[Closed] Taxpayers pick up £68m bill for thousands of union reps

How much was that Vodafone tax bill again?

6 billion pounds?

By my calculations, the bill for union activities is 1.13% of the tax that we let Vodafone off paying.

\You know what - recognised unions and available union reps ad to the smooth running of organisations

some nice poo-slinging going on in the Telegraph comments page.Not sure what the point of the 'public services' bit is though. Do large private companies not have to fund union activities and full time reps too? (I honestly don't know, since being pooped out the back of the NHS into a Community Interest Company eight days ago I haven't worked outside public service for 13 years).

I was interested to see that the MOD has union officials in it, for some reason I always thought you weren't allowed to be in one if you were in the MOD. Is it jst for civilian empolyees?

Does it make any difference whether they see a funded union rep or they deal direct with HR ? Either way the company will pick up the tab and i suspect the later leads to more discord hence why they fund it.
As a union rep [unpaid but I can get time off to deal with grievances and meetings by arrangement] I have lost count of the number of times I have told people not to be idiots and that they dont have a leg to stand on [ politely of course] or that the offer from managemnt is fair and reasonable and they should accept it. That news is probably taken better by an employee when someone on their side says it than when management say this to them.

Don't worry there'll be no one will pay as we'll be skint after spending over £170bn to rescue the Euro.

Bit of creative job creation there, shouldnt the unions be paying their own staff, and what do they all do.

Unions should pay for their own reps in full since they only represent their members and not all within a company.

Julianwilson, MOD civilians can have a unions but service people can't.

As usual the MSM are way behind the curve on this. Good to see that the government have now caught up too and we may get some action. Read Guido's blog for where the exposure of the "Pilgrims" started.

ime union reps take on the cases of union members but also benefit non union members by forcing employers to be generally fairer

i dont realy have a problem with them being taxpayer funded

non unioned people tend to look with envy at things like the nhs pensions etc, yet dont support/join the unions that could improve their own lot

Yes private companies have unions, normally affiliated to large National ines. The companies foot the bill for the time reps spend training, operating etc, but not for the actual training (if you get my drift).
TJ, yes they should, however a lot of my experience if unions has been as a 'in telling my dad' type way or a collective no to any productivity or flexibility requirements. I guess you could call me anti union, and I can't wait for the meeting tomorrow with unites area rep. 🙄

Interesting. The department I work for would have been included in the MoJ figures in that report. We obviously have union reps but as a self funding agency we draw nothing from the taxpayer, even with the recent problems we've drawn on reserves from our own trading fund. Prior to the last two years the revenue generated has gone straight to the treasury. Those reps, like it or not are funded by the income the agency generates but I do not know any that work full time on union duties, most perform their union duties in the office in their own time.

Nice little footnote to the article " some departments include agencies" or in other words "we couldn't be bothered reporting this properly as that made the headline / soundbite less dramatic".

And I'd agree with comments above, I pay the union every month and would prefer to fund union reps, then they could do their job properly rather than have to work under some fairly strict conditions. And from my experience the union rep is generally not a person who winds 'management' up although there are exceptions. Mostly they tend to ease things along looking for common ground where there are disputes, generally where HR (outsourced, expensive, useless) hasn't a clue. Now I've typed that HR seems to cause most of the problems that union reps seem to sort out.

Ah, just seen kimbers post. Lots of companies have unions, the same ones as work for the nhs etc. However, the companies simply could not afford the type of pensions, suck cover maternity etc that the public sector could. Sure, union members could strike to get the deals they want, however the deal is if no use to a member if the company closes due to the costs.
Right, I'm out as I'll be getting all angry at the internet soon!

Sure, union members could strike to get the deals they want, however the deal is if no use to a member if the company closes due to the costs.

Yeah Tesco's would be destroyed by strong unions.

Unions should pay for their own reps in full since they only represent their members and not all within a company.

union members could strike to get the deals they want, however the deal is if no use to a member if the company closes due to the costs.

If Tescos had a stronger union, would you pay the higher prices for your food that'd result?

Also, it's not just massive companies that have unions.

Junkyard, the comment was made in response to the earlier one about nhs deals and getting the same. No, I would not make a deal that was unable to be supported by the company.

Perhaps they could take a fairly small hit on their £ billion pound profit ? They increase costs because they are avaricious not because they have to to survive or still make a profit.
Tesco are a bad example here - even though i hate them - they recognise a union and encourage membership, pay above the national average for their industry and contribute [6% iirc}to the employees pensions.
They may actually be a good example of the german model of management /union cooperation in the uk - it has certainly not harmed them despite those who suggest unions cripple industry

Unions are brilliant when they stand up for individual employees, highlight H & S issues, difuse situations brought about by ignorance etc. Last time I worked in a unionised environment the old time union rep had an attitude similar to Junkyard's, he was an excellent guy to deal with, kept evryobody on there best behaviour and generally conbtributed to the smooth running of the factory. I'm about to go back into a unionised environment after 9 years, what I've been told so far isn't inspiring so I'll go in with an open mind.....

As to whether union reps should be funded by the tax payer, no they shouldn't, that's what union dues are for. As for the private sector, it's up to the employer, if they think it's advantageous to pay the reps then that's their call.

What you are failing to understand here is the employer has to release the union rep from their normal duties for union work - in big concerns it is easier and cheaper for the employer to have a full time rep rather than releasing reps from the shop floor all the time with the disruption that causes

TJ - yep, thats right. But in a place with a moderate turnover (say upto £20m), the majority of companies couldn't afford a full time person on union duties, therefor they'll put up with the disruption.

Indeed its the employers choice to have full time reps.

I'd like to know their methodology, not least because they are combining three different sources of information and this is journalists doing the maths.

I'd also like to see a ratio for staff to reps, the total payroll figures for those departments (wages paid to NHS staff alone would dwarf £68m), and a comparison of man hours on union activity vs all hours worked.

Then the public can form and informed opinion. As it stands, that article is irresponsible journalism.

Expect a lot more articles like this in the future by the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, and the Taxpayers Alliance.

As the crises in the British economy, which was of course started by the bankers, and immeasurably aggravated by this government, deepens, causing rising unemployment and falling living standards, they will need to distract people from the real causes.

Offering the trade unions as aunt sallies, despite the fact that they have absolutely nothing to do with the mess we are in, is a natural tactic for right-wingers.

And it will undoubtedly work - there are enough dopey, docile, and hopelessly gullible, individuals, who will obediently accept whatever they are dished up, to make the whole exercise worthwhile.

The "Have we done this yet?" comment proves the point imo.

[i]but as a self funding agency we draw nothing from the taxpayer[/i]

So where do you get your income from Bagpuss, monopoly set prices?

According to a Policy Exchange* report they estimate there were 7 million workers in the public sector... And the Telegraphy reckons they re represented by 1785 FTE union reps. That's 0.026% of the workforce.

*the figure are, therefore, likely to be bull.

From my experiance as a non paid union rep (release time and travelling allowance only) is that the majority of full time reps (Area) should not be paid by Royal Mail fully but contributions from union coffers should be amalgamated.
Our area rep is paid night allowance/shift allowance delivery supplements and only works a 5 day Mon to Friday 7am till 3pm week whilst his brothers are out there getting shafted working longs and shorts including saturdays.Our Union crapped themselves on the last dispute when Royal Mail said they were going to stop all paid release and all union meetings to take place outside of the compounds.They quickly tried to sell the deal of the century to its members leaving us in the mess we are now in.The union is far to cosy in Royal Mails pocket for my liking 😐

craigxxl - Member

Unions should pay for their own reps in full since they only represent their members and not all within a company.

Funny, the miserable freeloading scabs who accept the benefits negotiated by a Union but refuse to contribute probably think the same as you.

You know the type: Never buy a round, first out of the taxi, last into the bar, never bring any drink or food to parties or bbq's but are prepared to help themselves to the benefits of everyone else's contributions.

The union is far to cosy in Royal Mails pocket for my liking

Which is why employers are often more than happy to cover the wages of union reps.

When I was a UCATT LA convenor shop steward I was lucky if I got an hour a day to carry out my union responsibilities. In contrast to that the GMB convenor who was totally in the pocket of management, and had less members, was given an office far away from the depot and never ever worked on the tools. Needless to say his members never saw him and he was more than happy to sell them down the swanny if requested to do so by management.

transapp

If Tescos had a stronger union, would you pay the higher prices for your food that'd result?

Can you quantify that for me?

Then I can make a informed decision.

OTOH I prefer to shop at Waitrose anyway, and that's an employee-owned partnership (which is probably even worse than a supermarket with strong union representation, right?)

Except when I'm shopping at the co-op of course.

Unions - a great idea stuck firmly in the last century. I have yet to have any dealings with a rep under 50 or who hasn't got a mighty chip on his shoulder and teh ability to quote meaningless references from memory. I'd have had 400 more lockers for cyclists by now if it wasn't for one of our union reps 🙄

you dont get out much then do you if you have never met one under 50 I have barely met any over 50 tbh.
As for stuck in the past century this would be true if some sort of benign capitalism had evolved. Given you get better working conditions in heavily unionised industries [ if you did not management would not be complaining now would they] than those that are not I would ask you what evidence you have [ apart form dislike] for reaching this conclusion.
Chip on shoulder no idea how you can represent people if you are like that. unions, like management or any organisation, have good one bad ones, young ones and old ones etc

Except when I'm shopping at the co-op of course.

Unions - a great idea stuck firmly in the last century. I have yet to have any dealings with a rep under 50 or who hasn't got a mighty chip on his shoulder and teh ability to quote meaningless references from memory. I'd have had 400 more lockers for cyclists by now if it wasn't for one of our union reps

This thread isn't about whether trade unions are a good idea or not.

Although I fully accept that the whole purpose of the Telegraph's article was simply to whip up anti-trade union feelings - at a time when the government finds itself in a right mess caused by greedy and incompetent bankers.

So well done for your cheap shot. Specially as you managed to combine it with a reference to cycling on a cycling forum.

Although it will need a bit more for me re-evaluate the need for trade unions than comments such as, "I'd have had 400 more lockers for cyclists by now if it wasn't for one of our union reps". It's obviously completely meaningless coming from someone who has an axe to grind and with an agenda against trade unions.

crikey - Member
How much was that Vodafone tax bill again?

6 billion pounds?

By my calculations, the bill for union activities is 1.13% of the tax that we let Vodafone off paying.

obviously Union leaders wouldn't change their pay package to ensure it's the most tax efficient
http://order-order.com/2011/08/10/dave-prentis-is-a-tax-hypocrite/

just like union leaders earning >£100K p.a. wouldn't live in social housing and thus preventing those on low income from accessing it
http://www.****/news/article-1372872/Rail-union-boss-Bob-Crow-lives-home-low-income-families--despite-SIX-FIGURE-salary-package.html

The head of Risk Capital (IIRC) challenged the CEO of Google about their 2% tax contribution when his companies pay 20-25% on a BEEB2 programme, Evan Harris obviously mindful of the power of the internet successfully mounted a rearguard action to help the Google CEO

Google must obviously be a "producer" not a "predator" not like those nasty manufcturing companies.... 😉

TIP: Every time you see the word "TAXPAYERS" in a news story, ignore it, its daily mail style nonsense.

Ah, how surprising, big and daft doesn't want to address the content of the OP's story, preferring instead to engage in general trade union bashing. And using the Daily Mail to do so !

Wise move big and daft - the Telegraph story appears to be complete bollox.

Ernie, just providing a counterpoint to your views

ernie_lynch - Member
Expect a lot more articles like this in the future by the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, and the Taxpayers Alliance.

As the crises in the British economy, which was of course started by the bankers, and immeasurably aggravated by this government, deepens, causing rising unemployment and falling living standards, they will need to distract people from the real causes.

Offering the trade unions as aunt sallies, despite the fact that they have absolutely nothing to do with the mess we are in, is a natural tactic for right-wingers.

And it will undoubtedly work - there are enough dopey, docile, and hopelessly gullible, individuals, who will obediently accept whatever they are dished up, to make the whole exercise worthwhile.

The "Have we done this yet?" comment proves the point imo

at least you haven't managed to dispute my points yet 😉

I actually belong to a Union, the same one that gave away my pension rights. The same one that expects me to march to defend public sector pensions rights and protect for them what they (the Union) gave away for me.

As for the story it's probably in part true in part overegged as all these things are

transapp

If Tescos had a stronger union, would you pay the higher prices for your food that'd result?

Can you quantify that for me?

No, not at all. I have no idea if this would be the reality or if Tesco would request increased productivity from its staff to offset the additional cost of improved pensions, sick, hourly rates, maternety, paternety, holiday etc or simply keep the 8% (total guess) markup on its produce and passs it on at the tills. Its more a comment that the money for everything has to come from somewhere. Additionally, don't get hung up on Tesco's, as Junkyard pointed out, not a great example, but a representaion of a private business.

Not quite b r, as an agency we charge for providing a service. If you don't use that service it costs you nothing. Quite simple really and as a result we get exactly £0 nothing from the taxpayer, all our costs are met with revenue generated by the agency.

No, not at all. I have no idea if this would be the reality or if Tesco would request increased productivity from its staff to offset the additional cost of improved pensions, sick, hourly rates, maternety, paternety, holiday etc or simply keep the 8% (total guess) markup on its produce and passs it on at the tills.

But this thread isn't about the terms and conditions of workers, it's about organisations ond businesses directly funding union activity by giving working union reps paid time off to do their union duties.

Do you think that Tesco (not getting hung up, choose whatever FTSE 100 company you like) doesn't have reasonable terms and conditions for it's workers?

And I think you will also find that plenty of Tesco workers ARE union members.

If Tescos had a stronger union, would you pay the higher prices for your food that'd result?

This is an entire thread in itself, and if people are concerned about Tescos shafting people, the suppliers have a bigger gripe than most of the staff, who are paid reasonably for the level of skill, training and qualifications required for the job.

Sure, they'd love a better wage etc. They have an option - get a better job...

Sure, they'd love a better wage etc. They have an option - get a better job...

In case you hadn't noticed there are far more unemployed than their are employment opportunities, moving up the career ladder isn't as easy as you seam to believe for many people.

In case you hadn't noticed there are far more unemployed than their are employment opportunities, moving up the career ladder isn't as easy as you seam to believe for many people.

So just what pay above a minimum living wage should someone receive when their sole responsibility in work is to ensure that baked beans are on the shelves? (And yes, I did this part time for three years)...

The fact is that conditions in Tesco are a lot better both directly and indirectly because of union actions internally, and from legislation (such as the NMW) that comes from union pressure elsewhere.

I don't doubt that everyone at Tesco wants to be paid more, have longer holidays etc. But, in a job requiring you to turn up on time and stack selves, I'm not sure what level of pay is commensurate with that responsibility above the NMW, and when I worked at ASDA, my wage as a shelf stacker was 50% higher than the NMW.

My employer was proposing to make 25% of the staff in a department redundant. Our shop steward used his paid facility time to negotiate a reduction in hours for all staff, so that no-one lost their job. This saved the employer a fortune in redundancy payouts.

Oddly, benefits to the employer such as this example don't figure in the Torygraph's calculations. Now why would that be?

So just what pay above a minimum living wage should someone receive when their sole responsibility in work is to ensure that baked beans are on the shelves?

There in lies the problem, competition has been so heralded in the employment market that its become not about fulfilling personal potential, but just beating someone to look down on. Everyone loses but most are just gullible enough to fall for it because someone else is doing worse.

MSP, even as a bleeding heart liberal I have to side with zokes on this one. It is one thing to rail against the totally unjustified riches paid to some of our captains of industry (and bankers) - which I do - but quite another to berate the likes of Tesco over the pay and conditions they offer. Tesco isn't a sweat shop, it's an employer that offers a load of low skilled and/or part time workers a REASONABLE job. And like zokes said, for the ambitious (even slightly ambitious) or talented, a job at Tesco is not a bad place to start looking for a better job from.

So just what pay above a minimum living wage should someone receive when their sole responsibility in work is to ensure that baked beans are on the shelves? (And yes, I did this part time for three years)...

Whilst I understand the economic argument of supply and demand I have never really understood morally why if I work 40 hours and you do that I should get £240 per week and you £1000. IME MW jobs have tended to be harder work and mor eboring than professional jobs - i would wanrt more for doing that tbh - how many on here skiving work whilst the checkout operator works much harder?.
The other side of this coin is if that if you are paid the minimum wage , even as a single adult never mind if you have kids, taxpayers money is used to top up the wages to a living wage. I am not comfortable subsidising multinationals, [ Mc Donalds for example] who pay non living wages, with tax payers subsidies. This just helps them keep wages low and ensure they keep their multi billion pound profits.

Loads of union bashing going on here as if they are the cause of the current malaise
Right wing agenda setting 3BS

MSP - it's not about looking down on people, it's about realising how the society in which we live in works. If I could get as much pay as I do now for a job that only takes 8 hours of my day, requires little responsibility whilst I'm there and zero when I'm not; and didn't require the best part of 10 years at uni as a prerequisite, I'd probably wonder why I bothered with all those qualifications and long hours. That's not to say I'd prefer to still be a bean stacker over my current career, but as I spend on average 12 hours a day at work, and another 2-3 dealing with emails at home, I do tend to wonder sometimes...

Ultimately, my point was that workers at Tesco/ASDA/whereever actually have decent conditions. If Tesco et al should be doing anything philanthropic, it should be towards their producers. If everyone worked 30 hour weeks on 40K a year, I think just about everything would be unaffordable.

The reason they have those decent conditions? Well, that would be the unions...

EDIT: @JY

Whilst I understand the economic argument of supply and demand I have never really understood morally why if I work 40 hours and you do that I should get £240 per week and you £1000.

This is a trouble. However, let me turn it on its head. Why should I work almost double the number of hours, deal with much more responsibility, and have attended full-time education for nearly 10 years longer than someone earning the same as me who has to turn up, stack shelves, and go home. Sure, those 8 hours may not be great fun, but that leaves you the other 16 to do as you like...

As for government top-ups. This too is an issue, but unless you have a bright idea, I can't see a logical answer that would actually work. As has been pointed out - increases in wages = increases in prices. I'm not sure what legal right any government would have to dictate that the profit margins should take a cut, regardless of the moral imperative.

but as I spend on average 12 hours a day at work, and another 2-3 dealing with emails at home, I do tend to wonder sometimes...

That just proves my point, your getting crapped on, but instead of standing up for decent working conditions, you want to see others crapped on with low wages instead.

As has been pointed out - increases in wages = increases in prices. I'm not sure what legal right any government would have to dictate that the profit margins should take a cut, regardless of the moral imperative.

These arguments were advanced by opponents of the minimum wage. Guess what? It didn't happen. A moderate increase in wages has chuff all effect on prices or profitability.

That just proves my point, your getting crapped on, but instead of standing up for decent working conditions, you want to see others crapped on with low wages instead.

Not in the slightest, in actual fact, where I work does seem to frown on it slightly. However, as a mad scientist / academic, I have to compete internationally, especially at a relatively early stage in my career.

Secondly I'm not getting crapped on because I made a choice that I wanted to go to 6th form, uni and do a PhD in the hope that I would get greater flexibility and pay. I'm on a very good salary, and if I want friday off, I can take it without any questions asked. So whilst it's hard work, it's rewarding both financially and intellectually, and about as flexible as a job could be short of being self-employed.

Ironically, we actually had quite a protracted dispute over pay and conditions not long ago here, which I was fully involved in....

These arguments were advanced by opponents of the minimum wage. Guess what? It didn't happen. A moderate increase in wages has chuff all effect on prices or profitability.

Go on then, I'll bite. What do you suggest is a fair per-hour wage for someone who has no qualifications, pretty much zero work related responsibilities, and reasonable hours?

Secondly I'm not getting crapped on because I made a choice that I wanted to go to 6th form, uni and do a PhD in the hope that I would get greater flexibility and pay. I'm on a very good salary, and if I want friday off, I can take it without any questions asked. So whilst it's hard work, it's rewarding both financially and intellectually, and about as flexible as a job could be short of being self-employed.

I will bite too, time too make your mind up, do you have good rewarding flexible conditions, or work so hard that you don't have time for life? You have now given the impression that both apply.

do you have good rewarding flexible conditions, or work so hard that you don't have time for life?

That depends upon whether I've had a good day or a bad day at the office 😉

It is, however, a job that can never be 9-5 - I can't think of a remotely successful scientist who doesn't work similar hours to my own. The key is to keep the weekends, which for now at least, I manage.

Given the amount of training I've had to do (on considerably less than what a Tesco employee earns - hence the part-time job) to get the position I now have, I would expect to be paid appropriately. In a communist utopia where everyone is equal, I cannot see how a society that needs both highly skilled and unskilled labour can achieve this without the skilled people being paid more than the unskilled people.

zokes

it's about realising how the society in which we live in works.

... and knuckling under, and doing as you are told, and not rocking the boat, and doffing your cap.... etc etc.

I don't think so.

I was with you there for a minute, but don't go too far.

I think Tesco is just about on the right side of OK when it comes to their workers, but I wouldn't want to do it!

OTOH, don't you start complaining about your 15 hour days as if you are hard done by - like you said yourself about the Tesco workers "[you] have an option - get a better job..."

And don't get me started on whether this was some kind of hardship:

have attended full-time education for nearly 10 years

at our expense no doubt - imagine the disadvantage of being bright - has it been hard for you? do you need to talk about it 😉
Why should I work almost double the number of hours, deal with much more responsibility, and have attended full-time education for nearly 10 years longer than someone earning the same as me who has to turn up, stack shelves, and go home. Sure, those 8 hours may not be great fun, but that leaves you the other 16 to do as you like

Not so much turned it on his head as have re written [ more hours for example] it as something different- I accept your broader point and yes what I suggest is not perfect. If top wages were a factor of what the lowest get paid then maybee it would make those at the top actually care

I'm not sure what legal right any government would have to dictate that the profit margins should take a cut, regardless of the moral imperative.

We can do what we like if we had the will and I find it be more of an imperative than subsidising Mc Donalds so they very rich can make even more money – we are not so much giving money to the poor via wage tops up but giving money to the wealthy be reducing their costs and maximising their profits.

rprt:

I agree about Tesco being OK, and only OK. But, whether you agree with it or not, we need someone to be stacking those shelves, to be manning the checkouts etc. These are however jobs that have little responsibility and require little in the way of skill, subsequently staff fulfilling these roles get paid less. What's a fairer way to do this?

And don't get me started on whether this was some kind of hardship:

Likewise on the 'almost agreeing for a minute there...' front. Lots of people go to uni for a piss up. I was not one of those, and paid (or borrowed - thank you SLC) for all of it at undergraduate level. For my PhD I was paid a stipend of less than 12k, and although I could have 'just cruised' this working normal hours, I chose to knuckle down, write papers, and subsequently have the very rare privilege of having a permanent (in the sense of not being on a term contract) research position.

I'm sure the world's smallest violin is playing for me at this point, so I'll desist further. But, don't go believing the right wing press over how hard or not [u][i]all[/i][/u] students work. In my career at least, a PhD is the equivalent of legal or accountancy exams, with the same "end-of-career" price for failure.

EDIT for JY:

at our expense no doubt

Of course, then I buggered off with my skills to Oz 😉

Actually, PhD was through the EU. But yes, as an undergrad there will have been some government money involved, but by getting said part time job, I did a reasonable level of supporting myself. I guess it's where you draw the line on how educated people should be allowed to become at the public purse's expense. There is one school of thought that the less intellectually minded should just jack it in at 14 and get an apprenticeship - remember those?

zokes - Member

As for government top-ups. This too is an issue, but unless you have a bright idea, I can't see a logical answer that would actually work. As has been pointed out - increases in wages = increases in prices. I'm not sure what legal right any government would have to dictate that the profit margins should take a cut, regardless of the moral imperative.

The money has to come from somewhere. Tax credits are a subsidy from the taxpayer to the employer. If the employer paid a living wage then the taxpayer would not have to subsidise allowing for a tax cut or that money to be spent elsewhere

These are however jobs that have little responsibility and require little in the way of skill, subsequently staff fulfilling these roles get paid less. What's a fairer way to do this?

Well as I see it, if the retail industry could not fill roles because the pay was too low and alternative employment was available for employees to move to, the impact on everybody's lives would be felt pretty soon.
What impact would not filling your job role have on our lives?

These are however jobs that have little responsibility and require little in the way of skill, subsequently staff fulfilling these roles get paid less. What's a fairer way to do this?

we can do something other than go ah tough shit your thick and you have no other choices unlike me as I could work hard and look what i have achieved * - no matter how hard they work they cant achieve what you did - unless of course you work in the arts 😉
We still need our bins emptied and our shelves full etc

* I am a parodying what you say for effect no offence meant

I took out a career development loan to go back and do an MA in my mid 20s.

My wife is a deputy head and probably works a 65 hour week.

Why would you imagine that I wouldn't have some experience relevant to your situation before I passed comment?

Lower profits and higher wages?

nail, head, hit, the, you've, on, the - (rearrange to form a well known phrase)

What impact would not filling your job role have on our lives?

Seeing as my main research is food security in a changing climate, probably quite a bit more than you were imagining when you wrote that throw away remark 😉

Top wages a factor of lowest wages?

This, I think, is probably the fairest way of all. (And also one that had eluded my memory until you raised it!)

rprt:

Why would you imagine that I wouldn't have some experience relevant to your situation before I passed comment?

I don't think I said this, but you implied it yourself with this statement:

And don't get me started on whether this was some kind of hardship:

Ah, you misunderstood me - (but don't worry, it happens all the time).

Actually my point (if I'd bothered to spell it out) was that following a vocation through academia is an end and a pleasure in itself, not something that is usually forced on anyone, through circumstances or otherwise.

Seeing as my main research is food security in a changing climate, probably quite a bit more than you were imagining when you wrote that throw away remark

Not at all, future food security doesn't matter when I can't buy food today. I work for the European space agency, the research done here may provide many answers to future problems that are building now, but you could remove the agency today and the impact would never be known.

MSP,

... so you're a climate change denier then?

(actually, don't answer that - it was a joke)

The money has to come from somewhere. Tax credits are a subsidy from the taxpayer to the employer. If the employer paid a living wage then the taxpayer would not have to subsidise allowing for a tax cut or that money to be spent elsewhere

But if the employer may find it too expensive to pay a living wage so employ less people or move (not really possible in retail) somewhere cheaper which in the long term is going to cost more. If the minimum wage was less then maybe (over time) the number of people employed would go up, we'd be able to compete with countries where the cost of living was less. Many people working and having their wage topped up could be better than a couple of people working and then a lot just on benefits and not working at all and not just in financial terms.

This is probably a different debate/troll 😉 though.

Actually, PhD was through the EU. But yes, as an undergrad there will have been some government money involved, but by getting said part time job, I did a reasonable level of supporting myself.

If you did your PhD at a UK university it looks like it was heavily subsidised by the UK (and European) tax payer.

jonba - employer makes less profit and pays less tax - but the government no longer needs to subsidise the employees so needs less tax

Minimum wage had no effect at all on jobs despite the dire warnings from the CBI

Good employers welcome it - as they can no longer be undercut by people paying less

If you did your PhD at a UK university it looks like it was heavily subsidised by the UK (and European) tax payer.

Yet there were no jobs in said country to use the skills it paid me to gain. Curiously however, given that research is international, work that I and my colleagues carry out here in Oz benefits the UK government for free. 😀

Still doesn't solve MSP's issue of who's going to stack the baked beans though....

Go on then, I'll bite. What do you suggest is a fair per-hour wage for someone who has no qualifications, pretty much zero work related responsibilities, and reasonable hours?

Irrelevant to the point being discussed. I am refuting the contention that a moderate increase in wages has a significant effect on prices or profitability.

Still doesn't solve MSP's issue of who's going to stack the baked beans though....

That's easy.... philosophy graduates!

jonba,

this would be the perfect time to apply Occam's razor.

Irrelevant to the point being discussed. I am refuting the contention that a moderate increase in wages has a significant effect on prices or profitability.

So, what would that moderate increase be? 5%, 10%, 50%? Surely you must have a figure. In fact, far from being irrelevant, it appears to be the very crux of your economic argument...

That's easy.... philosophy graduates!

Touche! Although I would hope that a better use of the qualification that was evidently such a huge burden on the tax payer would be in researching how to grow more food for less, not stack less food for more.... 😆

So, what would that moderate increase be? 5%, 10%, 50%?

Well, if this is to be believed, [url= http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich-graphic.html?ref=sunday ]about 70%.[/url]

Well, if this is to be believed, about 70%.

Yikes - that sort of spells it out! But, to temper it slightly (and to play devil's advocate), how does that tie in to the cost of living and therefore disposable income? I'm guessing nowhere near bridging the effective gap though...

The point of those graphs is that they show how the wealth created has been, and is being, distributed.

Had things been done more "fairly" then the lines might have all moved up together.

The simplest way to redress the balance would be through massive redistribution, as the less wealthy are NEVER going to be able to be proportionately brought up in line with the most wealthy. To some extent we are in a zero sum game as we have reached the limit of many natural resources. What these figures show is that since the 1980s the benefits of increased productivity have almost entirely accrued to the already wealthy.

you dont get out much then do you if you have never met one under 50 I have barely met any over 50 tbh.

I get out a lot thank you. However, given the 10,000 people based on this (fairly well unionised) site, I have yet to engage with a younger union rep. I don't have a say in who the reps are.

Ernie - I come from a family that hasn't been represented by unions for at least 3 generations on both sides I can find (not available to me or my father). I fully support the collective representation of anyone - what I object to is a confrontational approach and taking stances on issues that they cannot hope to influence. Oh - and people stopping lockers for cyclists!

TooTall - Member

I don't have a say in who the reps are.

Oh yes you do - elections at the AGM usually or a similar democratic means

Whats the story about the lockers?

yes before this they at least pretended they shared it out and talked about trickle down capitalism

Many people working and having their wage topped up could be better than a couple of people working and then a lot just on benefits and not working at all and not just in financial terms.

Oh yes you do - elections at the AGM usually or a similar democratic means

As I said - union representation not available to me or my father or either of my grandfathers because of jobs undertaken.

Union rep objecting to lockers in office areas (rather than in other areas) because of H&S issues to his union members. This came from a few mingers not sorting their sports kit out in lockers and being smelly types. The solution is to deal with the mingers (minority) rather than remove all office-based lockers.