Should every worker expect a pay rise in line with inflation?

As Mick Lynch said "There are more and more billionaires. There is plenty of money in this country - but it is mostly in the wrong hands"

Just now I think all workers should get a rise in line with inflation. Small businesses need lots of people to have a bit of spare money. Billionaires are no good to them.

The three suggestions I questioned were ones I heard put forward. Some union members have said that every worker should expect a pay rise in line with inflation. The employers will feel the marketplace puts a value on a job. The current government feels it will win votes by showing it can destroy unions even if, by doing so, it destroys much-needed workers' lives.

I wasn't putting any forward as the right way; more, I wanted others' views of just how these things would work or if they had other, completely different, suggestions.

I wonder if the title should have been more along the lines of Maisie's question. Perhaps "How do you define the value of a job?"

Gman

MaizieD you are right how do place more value on one job over another. The trodden path is to plead for doctors and nurses. Try going without Bin men and/or delivery drivers. Each and everyone provides a service that maintains life and welfare of us all. Getting a pay rise by force of industrial action is a backwards step. By examination of any company accounts it is obvious that labour costs are a large part of the company overheads and can only be balanced by increased prices on the companies products, which the consumer may pay the extra or shop elsewhere. Before there is any blame placed on profits and shareholders. What do we go into business for? It is not to make Wigits it is to make money. The Employer sets up the company and the worker hires him/herself out. All to make money!

There is 'making money' and there is making excessive profits on the back of keeping labour costs as low as possible.

In the latter case there is no reason why some of the profit can't go to the workers without whom those profits could not be made. And no reason why prices should be increased to cover the wage increases. This is the approach that is increasingly being taken by unions and is very successful.

Taking industrial action isn't taking a backward step. It is the only way that workers can demonstrate their value to the company. Without unions and without industrial action workers could not have achieved the rights and protections they now have. A wise employer doesn't let wage negotiations get to the stage of industrial action.

As you point out, the relationship between employer and employee should be one of mutual benefit. When the employer is in a dominant position the benefit all runs one way.

You know that the purpose of life isn't solely to acquire money. People who think that have their values badly skewed.

MaizieD you are right how do place more value on one job over another. The trodden path is to plead for doctors and nurses. Try going without Bin men and/or delivery drivers. Each and everyone provides a service that maintains life and welfare of us all. Getting a pay rise by force of industrial action is a backwards step. By examination of any company accounts it is obvious that labour costs are a large part of the company overheads and can only be balanced by increased prices on the companies products, which the consumer may pay the extra or shop elsewhere. Before there is any blame placed on profits and shareholders. What do we go into business for? It is not to make Wigits it is to make money. The Employer sets up the company and the worker hires him/herself out. All to make money!

When people enter employment at an agreed salary, their household budget is worked around the buying power this gives them, including mortgage etc.

So don’t be surprised if people then argue to at least keep their salary in line with inflation.

Seeing the massive payouts to CEOs, shareholders etc is doubly galling when the company maintains it can’t afford a pay rise.

or should they get the same rises as MP's who can claim on expenses for food ,heating and everything else they can think of ? Surely it shouldn't be one rule for the PUBLIC servants at WM and a different one for the rest of us?

How do you propose to establish the value of the job they are doing, DaisyAnne?