Can't see a thread, admittedly i'm a little surprised this hasn't been discussed...

Jezza wants everyone (young persons) to be paid at least £10 p/h irrespective of age, ability and experience. News programme went to a garage down south to discuss it with a 17 yr old apprentice, and a slightly older employee.

Outcome? The 17 year old apprentice mechanic (not apprentice brain surgeon or apprentice rocket scientist) who is still not yet old enough to vote figured out why this isn't the best idea Corbyn has ever had.

I would've thought Jezza would want people IN work, as opposed to not being able to find a job because employers can't afford wages? I'm all for people being paid properly, but there HAS to be structure.

Confused... You'd think what with the tories making such a pigs ear of everything, the opposition would be doing everything they can to take advantage....

What if taxes were lowered slightly for Small/Medium businesses allowing them to pay more ..... and in turn the amount spent by people would increase and go back into the economy to cover the loss from taxes?

He is a buffoon, the latest in tricks to get votes. What will be next, extra bank holidays, free beer?

And people still wonder why the conservatives had to implement cost savings...

There's no reason for unskilled jobs that require no experience to discriminate against age when it comes to minimum wages.

As for your example, if you're a fast food chain with a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, not customers or employees, who are you going to hire for your workforce? A kids just out of school, living with parents and has no understanding of the value of money, who you can pay less, or the 45 year old on Universal Credit who will cost you about £80 a week more?

You seem to think that young people being paid less only benefits young people, but apparently it hasn't occurred to you that the 45 year old on benefits can't get a job because employers can pay kids less and so hire them instead.

Young people wouldn’t get a sniff of the job.

You can hire a 17yr old with no idea how to do the job for the same money as someone with 10yrs experience

Who are you going to hire?

Burnleyareback2 wrote:He is a buffoon, the latest in tricks to get votes. What will be next, extra bank holidays, free beer?

Woo hoo!!!!!!!!

Real risk it could increase youth unemployment or push people out of education.

Bfccrazy, If that was feasible, then the massive `think tank` that is parliament would've made sure it'd be happening now surely? Did he mention that's how it would be funded? Apologies if he did, I missed it. If he did say that, he's lying - you know that, right?

How do we go about motivating the 2nd/3rd/4th year apprentices on the same money as the first years? It's not low wages for the young that is a problem. £320 p/w for a 17 year old who then gives his Mam £40 p/w keep money ISN'T a young person in poverty.

taio wrote:Real risk it could increase youth unemployment or push people out of education.

If it would do so much damage to youth employment then it can become a part of a tax break. Assuming they pay their taxes there's no reason why the public can't directly subsidise the employment of younger workers via a tax subsidy. We do it already by having to pay their employees benefits to survive on low wages because landlords, supermarkets, fuel companies, etc don't charge you less depending on what part of the minimum wage structure you're on.

Test User wrote:If it would do so much damage to youth employment then it can become a part of a tax break. Assuming they pay their taxes there's no reason why the public can't directly subsidise the employment of younger workers via a tax subsidy. We do it already by having to pay their employees benefits to survive on low wages because landlords, supermarkets, fuel companies, etc don't charge you less depending on what part of the minimum wage structure you're on.

That's not what Corbyn has proposed. And in any case I suspect it's a wild exaggeration to suggest there is already money in the system to fund such a subsidy.

taio wrote:That's not what Corbyn has proposed. And in any case I suspect it's a wild exaggeration to suggest there is already money in the system to fund such a subsidy.

I wasn't saying he was, or that there is.

Anyone seen Imposing Tortoise lately
He seems to have sloped off the face of the forum (albeit slowly as he is a lumbering reptile afterall)

Burnleyareback2 wrote:He is a buffoon, the latest in tricks to get votes. What will be next, extra bank holidays, free beer?

And people still wonder why the conservatives had to implement cost savings...

The Conservatives had to implement cost savings..........because they'd given all their rich friends Tax breaks.
Oh and bailed out all their Banker and Stockbroker friends...... and on and on and on!.... FCUK Conservatives!

usdaw union time for better pay campaign has highlighted the issues out there.

[quote="Taffy on the wing"]The Conservatives had to implement cost savings..........because they'd given all their rich friends Tax breaks.
Oh and bailed out all their Banker and Stockbroker friends...... and on and on and on!.... FCUK Conservatives

Really?? Absolute nonsense. Labour spunked away so much money there was no option when Conservatives took power. (Again)

But you believe what you want to.

Taffy on the wing wrote:The Conservatives had to implement cost savings..........because they'd given all their rich friends Tax breaks.
Oh and bailed out all their Banker and Stockbroker friends...... and on and on and on!.... FCUK Conservatives!

Austerity is ALWAYS needed after a labour government has been turfed out. And after 13 years of Labour last time, there was no money left due to it all being spunked away on a war that we were lied to by a Labour PM, to get us there, benefits for the un-sick, the un-lame and the bone idle lazy, a stupidly irresponsible foreign aid policy which see's us hand money over to countries with a space program, ridiculous compensation payouts (cos everyone deserves free money, right?) and God knows whatever else was a very deserving cause.

Oh, sorry. It was the global financial crisis/collapse that caused us to be skint wasn't it...the crisis that they saw coming.

This **** goes round in cycles. Labour get in, give money away like it's gonna explode in their hand, country ends up skint, tories get in and have to try to get things back on track by making massive cuts. People get fed up of cuts, vote labour back in. Ad infinitum,

Test User wrote:If it would do so much damage to youth employment then it can become a part of a tax break. Assuming they pay their taxes there's no reason why the public can't directly subsidise the employment of younger workers via a tax subsidy. We do it already by having to pay their employees benefits to survive on low wages because landlords, supermarkets, fuel companies, etc don't charge you less depending on what part of the minimum wage structure you're on.

Hi TU, Margaret Thatcher looked at things that way when she scrapped "local council rates" (or whatever it was called back then) and introduced the community charge - every household paid the same, because they all got the same services. I seem to remember that the argument about the price of a pint didn't vary depending on the value of your house - though, maybe my memory is a little vague on that one, it's over 30 years ago, now.

Btw, who are you proposing would get the tax break? the younger worker? or the employer of the younger worker? We (the country) already does the first with tax credits, which I believe are based on assessment of need. "Tax subsidies" for business only work if the business is making a profit and has tax to pay. How would the business receive the tax subsidy of they are a new start-up, which isn't making profit? Of, for that matter, any business that isn't making a profit?

I can't live on £10 an hour over here in Spain! Doesn't Corbyn know how much poached turbot accompanied by a bottle of Bobadillo extra dry white costs?!!

Vino blanco wrote:I can't live on £10 an hour over here in Spain! Doesn't Corbyn know how much poached turbot accompanied by a bottle of Bobadillo extra dry white costs?!!

Come back home then....

Doubling wages will reduce the jobs 50% virtue signalling policy ..

Only on here could people moan about someone wanting to do something about the misery of low pay

fidelcastro wrote:Only on here could people moan about someone wanting to do something about the misery of low pay

It's not as simple as that unfortunately.

taio wrote:It's not as simple as that unfortunately.

Really?

I remember the Tories opposing the minimum wage in the first place, back in 1997, "businesses would go to the wall" they said!

As a result, unemployment actually fell.

fidelcastro wrote:Really?

I remember the Tories opposing the minimum wage in the first place, back in 1997, "businesses would go to the wall" they said!

As a result, unemployment actually fell.

Yes really. The risks are blatantly obvious.

taio wrote:Yes really. The risks are blatantly obvious.

Only if you oppose it in the first place.

fidelcastro wrote:Only if you oppose it in the first place.

No, it's about being able to look at the bigger picture and potential consequences, rather than just thinking it's a simple solution with no possible downside.

taio wrote:No, it's about being able to look at the bigger picture and potential consequences, rather than just thinking it's a simple solution with no possible downside.

I wonder if you're an employer who hates it, whenever the minimum wage increases, just so your employees can put food on the table a bit more easily?

I look forward to the day, when greedy employers have to pay their staff what they're worth!

fidelcastro wrote:I wonder if you're an employer who hates it, whenever the minimum wage increases, just so your employees can put food on the table a bit more easily?

I look forward to the day, when greedy employers have to pay their staff what they're worth!

I support the minimum wage wholeheartedly. I support increases in the minimum wage too. I'm not at all convinced it would be a good thing to pay a 17 year old the same as a say 40 year old. I believe there would be significant risks to youth employment and further education. What makes you think I don't support the minimum wage and increases to it?

You think I'm against paying the majority of employees on the minimum wage £10 per hour, don't you? I'm not.

taio wrote:I support the minimum wage wholeheartedly. I support increases in the minimum wage too. I'm not at all convinced it would be a good thing to pay a 17 year old the same as a say 40 year old. I believe there would be significant risks to youth employment and further education. What makes you think I don't support the minimum wage and increases to it?

Studies in other countries have shown that productivity increases when the minimum wage is more like a "living wage". The current rate is not.

Why would it be so bad to have more people working and paying taxes etc? Education is fine, of course, but many students find themselves in debt afterwards, and others with a degree or higher, that they can't then find work with, due to being over qualified, or in some instances, no job being available.

sorry if I misunderstood you. I'm glad you, at least, support a minimum wage, but as I say, it is not really a living wage!

fidelcastro wrote:Studies in other countries have shown that productivity increases when the minimum wage is more like a "living wage". The current rate is not.

Why would it be so bad to have more people working and paying taxes etc? Education is fine, of course, but many students find themselves in debt afterwards, and others with a degree or higher, that they can't then find work with, due to being over qualified, or in some instances, no job being available.

sorry if I misunderstood you. I'm glad you, at least, support a minimum wage, but as I say, it is not really a living wage!

All my posts have been about the prospect of people under the age of 18 being paid the same minimum wage rate as adults. I would have no issues with the minimum wage being £10 per hour for the majority to whom it applies.

Edit: just found this article which sums up the points I've been making: https://www.itv.com/news/2019-05-11/lab ... -football/.

At no point have I said the minimum wage should not be higher. You completely missed those points and assumed I was saying the minimum wage shouldn't be £10 ph for the majority.

taio wrote:All my posts have been about the prospect of people under the age of 18 being paid the same minimum wage rate as adults. I would have no issues with the minimum wage being £10 per hour for the majority to whom it applies.

We're not as far away from agreeing as I first thought, Taio, but, as I'm sure you're aware, the current minimum wage for under 21s is frankly insulting.

if, in the unlikely event, you're not aware, then I advise you to look it up.

fidelcastro wrote:We're not as far away from agreeing as I first thought, Taio, but, as I'm sure you're aware, the current minimum wage for under 21s is frankly insulting.

if, in the unlikely event, you're not aware, then I advise you to look it up.

I'm well aware. How many times do I have to say I was referring to under 18s and the need for differentiation with older age groups.

Are you the one reopening Queen Street Mill taio ?

Garnerssoap wrote:Are you the one reopening Queen Street Mill taio ?

You'd have to explain that to me because I've no idea what you're referring to.

fidelcastro wrote:I wonder if you're an employer who hates it, whenever the minimum wage increases, just so your employees can put food on the table a bit more easily?

I look forward to the day, when greedy employers have to pay their staff what they're worth!

We should just do away with employers.
That will teach them

Damo wrote:We should just do away with employers.
That will teach them

No. Just getting them to pay fairly is all I'm asking.

Usual uproar about paying kids a decent wage, but it’s fine having big bosses raking in millions. That’s not damaging at all, those guys have earned it, right?

Corbyn’s a useless p***k, but this is a good idea.

NottsClaret wrote:Usual uproar about paying kids a decent wage, but it’s fine having big bosses raking in millions. That’s not damaging at all, those guys have earned it, right?

Corbyn’s a useless p***k, but this is a good idea.

so, employer has a choice between a 17 year old with 0 experience, and a 35 year old with 15 years experience, go figure.

NottsClaret wrote:Usual uproar about paying kids a decent wage, but it’s fine having big bosses raking in millions. That’s not damaging at all, those guys have earned it, right?

Corbyn’s a useless p***k, but this is a good idea.

What about the not so big bosses? The ones who aren’t raking in millions? The ones the are running local businesses who simply cannot afford any more extra costs?

Just liked he promised free Uni fees before the last election and afterwards admitted they couldn't have afforded it?

Labour are a disgrace offering kids £10.00 p/hr to win their votes and taking businesses down in the process.

As a small business owner I have 3 apprentices at different ages. I spend a lot of time training them, pay their college fees, pay them for their day off etc.
If I had to pay 10 quid per hour I wouldn't be able to train apprentices any more.
Anyone voting for this clown needs to have a good look at themselves. The guy is an insult to humanity.

I'm having issues with semi skilled staff being on the same money as unskilled staff why train ? Also prices have to go up to pay for the rise the government doesn't chip in. Prices rise so people on minimum wage have less purchasing power, he cannot understand the basics that wage rises have to be linked to upskilling but more importantly increases productivity and efficiency.

claretnproud wrote:As a small business owner I have 3 apprentices at different ages. I spend a lot of time training them, pay their college fees, pay them for their day off etc.
If I had to pay 10 quid per hour I wouldn't be able to train apprentices any more.
Anyone voting for this clown needs to have a good look at themselves. The guy is an insult to humanity.

I'm yet to be convinced by this proposal, but people need to see the detail, (if there is any) before rushing to conclusions. It is very unclear whether this £10 minimum would apply to apprentices, but it's hard to conclude that it would, based on what I've read.
Two people doing exactly the same job theoretically have the right to the same wage irrespective of age, but an apprentice would be an entirely different case, as would some other categories, (presumably).

nil_desperandum wrote:I'm yet to be convinced by this proposal, but people need to see the detail, (if there is any) before rushing to conclusions. It is very unclear whether this £10 minimum would apply to apprentices, but it's hard to conclude that it would, based on what I've read.
Two people doing exactly the same job theoretically have the right to the same wage irrespective of age, but an apprentice would be an entirely different case, as would some other categories, (presumably).

Hi nil_d, isn't it better that all youngsters are in either apprenticships of education? If that is the case, why would JC want to distinguish between youngsters who aren't learning on the job v those that are?

And, imagine all the uni bars, if all the bar staff were paid £10/hour - i.e. the students doing a few hours on the side to supplement their loan/grant.

my skilled workers are on 15 quid an hour so to pay apprentices or cleaners etc 10 quid an hour I would have to raise my lads money to 18-20 quid an hour. In turn this increase is passed on to my customer.This customer has an option to buy many products from overseas. This madness would cause mass unemployment. The guy is an attention seeker who will say anything to get in power. I laughed when trump got in power. I would cry if Corbyn does.

Taffy on the wing wrote:The Conservatives had to implement cost savings..........because they'd given all their rich friends Tax breaks.
Oh and bailed out all their Banker and Stockbroker friends...... and on and on and on!.... FCUK Conservatives!

You really should do a bit of research before posting such nonsense, it avoids you looking a fool!

NottsClaret wrote:Usual uproar about paying kids a decent wage, but it’s fine having big bosses raking in millions. That’s not damaging at all, those guys have earned it, right?

Corbyn’s a useless p***k, but this is a good idea.

With one obvious drawback. Just like giving the students free cash and reimbursing all that came before that had to pay.......it`s not going to happen!
He`s even promised to give us extra bank holidays for all the Saint days. That`s the problem with Labour, All they`re interested in is "Getting rid of the Tories" by promising anything and everything instead of coming across as a party who may do a decent job in government.

Paul Waine wrote:Hi nil_d, isn't it better that all youngsters are in either apprenticships of education? If that is the case, why would JC want to distinguish between youngsters who aren't learning on the job v those that are?

And, imagine all the uni bars, if all the bar staff were paid £10/hour - i.e. the students doing a few hours on the side to supplement their loan/grant.

There's a difference, surely, between apprenticeships, (basically training), and someone aged 17 working on the till at (e.g.) Asda alongside someone who's 45. Why shouldn't both till workers be paid the same, otherwise it discriminates against the 45 year old, since it would cost more to employ them, and it also discriminates against the young worker who is doing the same job for less pay. As I said, I'm undecided about whether this is the correct way to go, and we all need to see the detail. It's an idea worth exploring IMO.

claretnproud wrote:my skilled workers are on 15 quid an hour so to pay apprentices or cleaners etc 10 quid an hour I would have to raise my lads money to 18-20 quid an hour. In turn this increase is passed on to my customer.This customer has an option to buy many products from overseas. This madness would cause mass unemployment. The guy is an attention seeker who will say anything to get in power. I laughed when trump got in power. I would cry if Corbyn does.

Maybe this guy is an attention seeker also? But the difference is that he just happens to be the chancellor of the exchequer https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ge-low-pay" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;