is my employer being unreasonable?

BillJones

Southend1 wrote: »

Inflation is the increase in the prices of goods and services so I would absolutely dispute that company revenue is not linked to inflation.

Er, are you being deliberately obtuse? A company could have a few great orders one year, and only a couple the next, or they could just find that there's increased competition the second year. There is simply no guarantee that any individual company will see their revenue increase directly in proportion with inflation, even inflation in their own sector, let alone CPI or RPI.

Are you simply being pedantic, and trying to play word games, or was your response genuinely intended to suggest that a company is able to always give inflation matching pay rises?

You do understand, don't you, why it is neither desirable nor practical to do so?

Southend1

sniggings wrote: »

Because RPI and CPI are directed affected by each other, if interest rates were to raise, mortgage/rents would raise too, reducing the money avaible in people pockets, which reduce demand, reduced demand raises prices, if I'm only making 10 ipads instead of 100 the price goes up, so does inflation.

That's an interesting theory. Do you have any sources? I'd like to learn a bit more about it.

I thought you may argue that higher inflation could cause a "wage price spiral" but I hadn't thought of a direct link in the way that you describe.

I suspect higher rates would cause lower house prices and therefore dampen the effect. Also there is only a certain proportion of mortgages directly tracking base rate, which would similarly dampen the effect.

Interesting though.

Southend1

sniggings wrote: »

I didn't say RPI was lower than CPI, but that RPI was unnaturally low, because of interest rates being kept low.

Sorry that's not what I meant. I meant low rates can fuel housing inflation and therefore increase RPI

Southend1

[QUOTE=BillJones;64297231

You do understand, don't you, why it is neither desirable nor practical to do so?[/QUOTE]

No I don't. Do you believe it's desirable to help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?

sniggings

Southend1 wrote: »

That's an interesting theory. Do you have any sources? I'd like to learn a bit more about it.

I thought you may argue that higher inflation could cause a "wage price spiral" but I hadn't thought of a direct link in the way that you describe.

I suspect higher rates would cause lower house prices and therefore dampen the effect. Also there is only a certain proportion of mortgages directly tracking base rate, which would similarly dampen the effect.

Interesting though.

it's not a theory it's fact, less money available inflation goes up, why do you think they are talking so much about the cost of living/inflation.

Wages are at an all time low, less money available and inflation is only being controlled somewhat by interest rates and QE.

Anyway...
It's time to end it when sarcasm takes the place of argument.

Southend1

sniggings wrote: »

it's not a theory it's fact, less money available inflation goes up, why do you think they are talking so much about the cost of living/inflation.

Wages are at an all time low, less money available and inflation is only being controlled somewhat by interest rates and QE.

Anyway...
It's time to end it when sarcasm takes the place of argument.

Sorry you feel I was being sarcastic, I can assure you that wasn't my intention.

Higher interest rates don't necessarily mean less money supply so I'm not sure I follow that argument.

I think the cost of living and inflation rate is in the news a lot mainly because people notice their wages don't stretch as far as they used to and the government needs to distract from the policy of inflating away debt by drawing attention to things like energy prices and the factors affecting rises in gas and electric prices.

You say there is less money available which is partially correct in the sense that money is debt and there has been a tightening of credit in recent years.

If you are able to point to any further reading on the causal link between RPI and CPI I'd be interested as I said in my earlier post. And I mean that without sarcasm, I assure you.

BillJones

Southend1 wrote: »

No I don't. Do you believe it's desirable to help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?

No, and I'm not arguing for low pay for anyone, either, so you are again strangely trying to change the subject. Can you not discuss things honestly?

I'll try one more time, if you genuinely are struggling to understand this. Any individual company will see revenues rise and fall based on a host of factors. They cannot exppect it to go up directly in line wiith CPI or RPI, and so cannot expect to raise wages in line with eiither of these measures.

If a company has a stellar year, and pays everyone great wages in line with that one year, but then goes back to their long-term average the following year, you seem to be arguing that the wages should still increase. This makes no sense at all, and you seem very unwilling to explain why it is either fair or right.

Do you genuinely believe, as you seem to, that if I was paid £200k last year that this year I should expect 200k + RPI this year? How would this be fair or right?

Southend1

BillJones wrote: »

No, and I'm not arguing for low pay for anyone, either, so you are again strangely trying to change the subject. Can you not discuss things honestly?

I'll try one more time, if you genuinely are struggling to understand this. Any individual company will see revenues rise and fall based on a host of factors. They cannot exppect it to go up directly in line wiith CPI or RPI, and so cannot expect to raise wages in line with eiither of these measures.

If a company has a stellar year, and pays everyone great wages in line with that one year, but then goes back to their long-term average the following year, you seem to be arguing that the wages should still increase. This makes no sense at all, and you seem very unwilling to explain why it is either fair or right.

Do you genuinely believe, as you seem to, that if I was paid £200k last year that this year I should expect 200k + RPI this year? How would this be fair or right?

I would agree with this IF wages bore any correlation to company performance. Yes this may be true, to a certain extent, in the £200k wage bracket. However for the vast majority of workers wages are generally the minimum level firms can get away with or the minimum required to retain a certain skillset in the business. And when you're talking about those earning NMW or below, or even just touching a living wage, it really does matter if your real earnings are shrinking. So yes, I would argue that employers have a moral duty to maintain wage levels in line with inflation if at all possible, even if this does mean a little less champagne at the next executive Christmas party or even tough decisions on reducing other costs. In the real world though, employees are a soft target nowadays because fewer of them are union members and many of them are scared to stand up for themselves because of years of anti union propaganda and drip feeding them the idea that the only way they can possibly hope to earn more is by working faster, longer and harder for no immediate gain.

Bantex_2

Southend1 wrote: »

I would agree with this IF wages bore any correlation to company performance. Yes this may be true, to a certain extent, in the £200k wage bracket. However for the vast majority of workers wages are generally the minimum level firms can get away with or the minimum required to retain a certain skillset in the business. And when you're talking about those earning NMW or below, or even just touching a living wage, it really does matter if your real earnings are shrinking. So yes, I would argue that employers have a moral duty to maintain wage levels in line with inflation if at all possible, even if this does mean a little less champagne at the next executive Christmas party or even tough decisions on reducing other costs. In the real world though, employees are a soft target nowadays because fewer of them are union members and many of them are scared to stand up for themselves because of years of anti union propaganda and drip feeding them the idea that the only way they can possibly hope to earn more is by working faster, longer and harder for no immediate gain.

Sorry, I am not meaning to be insulting, but you do sound like a throwback to the 70s.
Think you need to look at how hard it is for some companies to just keep going in the present climate. If you wish to see low and medium skilled wages to rise, you need to address the supply side.

BillJones

Southend1 wrote: »

...drip feeding them the idea that the only way they can possibly hope to earn more is by working faster, longer and harder for no immediate gain.

The message that I generally see being given is that the way to better wages is increased skill, education, and productivity. I've worked at both ends of the wage scale (well, I've not been up to premier league foootballer money, but I do pretty well), and the difference between the two ends is nothing to do with management managing to "keep down" one set of staff, while looking after the others, it was mainly down to how the staff acted.

When at the bottom my colleagues tended to do as little work as they could get away with, they'd clock off the minute they could, maximise their breaks, and view management as the enemy. They'd look to the union to "protect them" from making improvements, take sick leave as though it was an entitlement to be used up, and resent any sugggestion that they should look for ways for the company (or organisation) to become more efficient.

At the top end, the attitude was completely diffferent. Staff did whatever it took to do their job better. They'd spent years in poverty getting extra qualifications, researched where they could best add value, and then did whatever it took to do so. They'd work extra hours, unpaid, if necessary, always go the extra mile, find new ways to make the company bettter than it was, and generally understand that their role was far broader than the minimum specified in their contract. As a result companies fight to employ them, and the pay ends up being very good.

Unfortunately I feel that all too often unions spread this "them and us" atttitude among the workers, and give the idea that you are a traitor, or a "brown nose" if you do extra. It's sugggested that you are not showing solidarity, or are doing sommeone out of overtime, if you stay back unpaid to finish a piece of work, or to investigate a new way of working. This does not help the workers at alll.

I've even seen people suggesting that seeing nice cars in the car park means that a sense of grievance should be nurtured...