|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 9, 2020 14:09:59 GMT
Over the years haven't we created a problem for ourselves that will have to be addressed at some point.
On the one hand basic wages/ the so called Living wage isn't really a Living People/ families can't actually live on it. Now we need Government subsidy/ Universal credit to enable people to live. ( and / or foodbanks)
In the 60s and 70s it was possible to live on one wage. Now it seems that two are necessary just to survive.. ...but much of the second wage goes to childcare....which it could be argued leads to other issues" ....what's the point of trying to bring a child up when straight away you effectively are forced to hand over responsibility / time with your child to others. And to make it work we ( tax payers) have to subsidise the childcare.. ....
So you could say both Universal credit, any benefit/ child care is subsidising employers ( Many of whom may also claim that , relatively speaking for the effort and risk , they are also " struggling"... some are/ some aren't ( faceless multinationals?).
Rents are relatively high as a proportion of income, House prices are prohibitive for many......if interest rates rise, can the system survive?
And again only benefits enable rents to be paid in some instances.
I'm not trying to allocate blame here whatsoever, nor make simple ( party)political points ( because it's quite obvious what the polarised arguments will be) ... although of course inevitably it will be Political. I think that we have inadvertently developed a system which both main Political parties have " colluded" with that at some point will have to be addressed .
Gregg's bonus is futile.........
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2020 17:06:04 GMT
Up the Universal Basic Income.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 9, 2020 17:35:08 GMT
Up the Universal Basic Income. I'm not necessarily against considering that Lil, but I think that the problems are now systemic ( you of course might say that it is pure capitalism) in the way that the UK economy seems to operate.I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of the economy but I don't see a pragmatic way in which the issues that I refer to can be solved. Multiple issues but ( as I realise that you know).... taxpayers are subsidising business and landlords.... therefore paid for in part by basic taxpayers. Part of the demand from the left is " we need increased benefits".... which I can understand...but I don't think it is the solution. Realistically I don't think that Universal Basic Income is on the agenda as a ( part) solution.... even if you think it should be. I've no Idea why I started the thread, just wanted to see if what I'm thinking is correct. |
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Jan 9, 2020 17:44:24 GMT
Over the years haven't we created a problem for ourselves that will have to be addressed at some point. On the one hand basic wages/ the so called Living wage isn't really a Living People/ families can't actually live on it. Now we need Government subsidy/ Universal credit to enable people to live. ( and / or foodbanks) In the 60s and 70s it was possible to live on one wage. Now it seems that two are necessary just to survive.. ...but much of the second wage goes to childcare....which it could be argued leads to other issues" ....what's the point of trying to bring a child up when straight away you effectively are forced to hand over responsibility / time with your child to others. And to make it work we ( tax payers) have to subsidise the childcare.. .... So you could say both Universal credit, any benefit/ child care is subsidising employers ( Many of whom may also claim that , relatively speaking for the effort and risk , they are also " struggling"... some are/ some aren't ( faceless multinationals?). Rents are relatively high as a proportion of income, House prices are prohibitive for many......if interest rates rise, can the system survive? And again only benefits enable rents to be paid in some instances. I'm not trying to allocate blame here whatsoever, nor make simple ( party)political points ( because it's quite obvious what the polarised arguments will be) ... although of course inevitably it will be Political. I think that we have inadvertently developed a system which both main Political parties have " colluded" with that at some point will have to be addressed . Gregg's bonus is futile......... Set a national minimum wage that is roughly comparable to the average minimum wage in Western Europe and then enforce it vigorously. If there is no such thing, set a minimum wage that is roughly 75% of the average wage throughout Western Europe making it clear that this is a MINIMUM wage not a TARGET wage. HMRC to have the powers to prosecute those who do not/will not pay it. As you've said, most multi-nationals can afford to pay it but they choose to keep wages low because they are allowed to, and because we tax payers subsidise them via "tax credits" and all the other "benefits" we pay. As people move through their careers and develop more skills and knowledge, their incomes should rise to be above average. At the same time, firms should expect increases in productivity which take us to the average for Western Europe and if anyone is not pulling their weight, they should be got rid of and replaced creating competition to get and retain a job. You could call this "a fair day's work for a fair day's pay" or something like that. Property rents, mortgage costs and other expenses would fall to be in line with earnings and there should be no tax payer subsidy for those with a mortgage which only serve to push prices up. Give local authorities the means to build "social housing" where there is a need but to be able to remove problem tenants to prevent the growth of sink estates. Some of the above would cause a few problems but these could be addressed over time. And then work to make "benefits" a helping hand, rather than a life style choice, And then work to make the NHS fit for purpose by making it take care of basic traumas faced by the population but not a 'luxury service' expected by all. If a basic 'get you back on your feet' service is not good enough for you, then pay for something better yourself. There would be plenty more things to be getting along with, but the above would be a start. |
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Jan 9, 2020 19:19:01 GMT
Over the years haven't we created a problem for ourselves that will have to be addressed at some point. On the one hand basic wages/ the so called Living wage isn't really a Living People/ families can't actually live on it. Now we need Government subsidy/ Universal credit to enable people to live. ( and / or foodbanks) In the 60s and 70s it was possible to live on one wage. Now it seems that two are necessary just to survive.. ...but much of the second wage goes to childcare....which it could be argued leads to other issues" ....what's the point of trying to bring a child up when straight away you effectively are forced to hand over responsibility / time with your child to others. And to make it work we ( tax payers) have to subsidise the childcare.. .... So you could say both Universal credit, any benefit/ child care is subsidising employers ( Many of whom may also claim that , relatively speaking for the effort and risk , they are also " struggling"... some are/ some aren't ( faceless multinationals?). Rents are relatively high as a proportion of income, House prices are prohibitive for many......if interest rates rise, can the system survive? And again only benefits enable rents to be paid in some instances. I'm not trying to allocate blame here whatsoever, nor make simple ( party)political points ( because it's quite obvious what the polarised arguments will be) ... although of course inevitably it will be Political. I think that we have inadvertently developed a system which both main Political parties have " colluded" with that at some point will have to be addressed . Gregg's bonus is futile......... Eventually we’ll have to have some form of universal income. There just isn’t enough demand for labour that allows families to look after themselves without state support and the current welfare/tax system creates all kinds of crazy distortions. Eg crazy high rents in London which are largely supported by the state or your Greggs example of the bonus being worthless owing to UC. It will have to be properly radical and replace all other types of benefit. Housing benefit, pensions, tax credits etc, etc will all have to go. The minimum wage will have to go and tax allowances will have to go. Tax rates will start from the first pound earned. |
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Jan 9, 2020 19:25:29 GMT
Up the Universal Basic Income. I'm not necessarily against considering that Lil, but I think that the problems are now systemic ( you of course might say that it is pure capitalism) in the way that the UK economy seems to operate.I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of the economy but I don't see a pragmatic way in which the issues that I refer to can be solved. Multiple issues but ( as I realise that you know).... taxpayers are subsidising business and landlords.... therefore paid for in part by basic taxpayers. Part of the demand from the left is " we need increased benefits".... which I can understand...but I don't think it is the solution. Realistically I don't think that Universal Basic Income is on the agenda as a ( part) solution.... even if you think it should be. I've no Idea why I started the thread, just wanted to see if what I'm thinking is correct. Fogg is wrong. It isn’t that the subsidy is supporting Greggs to exploit workers. It’s just the logic of the market. Too much labour. If there was less labour they’d have to compete for it. If Greggs started paying much higher wages they’d be out of business pretty quick. Let businesses be businesses and let the state look after people. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 9, 2020 19:44:45 GMT
I'm not necessarily against considering that Lil, but I think that the problems are now systemic ( you of course might say that it is pure capitalism) in the way that the UK economy seems to operate.I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of the economy but I don't see a pragmatic way in which the issues that I refer to can be solved. Multiple issues but ( as I realise that you know).... taxpayers are subsidising business and landlords.... therefore paid for in part by basic taxpayers. Part of the demand from the left is " we need increased benefits".... which I can understand...but I don't think it is the solution. Realistically I don't think that Universal Basic Income is on the agenda as a ( part) solution.... even if you think it should be. I've no Idea why I started the thread, just wanted to see if what I'm thinking is correct. Fogg is wrong. It isn’t that the subsidy is supporting Greggs to exploit workers. It’s just the logic of the market. Too much labour. If there was less labour they’d have to compete for it. If Greggs started paying much higher wages they’d be out of business pretty quick. Let businesses be businesses and let the state look after people. It seems that we have created a system though ( inadvertently perhaps. right or wrong?)..in which businesses depend upon people working part time/ 16 hours, then depending on UC/ other benefits to survive. A comparable scenario exists in respect of childcare/ rent... state subsidy required to make it work ... I'd imagine that some would argue that people actually need greater benefits to survive....but actually that is supporting the system that probably the same people criticise.....so ok the same people may argue for system change.....but pragmatically I can't see that happening.....Are" We " are perpetuating an unsustainable and even ludicrous system when we look at the relationship between benefits/ wages? ( I'm just thinking out loud really,I don't pretend to have fully thought this through, just expecting the wisdom of the EE board) Edit I don't necessarily think that Fogg is wrong but I do think that you are right in terms of labour supply and demand..... isn't that now going to be s permanent part of the UK economy....too many people for full FULL TIME employment? |
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Jan 9, 2020 19:49:20 GMT
Vodafone have just sent me a text for a free hot drink from Gregg's happy days for everyone 🥳
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 9, 2020 19:54:35 GMT
Fogg is wrong. It isn’t that the subsidy is supporting Greggs to exploit workers. It’s just the logic of the market. Too much labour. If there was less labour they’d have to compete for it. If Greggs started paying much higher wages they’d be out of business pretty quick. Let businesses be businesses and let the state look after people. It seems that we have created a system though ( inadvertently perhaps. right or wrong?)..in which businesses depend upon people working part time/ 16 hours, then depending on UC/ other benefits to survive. A comparable scenario exists in respect of childcare/ rent... state subsidy required to make it work ... I'd imagine that some would argue that people actually need greater benefits to survive....but actually that is supporting the system that probably the same people criticise.....so ok the same people may argue for system change.....but pragmatically I can't see that happening.....Are" We " are perpetuating an unsustainable and even ludicrous system when we look at the relationship between benefits/ wages? ( I'm just thinking out loud really,I don't pretend to have fully thought this through, just expecting the wisdom of the EE board) Edit I don't necessarily think that Fogg is wrong but I do think that you are right in terms of labour supply and demand..... isn't that now going to be s permanent part of the UK economy....too many people for full FULL TIME employment? Years ago a mans wages paid for everything. Mortgage the lot. Most women did not work full time Then more women went full time. so instead of having a lot of extra money how are we are now in a situation where both men and women need to work to pay the bills |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 9, 2020 20:05:43 GMT
It seems that we have created a system though ( inadvertently perhaps. right or wrong?)..in which businesses depend upon people working part time/ 16 hours, then depending on UC/ other benefits to survive. A comparable scenario exists in respect of childcare/ rent... state subsidy required to make it work ... I'd imagine that some would argue that people actually need greater benefits to survive....but actually that is supporting the system that probably the same people criticise.....so ok the same people may argue for system change.....but pragmatically I can't see that happening.....Are" We " are perpetuating an unsustainable and even ludicrous system when we look at the relationship between benefits/ wages? ( I'm just thinking out loud really,I don't pretend to have fully thought this through, just expecting the wisdom of the EE board) Edit I don't necessarily think that Fogg is wrong but I do think that you are right in terms of labour supply and demand..... isn't that now going to be s permanent part of the UK economy....too many people for full FULL TIME employment? Years ago a mans wages paid for everything. Mortgage the lot. Most women did not work full time Then more women went full time. so instead of having a lot of extra money how are we are now in a situation where both men and women need to work to pay the bills I think that's what I'm trying to say Salop but you put it better than me. Where's it all gone wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 9, 2020 20:17:12 GMT
I suppose that one way of looking at Gregg's bonus is that they are paying the Government £7m back that they should have been paying to their workers in any case..... it's just because of the system that most of the workers don't actually benefit.
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 9, 2020 20:56:05 GMT
Years ago a mans wages paid for everything. Mortgage the lot. Most women did not work full time Then more women went full time. so instead of having a lot of extra money how are we are now in a situation where both men and women need to work to pay the bills I think that's what I'm trying to say Salop but you put it better than me. Where's it all gone wrong? Part of it is now we have double income we could afford bigger houses etc. So things started costing more meaning you now actually need the double income to do what a single income previously did. Women’s lib enslaved us all  |
|
|
|
Post by woodstein on Jan 9, 2020 22:57:32 GMT
World war 3 soon but lets not bother - just have a go at Greggs. Mind you the veggie "sausage" rolls are crap!
|
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Jan 10, 2020 12:07:37 GMT
My staff were paid a basic £300 christmas bonus and we will pay out a performance/profit related bonus in February.This over the years varies quite a lot, most we have paid £2,500 and least £400 over the past ten years.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 10, 2020 12:12:15 GMT
World war 3 soon but lets not bother - just have a go at Greggs. Mind you the veggie "sausage" rolls are crap! I don't think it is fair to have a ho st Gregg's , you shouldn't be encouraging that in my opinion |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jan 10, 2020 13:16:24 GMT
My staff were paid a basic £300 christmas bonus and we will pay out a performance/profit related bonus in February.This over the years varies quite a lot, most we have paid £2,500 and least £400 over the past ten years. Out of interest a couple of questions on the performance related bonus you pay... Is it based on overall company performance or individual performance? Is it a fixed sum to all eligible staff or is the amount specific to a member of staff eg a percentage of salary |
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Jan 10, 2020 13:29:02 GMT
My staff were paid a basic £300 christmas bonus and we will pay out a performance/profit related bonus in February.This over the years varies quite a lot, most we have paid £2,500 and least £400 over the past ten years. Out of interest a couple of questions on the performance related bonus you pay... Is it based on overall company performance or individual performance? Is it a fixed sum to all eligible staff or is the amount specific to a member of staff eg a percentage of salary Is it based on overall company performance or individual performance?=The February bonus is performance linked. Is it a fixed sum to all eligible staff or is the amount specific to a member of staff eg a percentage of salary=The Christmas bonus is profit related and is eligible to all staff and is the same throughout, whatever your salary is. |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jan 10, 2020 13:57:27 GMT
Out of interest a couple of questions on the performance related bonus you pay... Is it based on overall company performance or individual performance? Is it a fixed sum to all eligible staff or is the amount specific to a member of staff eg a percentage of salary Is it based on overall company performance or individual performance?=The February bonus is performance linked. Is it a fixed sum to all eligible staff or is the amount specific to a member of staff eg a percentage of salary=The Christmas bonus is profit related and is eligible to all staff and is the same throughout, whatever your salary is. Thanks. My question was related to your February bonus which looks like it can be the most lucrative. It’s a hard thing to get right - the balance between company performance (can you afford a bonus) and individual performance (and how that is measured) not forgetting that bonuses based on percentage of salary naturally reward the highest payers unless you have some sort of sliding percentage mechanism (eg lower quartile get 10%, top quartile 1%). I ask because I’ve never seen this done effectively whereby the reward goes to where it is most deserving and needed! Good to see you doing something though. Hope it is working well. |
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Jan 10, 2020 14:30:02 GMT
Is it based on overall company performance or individual performance?=The February bonus is performance linked. Is it a fixed sum to all eligible staff or is the amount specific to a member of staff eg a percentage of salary=The Christmas bonus is profit related and is eligible to all staff and is the same throughout, whatever your salary is. Thanks. My question was related to your February bonus which looks like it can be the most lucrative. It’s a hard thing to get right - the balance between company performance (can you afford a bonus) and individual performance (and how that is measured) not forgetting that bonuses based on percentage of salary naturally reward the highest payers unless you have some sort of sliding percentage mechanism (eg lower quartile get 10%, top quartile 1%). I ask because I’ve never seen this done effectively whereby the reward goes to where it is most deserving and needed! Good to see you doing something though. Hope it is working well. Cheers, rather than bonuses I would like to pay staff no bonus and give them more salary.But it isnt that easy. |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jan 10, 2020 14:34:41 GMT
Thanks. My question was related to your February bonus which looks like it can be the most lucrative. It’s a hard thing to get right - the balance between company performance (can you afford a bonus) and individual performance (and how that is measured) not forgetting that bonuses based on percentage of salary naturally reward the highest payers unless you have some sort of sliding percentage mechanism (eg lower quartile get 10%, top quartile 1%). I ask because I’ve never seen this done effectively whereby the reward goes to where it is most deserving and needed! Good to see you doing something though. Hope it is working well. Cheers, rather than bonuses I would like to pay staff no bonus and give them more salary.But it isnt that easy. I think bonuses are good things - but they are hard to get right and can lead to all manner of problems. There are other ways of rewarding folk for good performance that they appreciate. Getting base salaries right is the key though. That is what folk can base budgets on. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 22, 2020 17:51:30 GMT
Ronnie Draper, the general secretary of the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers union, which represents thousands of Greggs staff, told The Guardian it had only been contacted by one member of staff worried about losing out on the bonus.
He added that the union would discuss alternative ways the payment could be made if workers were losing out, adding that Greggs was a "decent company" that paid higher wages than most on the High Street.
It is not known how many Greggs staff members are on universal credit.
|
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Jan 24, 2020 6:41:01 GMT
It seems that we have created a system though ( inadvertently perhaps. right or wrong?)..in which businesses depend upon people working part time/ 16 hours, then depending on UC/ other benefits to survive. A comparable scenario exists in respect of childcare/ rent... state subsidy required to make it work ... I'd imagine that some would argue that people actually need greater benefits to survive....but actually that is supporting the system that probably the same people criticise.....so ok the same people may argue for system change.....but pragmatically I can't see that happening.....Are" We " are perpetuating an unsustainable and even ludicrous system when we look at the relationship between benefits/ wages? ( I'm just thinking out loud really,I don't pretend to have fully thought this through, just expecting the wisdom of the EE board) Edit I don't necessarily think that Fogg is wrong but I do think that you are right in terms of labour supply and demand..... isn't that now going to be s permanent part of the UK economy....too many people for full FULL TIME employment? Years ago a mans wages paid for everything. Mortgage the lot. Most women did not work full time Then more women went full time. so instead of having a lot of extra money how are we are now in a situation where both men and women need to work to pay the bills Its called matrial possesion must have at any cost |
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Jan 24, 2020 7:04:28 GMT
Don’t know whether you’re aware, but there are now no Greggs in Cornwall. The last one shut in Saltash, just over the Tamar, a week or so age.
Pastie Liberation!
|
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jan 24, 2020 9:43:46 GMT
Don’t know whether you’re aware, but there are now no Greggs in Cornwall. The last one shut in Saltash, just over the Tamar, a week or so age. Pastie Liberation! The last one. The first one. The only one. Three in one for the Ex-Saltash Greggs. You can see why - you can’t beat a proper Cornish Pastie. |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jan 24, 2020 10:29:08 GMT
The utter clot running the country didn't even know what the Gregg's bonus was in PMQ's on Wednesday.
|
|
