BHA fined for paying minimum wage

dingodan · Jan 7, 2017

marlowe said:
In so far that an older person would not be able to legally offer his services for £4 an hour even if he was prepared to work for that I suppose it is unfair. Maybe a fairer system would be if it wasn't tiered and there was a level playing field but I think the lower rate is there to give the employer who might struggle to pay the full rate an alternative option.

If it wasn't tiered I would assume the level playing field would be put at the top rather than the bottom, i.e. a flat minimum wage of 7,8,9GBP per hour, rather than 4.

The whole point of the minimum wage is to help the poor, the idea being that what happens is you raise the minimum living standards in society, because - nobody is paid less than that minimum wage. But what actually happens is that nobody in employment is paid less than the minimum. But some will not be in employment who otherwise would be. The idea is that the guy who was being paid 4GBP per hour, will now get 7,8,9GBP per hour, and as such will experience a raise in thier living standards. But in many cases the guy who was (or would be) paid 4GBP an hour is now not unable to get a job.

So we do end up with a decent wage and standard of living for people in employment. But as an unintended consequence we also end up with greater unemployment, and those who suffer the consequences of that higher level of unemployment, those people who cannot get a job, they are the very people the minimum wage was supposed to protect and help.

lost in london · Jan 7, 2017

beorhthelm said:
you say its not true then agree with the premise. of course they pay as little as necessary, do you pay more than you need to for anything? largely pay reflects the market for skills combined with the productivity of their labour. funny thing is exactly the same principle is applied by unions, trying to lock out non-union labour, insisting their better skilled members get the work, for more pay.

I don't think I contradicted myself. My view is that if a company could find staff who were willing to work for £1 an hour, they would likely pay them £1 an hour. In a hugely wealthy, civilized country I don't think people should be paid £1 an hour because it's not a sustainable income. I think it's right the government sets a minimum wage, in part to protect people from themselves and their desperation. But what do I know.

portslade seagull · Jan 7, 2017

dingodan said:
Nothing hurts the young & low skilled worker more than the minimum wage does.

I will never understand why people accept the idea that a minimum wage tackles poverty, it creates poverty.

As does zero hour contracts

dingodan · Jan 7, 2017

Your Mum said:
....your mum.

My mum loves me.

And so does yours.

dingodan · Jan 7, 2017

lost in london said:
I don't think I contradicted myself. My view is that if a company could find staff who were willing to work for £1 an hour, they would likely pay them £1 an hour. In a hugely wealthy, civilized country I don't think people should be paid £1 an hour because it's not a sustainable income. I think it's right the government sets a minimum wage, in part to protect people from themselves and their desperation. But what do I know.

You aren't considering competition in the market place though. I could start a business with a plan to pay my staff 1GBP per hour. I wouldn't be able to hire anyone though, because if I could offer 1GBP per hour, someone else could offer 2GBP an hour. They might not have much luck either though, because it would would likely still be worthwhile to pay 3GBP per hour and so on, until eventually we arrive at an appropriate price. This is how the market sets prices, and it goes for labour in the same way as it does for lemonade. Like anything else it's supply and demand (or at least it should be).

Herr Tubthumper · Jan 7, 2017

dingodan said:
You must understand my point because like you say, the young person who can be paid less has an advantage (or rather, a means to compete) in the employment market.

I'd rather they compete on ability and skills and not wages.....which is partly what the minimum wage allows for.

Herr Tubthumper · Jan 7, 2017

dingodan said:
You aren't considering competition in the market place though. I could start a business with a plan to pay my staff 1GBP per hour. I wouldn't be able to hire anyone though, because if I could offer 1GBP per hour, someone else could offer 2GBP an hour. They might not have much luck either though, because it would would likely still be worthwhile to pay 3GBP per hour and so on, until eventually we arrive at an appropriate price. This is how the market sets prices, and it goes for labour in the same way as it does for lemonade. Like anything else it's supply and demand (or at least it should be).

You sound like a 15 year old who has just got to the supply and demand part of their GCSE.

dingodan · Jan 7, 2017

Herr Tubthumper said:
I'd rather they compete on ability and skills and not wages.....which is partly what the minimum wage allows for.

Would you rather that a low skilled person compete with a higher skilled person, for a job where whomever gets the job will be paid 7GBP per hour? You know what will happen don't you. The latter will win out every time.

What about if a low skilled person competes with a higher skilled person, for a job where the low skilled person, if they are successfull will be paid 4GBP an hour, and the higher skilled person will be paid 7GBP per hour if they are successful?

Counter intuitive as it may seem, the second option is the level playing field. Allowing people to compete in terms of the price of their labour is precisely how you level the playing field when there is an inequity in terms of ability and skills. It's actually the only way you can.

beorhthelm · Jan 7, 2017

lost in london said:
I don't think I contradicted myself.

your contradiction was saying companies pay as little as they can, after saying the premise companies pay what people "deserve" is wrong. its the same thing, though i'd prefer to say what their labour is worth.

Herr Tubthumper · Jan 7, 2017

dingodan said:
Would you rather that a low skilled person compete with a higher skilled person, for a job where whomever gets the job will be paid 7GBP per hour? You know what will happen don't you. The latter will win out every time.

What about if a low skilled person competes with a higher skilled person, for a job where the low skilled person, if they are successfull will be paid 4GBP an hour, and the higher skilled person will be paid 7GBP per hour if they are successful?

Counter intuitive as it may seem, the second option is the level playing field. Allowing people to compete in terms of the price of their labour is precisely how you level the playing field when there is an inequity in terms of ability and skills. It's actually the only way you can.

I believe everyone should be paid a living wage, this is my bottom line. Then the competition, in whatever shape or form, begins. It will take a lot more than your overly simple GCSE argument to convince me other wise.

Herr Tubthumper · Jan 7, 2017

beorhthelm said:
your contradiction was saying companies pay as little as they can, after saying the premise companies pay what people "deserve" is wrong. its the same thing, though i'd prefer to say what their labour is worth.

I think [MENTION=1561]lost in london[/MENTION] has it right. By and large companies charge customers, and pay their staff, what they can get away with.

portslade seagull · Jan 7, 2017

Herr Tubthumper said:
I believe everyone should be paid a living wage, this is my bottom line. Then the competition, in whatever shape or form, begins. It will take a lot more than your overly simple GCSE argument to convince me other wise.

Likewise, everyone should be paid a living wage, we all know some workplaces won't play by the rules with their employees to scared to speak up as then they would lose said job

dingodan · Jan 7, 2017

Herr Tubthumper said:
I believe everyone should be paid a living wage, this is my bottom line. Then the competition, in whatever shape or form, begins. It will take a lot more than your overly simple GCSE argument to convince me other wise.

I'm not interested in convincing you, only correcting you.

You believe everyone should be paid a living wage fair enough. I would like everyone to be paid as much as they can possibly command. But, if you set a minimum wage, like I have said, those people who you think you are helping will find it harder to get employment. You think they will go from a low wage to a higher wage, in practice they go from a low wage, to no wage. Is that preferable? Believing everyone should be paid a minimum wage makes you seem (and probably feel) very noble and virtuous. However being ignorant or dismissive of the consequences of setting a minimum wage makes you neither.

And suggesting that I am 15 and taking my GCSEs as a means of trying to dismiss what I am saying is pretty poor form too.

beorhthelm · Jan 7, 2017

Herr Tubthumper said:
I believe everyone should be paid a living wage, this is my bottom line. Then the competition, in whatever shape or form, begins. It will take a lot more than your overly simple GCSE argument to convince me other wise.

this a social argument though, not economic.

Herr Tubthumper said:
I think [MENTION=1561]lost in london[/MENTION] has it right. By and large companies charge customers, and pay their staff, what they can get away with.

the point is that its the same value, what they can get away with is what the labour is worth. go too high and they will find an alternative that works better economically, or cut hours/head count. and go too low and the quality or skill of labour is too poor and not productive. (accept some take the piss and get it wrong, but thats the principle)

Westdene Wonder · Jan 7, 2017

Guy Fawkes said:
They are using that old example as a part of their new story as a demonstration of the types of businesses that have failed to pay employees properly at some point in the past

I suspect that this type of story is going to be repeated every few years & with our clubs name being used as an example every time. It's wrong imo, especially if it was a genuine admin error in bonus payments to a person on work experience - why should this get continually highlighted every few years and potentially damaging the club, especially when it's not that clear that it happened quite a while ago?

We must sort this out

Herr Tubthumper · Jan 7, 2017

dingodan said:
You think they will go from a low wage to a higher wage, in practice they go from a low wage, to no wage

This makes no sense. With a minimum wage of x pounds per hour all I expect is that everyone will be paid at least x pounds per hour. Nothing more, nothing less.

Herr Tubthumper · Jan 7, 2017

dingodan said:
I'm not interested in convincing you, only correcting you.

dingodan said:
And suggesting that I am 15 and taking my GCSEs as a means of trying to dismiss what I am saying is pretty poor form too.

The arrogance, not to mention the inaccuracy, of the first quote is also poor form.

dingodan · Jan 7, 2017

Herr Tubthumper said:
The arrogance, not to mention the inaccuracy, of the first quote is also poor form.

Ok bro.

Lindfield23 · Jan 7, 2017

drew · Jan 7, 2017

There is a load of hypothetical clap trap being spouted on this thread.

1. People are not paid what their skill set is worth, they are more likely paid for whatever skill set is required for the job. If your skill set is greater than required that doesn't mean you will necessarily get more than someone else doing the same job but with the minimum required skill set.

2. Companies will pay what they can get away with. Any remuneration package is designed to help the company make as much profit as it possibly can for it's owners/shareholders.

If all companies had integrity there would be no need for a minimum wage policy but the reality is that there are companies that will exploit unskilled workers either through poor conditions, low pay, not because that's all they can afford but because the owners want more and more. If you are against a minimum wage policy then I would suggest you are against virtually every employment law that protects employees. If we just relied on market forces then it would be a race to the very bottom.

As for Beorhthelm comment about unions, talk about living in the past. Do we actually have closed shops these days?

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

BHA fined for paying minimum wage

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

A. Virgo, Football Genius

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Drew

Share this page