. I hope people can figure out, from this, why I find some of the responses, often with insults and put downs, so exasperating. I just wish a few more members on here might recognise it as well.
It should clearly be illegal for those that do the jobs that are essential to the day-to-day running of the country and the safety and wellbeing of the public to strike, but, it is equally obvious that their pay should be increased to reflect the importance of the work they do. So come on Rishi, get your chequebook out
I think it would be fair to stop certain public bodies (including transport) striking only if their pay is determined by a truly independent pay review board and their findings are binding. Unfortunately the government want to ban workers from exercising their right to strike while at the same time arbitrarily tightening the purse strings and giving meagre pay rises. That can never be fair and leaves open the real prospect of worker exploitation.
0 But most of the transport providers are private companies (the picture with TFL is complicated as it outsources a 'lot' of it bus & tram operations). Are you saying that people should lose the right to withdraw their labour from private companies?
No, I would support the nationalisation of the railways. But I agree, the current transport situation is complicated. If the government are to go down the no strike route then I could only see it being fair(ish) and workable if the dispute resolution (including pay) is completely taken out of the employer's hands (whether government or private). Obviously agreeing the arbitration body and process is key but, as long as any decision is binding on both sides, then it could work imho. Let's be honest, there are many employers that are tempted to exploit their workers and there are also some unions that have historically had militant leaders that love nothing better than industrial action. Sometimes binding arbitration would be good to prevent these excesses in every dispute! If (and I'm not saying it's necessarily needed) the government want to go down the route of banning strikes then it must not be on the basis that all the power to resolve issues are with the employer. Unfortunately, with this government, I suspect that is what they have in mind and that would be dangerous.
I sympathise with much of this, but I think every group or individual should have the right to withdraw their labour, even if it means the justification gets checked by some sort of "reasonable person" test, to prevent industrial blackmail. But I think right now that banning strikes would be counter productive, as the government may at some point find the tide of public support changing in its favour if the action starts to appear excessive, or beyond reason.
I did not expect you to change your opinion, as is your right. I was submitting an alternative view, with equal validity.
What 'benefits' am I suggesting we offer 'to all comers'? A real living wage would replace the insiduous current practice of employers paying crap wages knowing the benefit system would pick up (some of) the slack. So benefits per se would reduce in total. I notice you have moved your concern away from 'low wages' to 'unemployment' and, apparently without irony, 'bring(ing) down working conditions'....the latter is already happening as a direct consequence of Brexit and the UK government's desire to do away with all those pesky EU regulations over, you know, workers' rights & conditions. Are you now saying 'competition for jobs' is a bad thing? Employers would be able to make an informed decision on who to award a position to based on perceived ability; are you concerned that the indigenous UK population has inadequate levels of ability to obtain those jobs? Let us not forget that EU FOM legislation does not automatically grant anyone permanent right to stay in another EU country if no employment is involved and permanent access to benefits is not guaranteed for those who are long-term unemployed. I find the tone of the comment I have highlighted a little surprising coming from someone who professes to be an advocate for the unfortunate in society. I mean, no suggestion of embedded elitism there, at all. I have already said that if anyone is serious about rectifying the increasingly downward spiral we are currently witnessing, they have to accept it will take radical systemic restructuring with a total re-evaluation of how the wealth generated within the economy is used. Comments such as 'fiscal fantasy' is what I would expect from someone who is content to see the status quo remain.
This is one of the finest example of 'Hooteresque Total Twisting Someone's Words' [TM] yet seen on this forum. At which point did I say that 'fundamental human rights' could only apply to those residing in a rich country? I clearly did not, but you have completed yet another one of your quite mind-boggling leaps of interpretation whereby you conclude what you think someone meant to say and then trumpet it abroad as being what they DID say, even when they transparently did not. This is why I find your 'debating style' disingenuous and downright disreputable. It would have been advisable to omit the word 'human' from my initial post if that would have had the effect of enabling you to read what I said without this bizarre red mist descending. Maybe it would have been easier for you to understand had I phrased it: 'it is a fundamental human right to be able to live in an acceptable degree of comfort commensurate with their contribution to society.' In a rich country, such as UK, that could well be interpreted as a 'living wage'; ie, a level of residual money that allows your family to eat healthily, keep yourselves clean & dressed, stay warm and not be forced to live in unsafe and insanitary conditions. You are apparently of the opinion that 'a living wage is not....a human right'; and yet you are proud of your role as a trade union rep.... I can only assume you have posted the highlighted sections after returning from a particularly tough shift during which you became somewhat frustrated with some colleagues. Where did I ever suggest ANY of the things you have somehow (and I'm at a loss to see how) taken from my original post? I said people should be paid a real living wage for DOING a job, not for not doing it! There are such things as performance reviews etc that can be used to reward the better performers more highly whilst there are also disciplinary procedures designed to 'weed out' those who want to get paid for doing nothing, or performing at an unacceptable level. Quite how you can have drawn the inference that I believe everyone should get the same wage no matter their level of performance is extremely baffling. In that context, the question you have posed is somewhat irrelevant. And your closing line 'A fair day's WORK for a fair day's pay' is the very essence of all my comments on this issue. As I have said, truly baffling.
All you are doing is saying that we need to act, and are then making some very impractical suggestions. You are not solving anything, and are simply saying how terrible is and we have to act. The only thing you claim against me is that you accuse me of wanting the statis quo, which I have never said, so please stop lying about me. It is utter BS when you say I favour the status quo. Show me where I said that. I have told you that I don't know the answer but I feel leveraging scarcety of Labour may form part of it, which you have attacked and belittled as naive. Fair enough, but don't get upset when I criticise you. I have also said that we all agree that something has to be done. You are clearly fixating on criticism of my ideas, and not reading what I have said. It would be appreciated if you would stop making up or imagining what I am saying and read the thread. How about you answer my questions? 1. Do you think a person who refuses to work should have the Fundamental Human Right to be paid the same living wage as a person who is committed to the job they do (you haven't even defined what you mean by living wage yet, anyway)? 2. How are you going to persuade the EU to stagnate the only effective tool the Euro Zone has for mitigating the limitations of a universal currency?
Why were you asking me that question? The implication is absolutely clear. A fundamental right is a fundamental right; it cannot be described as such if it is not applicable to all humans, not just those privileged enough to live in a rich country.
A good summary of the current situation, but maybe we have reached a point where all the old truths no longer work. Without deep-rooted reform of the entire structure, the increasing polarisation we are currently witnessing will simply increase to a point where it may even become existential. Obviously, many amongst us (I would venture to suggest those who benefit the most from the current situation) would rather no such reform were considered; but then we are moving away from even the semblance of the chimera that is 'caring capitalism'.
No-one has said anything remotely close to the above; it is simply a product of the way you manage to launch off into some bizarre tangental interpretation of comments that are often the exact opposite of what you claim them to be.
Oh look. There's that question again, about fundamental human rights based on residency of the world's richest countries, from Since63. I suppose I should appologise for reminding him of the things he says.
Your last comment is a valid one; I fear it may be the underlying strategy of the government's whole response. The RMT seems to have lost some popular support after the decision to take action over Xmas period, this after pausing action for a while to consider apparently new and substantive proposals which turned out to be....almost the same as those already rejected. Every Transport Minister has stated they should have 'no role in the negotiations' but then are very happy to tell all & sundry how unreasonable the RMT is being. I do wonder how the government are going to spin just how unreasonable all those 'nasty nurses' and others in the NHS are being. They seem totally unwilling to answer the point that the reason the pay demands are at the level they are is the result of 10 years of effective salary reductions.
You are clearly being deliberately disingenuous, that is now clear. At no point in the comment you have posted do I say such rights only exist in the richest countries; you have simply reached a specific & particularly distorted conclusion from your idiosyncratic reading of it. It should be clear to anyone that I was highlighting how disgusting it is that, even in one of the richest countries in the world, people are unable to live on the wages they receive from a full-time job. And you ignore the fact I have replied to your comment on it in another post. But that's the way you like to do things.
I have already answered question 1; maybe you've not read that post yet. I'm not sure I even accept the premise upon which question 2 is based.
No. I saw your words, and they make unpleasant reading. It would be simpler if you said you miss-spoke, because that stops me in my tracks. But you have instead done what I guessed you would, and doubled down rather than agree that such an implication is unfortunately made.
That is a good enough answer for me, for question 2. If you don't get the premise, that FOM is desirable to the EU ( as they have openly stated) because it allows relocation of cheap labour to mitigate the fact that fiscal easing cannot be applied to local economics when you are part of a univeral currency. Your answer is quite sufficient to show the extent of your understanding of international economics with regard to your idea of subsidising immigrants using FOM.
Hilarious. I am unconvinced that it can be shown that FOM is 'the only effective tool the Euro Zone has for mitigating the limitations of a universal currency', but I realise you seem to think so. There was, of course, a chronological disconnect between implementation of the two. At its core, it could be said to be devised to allow people from areas of low employment to other areas of labour shortages. No real mention of it being deliberately designed to depress wages, although I will of course happily read the document you may provide as evidence. The fact that it has been used by employers 'acting far from reasonably' to achieve just that is one reason why some level of minimum wage legislation may be required. I am aware you believe that FOM represents some sort of evil anti-workers grand design of the EU; the fact that I am not convinced of that does not lead to your bizarre assumption that I have suggested 'subsidising immigrants using FOM'.
I am afraid removing human from it would only remove the most offensive part. You are still talking about a fundamental right for people privileged enough to live in richer countries, with the question explicitly removing poorer countries from the equation. To have asked if people in the UK should expect a living wage from full time work would have hit an acceptible spot. But that is a fundamentally different question to the one you asked. It is fair to speculate why you formed the question the way you did. Human or not. A living wage is not a right. It shouldn't have to be. Nor should a person be forced to work in a job they do not want to do. If a business wants to employ someone, they should pay a wage that reflects the work, and not skimp so that government has to pick it up. But as soon as a government starts subsidising them, a business will take advantage, and that is the situation we find ourselves in now. FOM, or simply borders that cannot cope with the influx, provide a supply of cheap labour that is used as much to maximise profits as it is to keep a company running. That should be simple enough to understand. But you do not have to believe me. Scarcety of Labour will force wages and conditions up, it will also drive the cost of living up, and some companies may have a hard time, but the net result, after a difficult period, will be that prices will adjust to levels reflecting the actual cost of goods and services, rather than the currently unsustainable, artificially lowered prices we have today. Capitalism, I believe, works if you keep greed out of it, through regulation (which, yes, is legislation, but it is aimed at business and not tax payers). I believe that the introduction of subsidies started us down a road that, possibly, has led us to the point where it has become unsustainable. Our taxes can no longer pay for them, and business has taken as much advantage as the people can take. Further subsidy, and an influx of Labour attracted to what sounds like the most incredibly generous, and unaffordable, benefits system anywhere ever, outside of communism, will just about kill us off. IMHO. And doing it under communism would make it no more affordable. Being generous and compassionate to all is a fantastic idea, but in the end it will draw everyone down, as it always has done. Protect the vulnerable. Reward the willing. And let those who wish to drop out, drop out completely. And a fair days work for a fair days pay may be the the essence of your summing up, but it is the antithesis of your comments. By definition, people would be getting handouts on which to live, not wages. And the tax they pay will rocket, and a living wage will get lower and lower. A living wage could be anything from £40 a week, if the government want you to eat terds. Most people do already earn a living wage, with respect to what it costs to eat and drink. You have made no attempt to even define what you mean by the phrase. Perhaps you can say what you think the value of a living wage would be. The average wage in the UK now is over £38,000. So what would you call a working wage, and what would be your justification for it? And please. If you are going to speculate about my personal life in order to make your tawdry insinuations about me, you could at least let the forum know all about you. Or shut the F up. I have a very vivid imagination and will be very happy to describe your day to everyone on here. So don't be a dik. Or at least remember that you started it.
Er. Your entire plan, that you put to me, involved the government subsidising a living wage to UK employees and reintroducing FOM. Please. At least read your own posts. I believe you have repeated that a couple of times, and it was tje crux of my response to you. So if you never said it, you may have been better off mentioning 20 posts ago. The video has been deleted now, but UK professor, who was an architect of Freedom of movement, stated it to be the primary benefit, with regard to the the Eurozone, in a lecture he was giving back around 2004. Of course, you will not find that being given as a reason now a days.
