Guest Foxin_mad Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Buce said: That explains so much. Please expand. I run a business and employ people so therefore I am a twat? Now I am not a fan of multinationals. But there are millions of small businesses up and down the country. Its bloody hard work keeping it running. I should get some bloody profit out of it! I am sometimes up at ridiculous hours working, sorting problems, dealing with staff being idiots all kinds of stuff. The margins for most small businesses are minimal, you increase minimum wages and tax and an instant I am having sleepless nights about how to save money. I am not going to put the effort in of running a business to lavish other peoples lifestyles unless they earn it and I am not going to run at no profit there just no point. Edited 2 May 2018 by Foxin_mad
Finnegan Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 But all of that is about your perception of left wing union members, that's sort of my point really, you're buying in to this stereotype. You talk about socialists like they're the only people in the union, it's a complete myth. All your union really is, all it is, is a democratic organisation of workers joining together to collectively negotiate with their employers. That's it. How they go about that is purely a reflection of the people in it. The public perception of unions is that they're all lefty commies, so they tend to attract a lot of lefty commies and a lot of more Conservative leaning folk are put off, even if their best interests are actually served by collective bargaining. They refuse to join because they see lefties like Len in charge and they wrinkle their nose. But a union is democratic, if you don't like the leadership then join, get your mates to join, take part, have a voice, be active, look to change things. Participate and represent Conservative workers, that's allowed. It's possible. You can like Starbucks and still think Starbucks pay structure should reward front line staff a little more and their CEOs a little less. It doesn't happen because, again, the public image is that you're either left or you're right and if you're not left you have to hate unions. I doubt they realistically expect to get £10 an hour for entry level McDonald's employees, that in itself is part of the media angle, isn't it? It'll all just be one part of the negotiation. But are you saying they shouldn't be after better contracts or conditions at all? Like I said, they don't want to see Mcdonald suffer. They ACTUALLY want to see McDonald's be successful because that's what's best for their workers. But they don't want the rewards of that success to be handed out in such a top heavy manner which is fair. 4
Buce Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 6 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: Please expand. I run a business and employ people so therefore I am a twat? Now I am not a fan of multinationals. But there are millions of small businesses up and down the country. Its bloody hard work keeping it running. I should get some bloody profit out of it! I am sometimes up at ridiculous hours working, sorting problems, dealing with staff being idiots all kinds of stuff. The margins for most small businesses are minimal, you increase minimum wages and tax and an instant I am having sleepless nights about how to save money. How on earth do you infer that from what I said? There was no subtext to it - I meant it gives some insight as to where your politics come from.
Guest MattP Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 Slightly off topic, but I think we'll find out just how "democratic" Unite is when the regulator and courts finish off the investigation into the McCluskey/Coyne election. Personally think the McDonald's workers have a right to do this, the company also has a right to then argue against it and refuse it if they see fit. Don't think you can compare private to public though when discussing pay, if teachers get a pay rise it will cost me more money to fund it - so for to support them taking action for extra pay they need to convince me they deserve it. I can choose not to eat at McDonald's if I disagree with a rise for their workers that results in a price increase, I can't refuse to pay tax.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Finnegan said: But all of that is about your perception of left wing union members, that's sort of my point really, you're buying in to this stereotype. You talk about socialists like they're the only people in the union, it's a complete myth. All your union really is, all it is, is a democratic organisation of workers joining together to collectively negotiate with their employers. That's it. How they go about that is purely a reflection of the people in it. The public perception of unions is that they're all lefty commies, so they tend to attract a lot of lefty commies and a lot of more Conservative leaning folk are put off, even if their best interests are actually served by collective bargaining. They refuse to join because they see lefties like Len in charge and they wrinkle their nose. But a union is democratic, if you don't like the leadership then join, get your mates to join, take part, have a voice, be active, look to change things. Participate and represent Conservative workers, that's allowed. It's possible. You can like Starbucks and still think Starbucks pay structure should reward front line staff a little more and their CEOs a little less. It doesn't happen because, again, the public image is that you're either left or you're right and if you're not left you have to hate unions. I doubt they realistically expect to get £10 an hour for entry level McDonald's employees, that in itself is part of the media angle, isn't it? It'll all just be one part of the negotiation. But are you saying they shouldn't be after better contracts or conditions at all? Like I said, they don't want to see Mcdonald suffer. They ACTUALLY want to see McDonald's be successful because that's what's best for their workers. But they don't want the rewards of that success to be handed out in such a top heavy manner which is fair. I agree the Unions do have an image problem. Again the unions I have experienced have unfortunately had some very stereotypical members and leaders which is instantly a little off putting. Again I am not saying I am against them or hate them, I question how much power they should be allowed and my experience personally has been poor. I think £10 is quoted as it is a supposed 'living wage' I don't know how this is calculated, on what basis, on what area and by whom. No I am not saying they should not negotiate better deals if they feel they are worth it and can prove it. I suppose these workers already get the National minimum wage so what is it that makes them worth more than this? I am happy to see McDonalds pay the correct amount of tax based on its sales in the UK. Then I suppose we can better see what increases would be affordable. Edited 2 May 2018 by Foxin_mad
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 3 minutes ago, Buce said: How on earth do you infer that from what I said? There was no subtext to it - I meant it gives some insight as to where your politics come from. Apologies, perhaps I read the original out of context. It gives an insight into the fact I fully understand business. At the end of the day my business is good and the employees are generally happy and looked after as much as possible, currently funding 2 apprenticeships and looking to get extra government funding for more. Also had government funding to get a fibre line ran into the premises, which would have cost 30k with BT of 20k with Virgin. Interestingly I have an office in Germany and it is an absolute nightmare to get Fibre there with DT.
Finnegan Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 To address things touched upon by yourself and Matt, again, I'm definitely not suggesting all unions ARE brilliant and without flaws. Anyone who looks at the current state of unions and doesn't necessarily want to be a part I can understand. However, a union is like any other democratic body whether or not that's your local church group or a country of 100m - the more people that join from more walks of life and the more that actually vote, the better it will be at representing all the people. 1
Voll Blau Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said: They do earn it, as does every working person. But if the lowest paid workers get more, should their supervisors not too? Again its a wider issue of if everyone gets paid more, arguably everyone deserves more, if we all get more money what do we think happens to the prices of everything? In the end were back to square one. The only way to solve this is full on communism. Of course its already proven, doesn't work. That's really up to the shift managers etc themselves isn't it? If they'll feel they do, they might undertake similar action. McDonald's aren't exactly obliged to implement pay increases across the board at all levels because less than a dozen people are undergoing strike action at a miniscule number of branches. You've made a rather paranoid mountain out of what is really a molehill. Ranting about communism because 11 people are trying to get a couple of quid an hour more at their workplace? You must see how ridiculous that is. Edited 2 May 2018 by Voll Blau 1
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 1 minute ago, Finnegan said: To address things touched upon by yourself and Matt, again, I'm definitely not suggesting all unions ARE brilliant and without flaws. Anyone who looks at the current state of unions and doesn't necessarily want to be a part I can understand. However, a union is like any other democratic body whether or not that's your local church group or a country of 100m - the more people that join from more walks of life and the more that actually vote, the better it will be at representing all the people. I cant disagree. I would never rule out engaging with a union in future. I think perhaps there is some responsibility of those currently within to ensure that the environment created isn't hostile. I think maybe the problem here is that our unions are politicised a bit too much, maybe they shouldn't be? If I went into a Union meeting and said I voted Tory in this country I am pretty sure I may be spat at by some. When I worked in the Public sector I certainly received some hostile treatment from Unison when trying to explain certain things. My experience of German Unions is a lot better. Maybe here it isn't the Unions that are the problem, its the way they operate and the people operating them.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 2 minutes ago, Voll Blau said: That's really up to the shift managers etc themselves isn't it? If they'll feel they do, they might undertake similar action. McDonald's aren't exactly obliged to implement pay increases across the board at all levels because less than a dozen people are undergoing strike action at a miniscule number of branches. You've made a rather paranoid mountain of what is really a molehill. Ranting about communism because 11 people are trying to get a couple of quid an hour more at their workplace? You must see how ridiculous that is. Well I would say not. As an employer myself, if my lowest paid workers came to me and said they want the 'Living Wage' I would look at it on an individual basis on whether their work warranted this. If I decided to increase their wage on the basis of nothing it would only be fair to review the wages of their superiors, you can not have a supervisor on only 10p and hour more than someone they are in charge of! Doesn't create good spirit in the work place. Obviously a good employer would be on top of this kind of thing. Surely if McDonalds raise the wage at one branch they have to do it nationwide? What is it that these 11 people are doing the others aren't? Are they acting for all employees or just themselves? I don't know. I'm not ranting about communism just point out it doesn't work. What I am saying is that if you feel a McDonalds worker could should earn as much as say a web developer then what is the incentive for people to want to get better jobs if every job essentially has the same wage? There is obviously distinction between wages due to skills. It doesn't mean one person works harder or deserves it more. Everyone is arguably worth more but where do we stop?
Guest MattP Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Finnegan said: To address things touched upon by yourself and Matt, again, I'm definitely not suggesting all unions ARE brilliant and without flaws. Anyone who looks at the current state of unions and doesn't necessarily want to be a part I can understand. However, a union is like any other democratic body whether or not that's your local church group or a country of 100m - the more people that join from more walks of life and the more that actually vote, the better it will be at representing all the people. The last election at Unite showed just how many members are sick of McCluskey so I certainly wouldn't accuse the membership of being a bunch of communists, they clearly arent and it looks like Coyne would have won in a fair race. The problem I have is these unions is they give political backing to parties that will implement policy that will put lots of people out of work. No point fighting for extra couple of quid an hour if you end up with a few million more on the dole. (I'd actually do pretty well out of a Labour government as well given my income is mainly paid in AUD) My union rep at Sainsburys was almost comical at times, like something from Citizen Smith and I used to roll my eyes at some of the bullshit he came out with. Edited 2 May 2018 by MattP
Voll Blau Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said: Well I would say not. As an employer myself, if my lowest paid workers came to me and said they want the 'Living Wage' I would look at it on an individual basis on whether their work warranted this. If I decided to increase their wage on the basis of nothing it would only be fair to review the wages of their superiors, you can not have a supervisor on only 10p and hour more than someone they are in charge of! Doesn't create good spirit in the work place. Obviously a good employer would be on top of this kind of thing. Surely if McDonalds raise the wage at one branch they have to do it nationwide? What is it that these 11 people are doing the others aren't? Are they acting for all employees or just themselves? I don't know. I'm not ranting about communism just point out it doesn't work. What I am saying is that if you feel a McDonalds worker could should earn as much as say a web developer then what is the incentive for people to want to get better jobs if every job essentially has the same wage? There is obviously distinction between wages due to skills. It doesn't mean one person works harder or deserves it more. Everyone is arguably worth more but where do we stop? Good for you for being so fair to your employees. I suspect the situation is a little different at one of the world's largest multinationals though, where the people who work there know it's not their direct superiors who are responsible for their remuneration. Like I say, if they feel aggrieved enough they'll unionise and act accordingly too. McDonald's is largely franchised out in this country, and I think franchisees have some degree of autonomy on finances at their branches (they certainly do over product pricing), so I'm not sure how that would work out. It's fairly clear the people involved in the strike aren't claiming to act on behalf of anyone but themselves though, especially given that union recognition is one of the things they're actually seeking as part of this dispute. On Communism, it was utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand - hence why I would say you were ranting about it. On your final point, there are plenty of things that might incentivise unskilled workers to get better jobs - satisfaction, enjoyment, the challenge of it, the feeling of pride at doing skilled work, earning qualifications and bettering yourself etc. As I've previously mentioned, customers will decide for themselves whether people are worth their wages by deciding whether to pay for their products or not. Market forces at work - glorious.
Guest Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 57 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: Please expand. I run a business and employ people so therefore I am a twat? Now I am not a fan of multinationals. But there are millions of small businesses up and down the country. Its bloody hard work keeping it running. I should get some bloody profit out of it! I am sometimes up at ridiculous hours working, sorting problems, dealing with staff being idiots all kinds of stuff. The margins for most small businesses are minimal, you increase minimum wages and tax and an instant I am having sleepless nights about how to save money. I am not going to put the effort in of running a business to lavish other peoples lifestyles unless they earn it and I am not going to run at no profit there just no point. Expecting somebody to work full time on a salary that is insufficient to live isn't right either though is it? And you only end up paying for in work benefits to make up the shortfall. 46 minutes ago, MattP said: Slightly off topic, but I think we'll find out just how "democratic" Unite is when the regulator and courts finish off the investigation into the McCluskey/Coyne election. Personally think the McDonald's workers have a right to do this, the company also has a right to then argue against it and refuse it if they see fit. Don't think you can compare private to public though when discussing pay, if teachers get a pay rise it will cost me more money to fund it - so for to support them taking action for extra pay they need to convince me they deserve it. I can choose not to eat at McDonald's if I disagree with a rise for their workers that results in a price increase, I can't refuse to pay tax. The argument about you are paying for teachers, nurses salaries etc is really pointless. You also fund every government scheme you disagree with or don't use. You also pay for all the private sector companies and staff that do work for or on behalf of the public sector. Your taxes also already subsidise private sector (and pubic sector) providers that don't pay their staff enough to live on.
Finnegan Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 37 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: I cant disagree. I would never rule out engaging with a union in future. I think perhaps there is some responsibility of those currently within to ensure that the environment created isn't hostile. I think maybe the problem here is that our unions are politicised a bit too much, maybe they shouldn't be? If I went into a Union meeting and said I voted Tory in this country I am pretty sure I may be spat at by some. When I worked in the Public sector I certainly received some hostile treatment from Unison when trying to explain certain things. My experience of German Unions is a lot better. Maybe here it isn't the Unions that are the problem, its the way they operate and the people operating them. The problem is that the Tory Party have the interests of big business at heart and thus are firmly anti Union. I've said before and I'd stand by it, I don't understand lower income Tory voters, the party doesn't have your interests at heart. Unfortunately, with a two party system you don't really have much alternative if you're Conservative. If you're anti immigration, anti welfare state and whatever else then you don't really have a party to vote for that'll realistically get in to power that's got the interests of workers at heart. We have no diversity in our political parties really at all. 2
Rincewind Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 My sister runs a small furniture buiding business and I beklieve pays a salary that the employees are happy with. Even to the point that they all 'muck' in with the work, loading/unload a van, cutting serving customers. They can also be relied upon to run the place if she is not there. If they were on a poor wage there would be coming and going of staff and a few sickie days.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 5 minutes ago, toddybad said: Expecting somebody to work full time on a salary that is insufficient to live isn't right either though is it? And you only end up paying for in work benefits to make up the shortfall. The argument about you are paying for teachers, nurses salaries etc is really pointless. You also fund every government scheme you disagree with or don't use. You also pay for all the private sector companies and staff that do work for or on behalf of the public sector. Your taxes also already subsidise private sector (and pubic sector) providers that don't pay their staff enough to live on. What is a salary that is sufficient to live on though? What does living consist of? Its all very subjective. To be honest £10 a hour seems like quite a lot to me. On a 40 hour week that's 20k a year for an unskilled jobs it seems a lot. Of course in London/South maybe things are different. I suppose you can look at it 2 ways. I either employ more people on a lower wage or I employ less people on a higher wage. I cant do it all. Obviously less staff means more work falls to me. I would prefer to do less work but I need to have something to show at the end of each year, or cash in bank for lean times. What I do advocate is performance related pay. My staff know if we have a good year, they get a good bonus. Staff performing well deserve rewards.
Guest MattP Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 9 minutes ago, Finnegan said: I've said before and I'd stand by it, I don't understand lower income Tory voters, the party doesn't have your interests at heart. What sort of income do you mean by lower? The threshold for taking the lowest paid out of the tax bracket altogether has been some of the most successful coalition/Tory policy I can remember. I only wish they could raise it even further.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Finnegan said: The problem is that the Tory Party have the interests of big business at heart and thus are firmly anti Union. I've said before and I'd stand by it, I don't understand lower income Tory voters, the party doesn't have your interests at heart. Unfortunately, with a two party system you don't really have much alternative if you're Conservative. If you're anti immigration, anti welfare state and whatever else then you don't really have a party to vote for that'll realistically get in to power that's got the interests of workers at heart. We have no diversity in our political parties really at all. I am not entirely sure that is true. Small business has thrived under this government, there are more start-ups and self employed up and down the country. The current Labour party certainly do not serve the interests of these people. The Tory party generally I feel are about enabling people to facilitate their own social mobility through hard work. Of course it doesn't always work out that way but I feel that is the underlying ideal. I don't understand how anyone who runs a business or has an asset of any kind could possibly vote for the Labour Party as they don't have the interests of everyone at heart. They are looking from a purely simplistic point of view helping the poor at the cost of everyone else. Whilst I agree there are problems with multinationals, which is a global problem. The people who would get screwed by the Labour party would be your local small businesses because they are easy targets, they generally play by the book and can not massage accounts. I am not really sure who's interests the Labour party serve at present. Their policies would undoubtably lead to many thousands of job losses. I do agree we need more diversity in our political parties. The current Labour are lot are too far left to be trusted with the nation and job security. Edited 2 May 2018 by Foxin_mad
Buce Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 8 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: What is a salary that is sufficient to live on though? What does living consist of? Its all very subjective. To be honest £10 a hour seems like quite a lot to me. On a 40 hour week that's 20k a year for an unskilled jobs it seems a lot. Of course in London/South maybe things are different. I suppose you can look at it 2 ways. I either employ more people on a lower wage or I employ less people on a higher wage. I cant do it all. Obviously less staff means more work falls to me. I would prefer to do less work but I need to have something to show at the end of each year, or cash in bank for lean times. What I do advocate is performance related pay. My staff know if we have a good year, they get a good bonus. Staff performing well deserve rewards. 6 It really isn't. How much salary do you take out of the business? I'll wager it's more than the equivalent of a tenner an hour.
Buce Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 8 minutes ago, MattP said: What sort of income do you mean by lower? The threshold for taking the lowest paid out of the tax bracket altogether has been some of the most successful coalition/Tory policy I can remember. I only wish they could raise it even further. That's the biggest con going. For every £1,000 it is raised, the worker sees £4 a week - what's that, the price of a pint?
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Buce said: It really isn't. How much salary do you take out of the business? I'll wager it's more than the equivalent of a tenner an hour. It is more than £10 a hour but not as much as it should be. After all I do have to offer up significant collateral. I worked during my uni days and before in a supermarket for around £3 a hour, so its a different world to that. Edited 2 May 2018 by Foxin_mad
Buce Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 Just now, Foxin_mad said: It is more than £10 a hour but not as much as it should be. I worked during my uni days and before in a supermarket for around £3 a hour, so its a different world to that. Man, I worked for 50p an hour when I left school - it's not relevant nor does it make it right. I don't live a lavish lifestyle but I'd struggle to support my family on £10 an hour; what's that - about £1,300 a month after tax and NI?
Strokes Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 1 minute ago, Buce said: Man, I worked for 50p an hour when I left school - it's not relevant nor does it make it right. I don't live a lavish lifestyle but I'd struggle to support my family on £10 an hour; what's that - about £1,300 a month after tax and NI? Tbf the tories have raised the tax free allowance by £6000, that’s £24 a week and £100 a month. It’s not terrible by any means.
Guest MattP Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 12 minutes ago, Buce said: That's the biggest con going. For every £1,000 it is raised, the worker sees £4 a week - what's that, the price of a pint? So for some that's upto a £100 a month, believe me if you are among the lowest paid that comes in pretty handy.
Bobby Hundreds Posted 2 May 2018 Posted 2 May 2018 21 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: On a 40 hour week that's 20k a year for an unskilled jobs it seems a lot. Of course in London/South maybe things are different. After tax that's £1,415. After rent that is £815. After commuting/car finance costs that is £680. After council tax that is £565. After utilities that is £415. After TV licence that is £400. After food that is £200. £50 a week for 40 hours hard graft, they'll be beating your door down!
Recommended Posts