National living wage - £7.20 from April 2016

szam_

mattcanary wrote: »

But perhaps Tax Credits are on their way to being abolished.
That would mean average spending power does not go up that much so the price of goods will not rise excessively.


Got to be better to have people paying their way rather than relying on Tax Credits for some of their income. It's better for all concerned (except perhaps for poor employers that are hapy for the government to subsidise them).

I agree with you in terms of a way to get people off Tax Credits, and saving the country money - but if I'm not mistaken, it's being pushed as a good thing and people will be better off, therefore people on those lower wages, or Nat. Min at the moment think they will actually be better off in 5 years time.

Fact is, Tax Threshold has gone up significantly over the last 5 years, yet people still complain about low wages etc. Wasn't this supposed to alleviate pressures on low wage families? Yet people are still in that situation where they feel they are no better off.

Doing this, whilst pushing it as "good for families" and "you'll be better off, more money in your pocket" is actually a false because in real terms, you're not better off - the tax credits have been replaced by working income, but you will likely, assuming the same job, be just as "well off" in 2020, as you are in 2015.

As for the comment about making it £9 in January and then raising it further - god no, such a sharp and extreme increase really isn't needed because you're trying to accomplish the same thing anyway. People are saying crap like this to make them look like they care about people on minimum wage by making it look like everyone is getting a pay increase, makes a politician look good to the type of person who doesn't really follow politics and is on a low wage - sound bites and all that.

I don't exactly know economics, but my problem with this isn't wages going up, that's inevitable, but just how sharply it will be rising - it devalues jobs significantly, and in my opinion, the closer to the minimum, the more affected you will be, in terms of being worse off.

As mentioned previously, my OH is incredibly disappointed because for her profession (dental nursing), she will likely become a minimum wage worker, unless companies are willing to increase wages in line with the minimum going up, which I doubt will happen. That effectively makes her worse off, for the benefit of others doing less skilled work. And she has to pay for numerous specific things to do her job too, unlike, say, a retail worker who doesn't need any special training or certificates to qualify them doing that job.

pillion

Some people will benefit from the rise in the minimum wage. I have recently been employed at just above minimum wage but because my husband earns a reasonable wage I have not been eligible for any tax credits so I'm looking forward to it. However, I'm not sure it's been thought through properly. It's not just those on the minimum wage that will need to be paid more it's all the differentials along the way. £9 an hour (£18720 a year) is a very good wage in these parts so many companies have several tiers all paid below this wage. I can't see how the care industry is going to afford it, elderly care is unaffordable now. Also, as someone pointed out earlier, many well educated and well trained people will be earning very little more than those who have neither. I'm waiting for the exceptions to be announced.

yenool

So the main argument against £9 it is that 'low skilled' workers like cleaning and retail may end up earning similar amounts to semi-skilled people earn now?

Perhaps I'm just a hardcore lefty but I think anyone that does a full hard day of work should be able to earn enough to get by, even if the work is 'low skill'.

This really is a brilliant move by Osborne... he gets the poor and poorest arguing with each other will the very rich make off with the loot as always.

Even £9 isn't a living wage IMO, well not for a single person not entitled to any benefits or state support. I calculate I would need to earn £12 to actually "live" rather than just exist day to day. I have no idea how people can manage on NMW at the moment, it must be grim especially if you live south east with high housing costs.

scooby088

Basically raising the now national living wage to £7.20 in april coincides with the reduction of wtc limit, now anyone who can do the math someone claiming wtc working 16 hours will be above the threshold to be able to claim wtc hence a back handed way of abolishing wtc.

pinpin

Firetastic wrote: »

I was watching Question Time and I think it was the UKIP lady who said they should have made it £9.00 in January and then increased it. Does anyone agree with this?

As someone whose always earnt around minimum wage (and always will)...YES!

scooby088

I would also hazard a guess that once this rise happens the number of zero hour contracts rises even further.

t0rt0ise

pillion wrote: »

However, I'm not sure it's been thought through properly. It's not just those on the minimum wage that will need to be paid more it's all the differentials along the way. £9 an hour (£18720 a year) is a very good wage in these parts so many companies have several tiers all paid below this wage. I can't see how the care industry is going to afford it, elderly care is unaffordable now.

I can't see how the NHS is going to be able to afford it. The lowest grade is paid £15,100 which won't be much more by the time the higher wage comes in. It'll be interesting to see what happens to all the higher grades. I've just left the NHS myself so will watch from afar.

DRiddle

The government website keeps saying about salaried staff who are contracted to x amount of hours a week which is fine if you work in an office but in a restaurant as the shift leader you could finish at 9:30pm when you stop serving or midnight when the last customers finally decide to leave!

We are looking to employ a new shift leader. We'd rather not pay them hourly because of the latter example, instead we are proposing to pay a salary over 52 weeks based on a rough estimate of 28 hours a week (that would be the minimum amount expected) but what happens if their hours are consistently higher than 28 hours per week. By rights they could demand over time at £7.20 an hour or down tools once they hit the 28 hour limit.

This is my main query which I need help with but the second point to this is the view point of who wants the responsibility of being a shift leader/supervisor for the same wage as my 25 year old barman which means we would have to offer a wage higher than the equivalent £7.20 an hour?

We are a small restaurant and do not rake in millions in profit, in fact being in our first year of trading we aren't even at the point of breaking even yet.

By 2020 we will be expected to pay our 25 and over staff £9 an hour and significantly more for higher positioned jobs. I just do not see how this is ever going to work. This will undoubtedly result in sacking all staff who are over the age of 25 (provided they've been with us less than 2 years) and employing a bunch of kids with little to no direction, dedication and motivation (not that I mean to tar all under 25s with the same brush)that will ultimately lead to customer complaints and a bad reputation surrounding our service standard. OR we could up our prices which could have an adverse effect on our footfall.

HappyMJ

DRiddle wrote: »

The government website keeps saying about salaried staff who are contracted to x amount of hours a week which is fine if you work in an office but in a restaurant as the shift leader you could finish at 9:30pm when you stop serving or midnight when the last customers finally decide to leave!

We are looking to employ a new shift leader. We'd rather not pay them hourly because of the latter example, instead we are proposing to pay a salary over 52 weeks based on a rough estimate of 28 hours a week (that would be the minimum amount expected) but what happens if their hours are consistently higher than 28 hours per week. By rights they could demand over time at £7.20 an hour or down tools once they hit the 28 hour limit.

This is my main query which I need help with but the second point to this is the view point of who wants the responsibility of being a shift leader/supervisor for the same wage as my 25 year old barman which means we would have to offer a wage higher than the equivalent £7.20 an hour?

We are a small restaurant and do not rake in millions in profit, in fact being in our first year of trading we aren't even at the point of breaking even yet.

By 2020 we will be expected to pay our 25 and over staff £9 an hour and significantly more for higher positioned jobs. I just do not see how this is ever going to work. This will undoubtedly result in sacking all staff who are over the age of 25 (provided they've been with us less than 2 years) and employing a bunch of kids with little to no direction, dedication and motivation (not that I mean to tar all under 25s with the same brush)that will ultimately lead to customer complaints and a bad reputation surrounding our service standard. OR we could up our prices which could have an adverse effect on our footfall.

A salaried member of staff can down tools the minute the shift ends and go home.

Most people don't though as they value the pay they get.

If you expect a member of staff to consistently work late then change the contract so that it requires the worker to stay an hour after closing to allow for customers to drink up and leave and then let the employee go home early if they are not required. Yes you've got to pay them for that hour but it's well worth it.

They would appreciate going home 15 minutes early much more than being made to stay 15 minutes late late almost every shift.

You might find the employee is more willing to be flexible when they can go home early. They would be much more willing to stay late without pay on another day.

I like my workers to be happy. I do not want them to be disgruntled in any way. Yes it might cost a little more to get that and you have to price that into whatever you supply so put the price up if you need to. Yes as you say that may have an adverse effect on footfall but having grumpy staff members has a negative effect on that too so keep them happy and your customers will see that. I don't want workers complaining to customers that they are working past time without pay. You might tell them not to mention it but they will.

joeyboy

Will be interesting what knock on effects it is, as said for many companies £9 an hour can be a rank or even a couple of ranks above a trainee/beginner salary, thus all the pay scale will need appropriate adjustment, significant wage inflation. Obviously that'll be put on the costs of whatever services/products that company produces. Though that said it doesn't necessarily mean people won't be somewhat better off.