Divide & conquer

ninky_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

Yes, small companies are at a disadvantage to larger companies in terms of access to capital etc, but the picture is far more complex than just saying "they are a small company therefore they will pay lower wages".

agreed. but i still don't see why we should protect smaller companies from wage increases. if they work in a niche area that gives higher wages great. if they work in an area where they can't because they can't access economies of scale they should go under imho.

also - as for saying that starbucks will charge more for the coffee than the small company, fair enough. takeaway /cafe coffees are a luxury good and more people will be able to afford the increased price if they get paid more anyway.

campaigners also tend to focus on the practices of these larger chains so you see them changing to fair trade, stopping the practice of leaving hot water taps constantly on etc. it is harder to effect these sorts of ethical changes across lots of smaller independents.

Thrugelmir

ninky wrote: »

agreed. but i still don't see why we should protect smaller companies from wage increases. if they work in a niche area that gives higher wages great. if they work in an area where they can't because they can't access economies of scale they should go under imho.

80% of small business start ups fail in the first 3 years. Of those that survive 80% will fail in the next 5 years.

Imposing additional regulatory burden will hardly improve the SME sector.

As the Cadburys saga has shown. Larger companies themselves become take over targets. Then the predator moves production to where operating costs are lower to gain economy.

So if we have no no small businessess in the pipeline what then?

Mr Marks and Mr Spencer originally only one shop. So did Mr Sainsbury. Would they have become what they did with wage burdens? Or would Wal Mart and Aldi be dominating the High Street now?

ninky_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Mr Marks and Mr Spencer originally only one shop. So did Mr Sainsbury. Would they have become what they did with wage burdens? Or would Wal Mart and Aldi be dominating the High Street now?

quite possibly yes. i think their ability to grow was down to the fact there were no giant players operating in the market as there are now. it would be impossible for a penny bazaar stall to grow into an international supermarket now regardless of what level wages were set at.

Thrugelmir

ninky wrote: »

quite possibly yes. i think their ability to grow was down to the fact there were no giant players operating in the market as there are now. it would be impossible for a penny bazaar stall to grow into an international supermarket now regardless of what level wages were set at.

Companies are born out of a concept or idea. Smaller companies are innovative more flexible. Often set-up by people that have a dislike of the big impersonal Corporate world.

Personally I've been on both sides of the fence. Now I only work for SME's as its far more satisfying.

Google a Company called Micro Focus. My ex was the 7th employee to join the Company. Had a chequered history, but its rise showed
that anything is possible. The founders did work exceptionally hard and ultimately walked away handsomely rewarded.

ninky_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Google a Company called Micro Focus. My ex was the 7th employee to join the Company. Had a chequered history, but its rise showed
that anything is possible. The founders did work exceptionally hard and ultimately walked away handsomely rewarded.

did they have many people on minimum wage?

Thrugelmir

ninky wrote: »

did they have many people on minimum wage?

Well my ex left school with no 'O' level qualifaications and started life as a copy typist for the Company.

They saw she had potential and was sent on training courses to enable her to run a main frame computer, and eventually after 20 years employment went on to manage all in-house computer matters such as hardware procurement, networking, help desk and so on.

She would never of had this opportunity within the Corporate world.

There's more to life than a minimum wage, just for turning up. Thats the chance for everyone to fulfill their real potential. Though thats only if they wish to of course. As rewards should come to those who deserve it.

michaels

Fail

Lets put everyone's wages up by 50% - what's that? the only way to afford it is if prices rise by 50%...

ninky wrote: »

also - as for saying that starbucks will charge more for the coffee than the small company, fair enough. takeaway /cafe coffees are a luxury good and more people will be able to afford the increased price if they get paid more anyway.

marklv

bendix wrote: »

On the contrary. The large law firm I work for has all sorts of public-sectorish non-jobs, from secretarial managers to three people employed in the Diversity Team (!!!!!!?) and even things call community liaison officers. Don't get me started on the non-jobs in HR and IT.

But, then again, the difference is that we're not using public money to pay for them.

So I presume that if you are not a fee-earner, you have a non-job, right? I can't believe that someone who is intelligent enough to reach a senior position in a law firm can actually believe such tripe.

marklv

bendix wrote: »

I would, but outside frightens me. It's full of people. Some of them are fat.

Oh the horror of having to witness it.

I have a 52 inch waist. And I'm coming to find you........ha, ha, ha!

Generali

ninky wrote: »

it will be interesting to keep an eye on australia where the minimum wage has just gone up to $15 an hour. that's over £9 in a straight currency conversion. will unemployment go up as a result?

FWIW, things are a little more complicated than that in Australia.

We have an 'award wage' which varies depending on the job you do and the industry in which you do it. The award wage for an accounts clerk working in a hospital may be different for someone doing the same job in a mining company.

For example, the award wages for retail:

http://www.industrialrelations.nsw.gov.au/awards/pdf/Rates_0601.pdf

For example, a junior shop assistant under the age of 16 makes a minimum of $6.559/hour (page 2) whereas a 20 year old doing the same job earns a minimum of $14.76/hour. A common complaint among HSC (A level) students working in MacDonalds or for Target/Big W is that when they hit 18, they no longer get any shifts and it is pretty unusual (although not unheard of) to be served by an adult outside of school hours in a fast food joint over here.

The rules specify all sorts of allowances. For example, a full time shop worker that has to wear a uniform gets a laundering allowance of $9.40 a week.

The rules impose a cost burden on companies due to their complexity, for example a small hospital that I was finance manager for had to have a 3-day a week pay clerk to manage the pay of perhaps 40 or 50 employees. I wouldn't imagine that a UK company of that size would employ someone just to pay their employees.