Pay rise for a million workers

I should point out that for quite a few years I was an employer, so I certainly know the economics of running a business. In the chilled and frozen sector where I specialised, I had to justify why I needed 'X' extra staff during certain times of the year, and how I could use natural wastage during the quieter seasons. In fact, during the summer months I bolstered my employee numbers with short term contracts or agency, boosting my already expensive wage bill to new levels. My only concession was that a hot summer saw ice cream sales explode. It is my experience that if you pay minimum wage, you get the people no other employers want, because someone who is good at what they do, regardless whether they are skilled or unskilled, will ultimately seek out an employer who offers just that little bit more. As for employing anyone, regardless of their intellect or common sense, everyone who is actively employed becomes a part of the consumer base (more so than someone on benefits). Bosses often scoff at paying too much, but that money eventually ends back in the bosses pocket. I should also point out that regardless of intellect, or academic background, almost everyone, from the humblest cleaner to the post graduate engineer, has something to offer society, so why treat those on minimum wage as subhuman? I have seen an illerate guy who was a genius with numbers. No formal qualifications, but give him two or more numbers, integer or floating point, and tell him to add, multiply, divide or subtract, and he could give you an answer quicker than entering it on a calculator. On the flip side of the coin, a colleague who studied engineering at university couldn't even do the simplest of tasks. Ask him to warm your cornish pasty in the microwave, and it would stump him. Using a TV was also a trial. Everyone is different, but almost everyone can offer something that someone else can use, whether it be honesty, unskilled labour, or a specific skill that they have trained for. On one of the business forums I have frequented, a group of managers were disputing the right of the ordinary employee to better themself. One quoted saying, 'They live with what they left school with', in response to academic training. I don't believe this is fair. People mature at different rates, and I have seen people in their 30's suddenly discovering that they have a gift for something, and want to expand their knowledge. I also know of people in their 50's who didn't have computer training when they were at school (computers didn't make an inroad into our lives until the early 80's), and who need to update their skills to compete with the younger generations. People are multifaceted. How can you possibly stereotype anyone. One of the last people I ever employed before moving on was an ex Manager for a bit retail outlet, yet he applied for a job as a warehouseman. I asked why the sudden change from a managerial role to that of a simple warehouseman, with no responsibility, and his response was that he no longer wanted to be responsible, and that he was more than happy just doing what he was told. Responsibility, and rank, is a burden, not a privelege. As a boss, we have a duty of care to ensure that employees under our care are looked after according to the law. This includes their health and safety, as well as mental welfare, and the job they do and the hours they work. I have seen many bosses, and some colleagues, who think that because they have the rank, 'Manager' tatooed on their skull, think it is a license to demean, belittle, and bully, those of a more junior rank. Finding a 'Good' boss is becoming harder and harder, as more and more idiots are aspiring to becoming managers. With the introduction of the Working Time Regulations, it became even harder to utilise a small workforce to fulfill the requirements of a much larger workforce, forcing employers to consider the true number of employees they actually needed, rather than offer, or force, overtime. So, if I say an employee needs 30 people, it is because he needs 30 people, to fulfill his obligation to his customers, or consumers. Mind you, retailers often try to skimp on retail staff. Pop into your local DIY store, and try to find an assistant? Almost impossible in some of the bigger stores. Also, long queues at the active checkouts because there are not enough staff to man all the checkouts. Call centres are another employer where they would rather we spend 20 minutes queueing on a phone line, than employ the additional staff required to fulfill their obligation to us. Of course, we have to remember that there is a difference between a customer, and a consumer. Customers are important, whereas consumers are ten a penny. A leading retail manager told me this, when I complained about their service. 'If you don't like how we operate, go elsewhere, because for everyone who complains, there are hundreds more who will accept whatever quality of service we offer, without complaint'. Bosses! Who needs them...

Maybe I read it incorrectly, but I think that the point straightseer made is that companies only have £x to spend so salaries for decent staff can't always increase, if you increase the minimum wage too far, more capable staff get lumbered into the minimum wage category and you effectively make the less capable unemployable by virtue of better being on offer. Put another way, many would prefer a BMW to a Renault, but opt for the French POS because it is the more affordable option, so sales are split between the two - if the minimum cost for a car were increased to the level of the BMW, no one would buy the an arse car again and we would either have acres of car parks full of them or (more likely) they would no longer be produced. Whilst stopping production of French motor cars would be a good thing, the same is not possible for people, as Hitler discovered that genetic cleansing is illegal and for the most part frowned upon. As a result if the minimum wage is increased too far we will end up with parks full of miscreants.

Whether you consider minimum wage as good or bad, there surely is no denying that the coalition's plan to raise the tax threshold to £10,000, to ease the burden for the poorest in this country, is a good move. Not only will it lift many out of paying tax completely but it should also mean savings in admin of benefits.