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

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.

tootall - ah - services aren't you?

mostly electricity at the moment - yes.

military services and gchq are the only folk who cannot join unions IIRC

You forgot the police.

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...

The crux of your argument is that increased wages reduce profitability/ and/ or increases prices. Surely, you must have some numbers to support your hypothesis, rather than asking me to prove a negative...

I thought the police had a union, just are not allowed to strike.

The police have a federation.

I saw this article over the weekend and wondered how many pages the SWT thread would reach to!!

Interesting comments on how unions/union reps/HR departments add to the smooth operations of a company. I am sure that most people would agree that their value added is broadly similar, surely?

Nice chart (but not nice story from NYT) - OECD gives reasonably balanced view on the multiple causes here.

Given inflation at around 2% pa (? targets at least!), I don't think many companies would be successful if they agreed to 5%-10% wage increases, particularly if these rates are compounded. Hard to see many top-lines growing much above inflation in the current climate.

I would love to see the reaction of Brazilians, Russians, Indians, Chinese, Turks etc to this thread!

TooTall - Member

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!

You might well now want to sound all fair-minded and moderate with regards to trade unions, but your first post paints a completely different picture :

TooTall - Member

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

Posted 18 hours ago

It's clear that by claiming that they were a great idea "in the last century" you think that trade unions no longer have any role to play. Of course people who come out with bollox like that are simply just using it as a smokescreen for their deeply felt hostilities.

Very much like the person who says, "I'm not a racist but...." or, "I believe that charity starts at home". What they are really saying is "I am a racist and I am a greedy selfish person".

I don't believe that you think trade unions were a great idea "in the last century" - explain to me why you think they were......why were trade unions a good idea in the 1980s but not today ?

Furthermore your ridiculous claim that every union rep has a big chip on his shoulder and quotes meaningless references from memory betrays the contempt that you feel for trade unions and how much you despise them.

I take it from you comments that you are part of management and that you deal with trade unions. I can't being to imagine how difficult it must be for the union reps and full officials at your work place to deal with someone like you who feels so much contempt and hostility towards them. Or what it does for industrial relations.

If the trade unions felt the same level of hostility towards management which you clearly feel towards them, then your workplace wouldn't be able to function.

Employers in Britain have everything stacked in their favour with regards to trade unions, British employment law being the most restrictive on trade unions in the western world playing no small part, but that isn't good enough for you - you would rather employees had no representation at all.

With regards to this :

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.

WTF is that about ? .....why have you even mentioned it on this thread. Are you seriously expecting people to support your argument against trade unionism on the basis of a single incidence involving a single union rep of which none of us knows anything about ? ffs

Sometimes I am truly amazed at the capacity of managers to be daft. Or perhaps it's more a case that you think everyone else is daft ?

Interesting comments on how unions/union reps/HR departments add to the smooth operations of a company. I am sure that most people would agree that their value added is broadly similar, surely?

I don't think many companies would be successful if they agreed to 5%-10% wage increases, particularly if these rates are compounded. Hard to see many top-lines growing much above inflation in the current climate.