Rise in living wage

maryliza the exception not the rule and further investment is made in companies from the profits. It doesn't all go into the pockets of directors and shareholders.

But small businesses do not have directors and shareholders.

It isn't a rise when other commodities have to increase their prices too ( rolls eyes )

The only people who are paid (probably below) minimum wage in our small business are DH and I . The lads are all paid well above as they are skilled workers. It’s foolish to think that putting minimum wage up drastically won’t have an impact on prices and jobs too .

Small businesses do have directors and shareholders. They are called the owners and many are private limited companies.

if you have a business it needs people at the top to run it, as gillybob makes so clear. And while I would not argue against the fact that the board directors of many public companies are paid outrageously large salaries, and other perks. Like the managers of smaller companies they do work extremely hard. For a lot of my working life I worked close to board directors and saw not just the long hours they worked but the constant travelling they did.

The jobs and livelihoods of thousands of other people and their families depended on their decisions. Asgillybob shows, even when only a few jobs depend on your decisions, it is a heavy responsibility.

I am no expert on either economics or politics, but it seems to me that these arguments about the possible impact of the Living Wage on small (and not-so-small) businesses are exactly why governments came to be topping up the salaries of low-paid workers in the first place. The benefits were/are a subsidy for those businesses.

My guess is that the system worked quite well, in that it kept the employment level up at very little cost, with such top-ups functioning as a very useful, and discrete, form of quantitive easing.

That was until the Government made the demonizing of all benefit claimants its main policy. It started with the 'shirkers', but it was only a matter of time before it filtered down - or up - to the feckless, benefit-claiming'workers'!

So which is best, the Living Wage or top-up benefits?

The living wage sounds the best - why should anyone doing a proper job expect anything less?
However, some posters have pointed out that this might lead to higher paid workers wanting more, to maintain the salary difference. This then leads to inflation, and the minimum wage has to be raised again, leading to a vicious circle. Or some businesses simply aren't viable and will cease to trade.

Top-ups avoid those risks. However, they wrongly make low-paid workers a target for accusations of being scroungers, and they have the indignity of having to be assessed for benefits.
And of course, not every one is eligible. I presume (tell me if I am wrong) that like most benefits, eligibility is based on household income rather than individual. In other words, someone with a better-paid partner will get no top-up. The Living Wage does away with this unfairness (apart from the age aspect).

It's a dilemma!

My DH is 67 and works about 60 hours per week (often many more) . I only work 26- 30 at “that place” ( depending on childcare duties) but plenty more from home . Why do some people assume that anyone running their own business must be rolling in it while paying their staff in buttons? Often in very small businesses such as ours it is quite the contrary . I wouldn’t expect any of our lads to work a minute overtime without being (well) paid for it .

GracesGranMK3
Er...hang on. What on earth are you talking about?
I've never written that I begrudge other people having enough to live on so how dare you say that and, as for you asking what is so awful in my life that I'm 'driven' to write such a thing...it beggars belief that you target me in such a manner.
As for your assertion that I'm a strident Tory...prove it. Where have I written anything remotely suggesting such a thing?
You asked the question.
My answer is that whatever my politics, my morals always take precedence and I have absolutely no sway in implementing the laws and rules of government spending, therefore what I want has no impact.
Rules changed to suit me?
Laughable in the extreme.

We pay above minimum wage and have numerous add on benefits.

However, when it comes to the time of year when we look at pay rises, we have to judge whether or not in the climate/area we operate in can we realistically put up our prices to cover the increase.

Profits are constantly being reinvested, building upkeep, computer systems updates (to be HMRC compatible) new vehicles, which is a huge outlay especially with the new ULEZ brought in my The most useless mayor of London.

It is not just a question of employees deserving/needing a pay rise it is the viability and ripple effect of said pay rise.

I also wonder if they will consider a higher living amount for pensioners, but won't hold my breath.

I hope no one is assuming that, gillybob. I certainly don't. From your previous posts, it is clear that you value your employees, and that you and your husband are the ones who don't have a good income from your business.

Say for example minimum wage became £15 per hour . Hurray everyone would say ! Except let’s not forget . Employers NI contributions would go up as would employers pension contributions ( now law) . In turn those semi skilled or skilled people already on £15 or more would expect percentage rises accordingly . Prices would be forced to rise and The result would be that we would be back where we started pretty quickly without many of the unskilled jobs and small employers .

About time what took them so long I know it's, Austerity not an economic nessessity, And there still is Austerity. Labour will give £10 an hour.

People complain about eg clothing manufacturers outsourcing to countries with which pay far smaller wages and provide poor conditions which don't have to meet our health and safety standards. We cant have it both ways. We either have to pay more or swallow our scruples.
gillybob's business sounds typical of so many that are around. Decent employers doing their best for their staff and customers and being squashed in between!

gillybob- agree

I wonder if this is aimed at reducing the benefits bill as much as anything else. All well and good if people actually end up better off. My daughter recently had a small pay rise, and lost her free school meals, help with school transport and, I think her free prescriptions. She is now considerably worse off.

I think we, as a country, need to 'look after' our smaller businesses as they serve us best by, in the main, keeping their money in this country.
I'm mindful of the fact that many components/goods have to be sourced from overseas but those small businesses don't have stashes in cantons in Switzerland or homes in the Cayman Islands.
In truth, I cannot see our manufacturing industry having a renaissance as we just cannot compete with China, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Vietnam all of whom seem to make everything under the sun at knock-down prices.
Even my vacuum cleaner is made in China and a recent book purchase was bound in China
As I and others have said, there seems no real solution re the wage dilemma as each scale will want a rise to keep the divide between skilled and unskilled. A catch 22 if ever there was one.
I think Philip Hammond will find it well nigh impossible to please both employers and employees if he's still in the job.

Gma29 I wondered the same thing.

GabriellaG54 i thought the person eho accused you of being a Tory was quite tude. I am a member of the Conservative party and unhappy at the moment with the govt. However, if I was a labour voter I would not be happy either as I do not admire Mr Corbyn! It is so juvenile to be so accusatory to posters who are merely expressing a point if view.

I’m in the same position as you GrannyIris5 I have worked for the same employer for years and I’m still on the minimum wage, the CEO’s salary has doubled in 5 years ie £80000 to £160,000, amazing!! and I work for a charity. I work part time now, far to old to seek other employment!!!

Too old I mean

That's the "living wage" which is a notional aim, not the "minimum wage" which is the legal lowest you're allowed to pay. Quite a gap between them.

With you gilly and for a building firm we have the cash in hand lot to compete with, we rise costs and the public will hire the cash in hand .

As you may remember, Gillybob, we have mutually commiserated in the past about the trials and tribulations of running a small business. I am lucky that I am now out and I would say to anyone; self employment? yes, employer? no. Everyone, including many of my staff, seemed to think that I was coining it in, the truth was that like you, I broke the law every month by not paying myself the legal minimum wage. As to increasing the minimum, I am wholeheartedly in support of it, BUT many of those who are in support are not prepared to pay the increased costs, preferring instead to buy goods made cheaply (and with exploited labour) overseas, or to pay people in cash in the brown envelope/cash in hand economy. There is a lot of hypocrisy, on GN we have read of people boasting about how little they pay for clothes in the dreaded Primark, conveniently shutting their minds to the cruel labour practices involved in producing those clothes, let alone the jobs being lost in the skilled UK sector.

The prospect doesn't look good for future retirees, especially those who are single or widowed. It's a hard slog ahead !