Jobs No One Wants

[durhamborn]

I think you're deluding yourself a bit that it's an ethical choice as it simply sounds like an arrangement that's convenient for you and are these guys paying tax and NI on this, or you? You may need to make sure your insurance would cover if they got injured, if they're not on the books.

It would probably be more ethical to outsource your container destuffing as the staff there would likely be contracted and PAYE.

We have powered conveyors that go right inside from the loading bay so it's never more than a two man job and I wouldn't think it's a long way from being automated as it's one of the few big manual handling tasks left. It's a pretence that any business could insulate itself from that, if its competitors had gone down this path. The choice then is be uncompetitive in price (I'm sure you're aware how feasible this is as an ebay business) or it's out of your own take home as a charitable donations - in such circumstances I'd rather give the money to a sick kid's charity.

With an internet business as well there's no real incentive to put money into the local economy as chances are it isn't going to come back to you in the way it would with traditional local businesses.

The guys are self employed as they get work from agencies as and when ,they don't claim benefits.They simply submit a tax form as everyone else self employed.I don't use my warehouse I destuff at a warehouse several people use and they have insurance to cover anyone working on site.(that's how we can undercut Amazon sharing the big costs)

The extra wgaes doesn't even come into my costs its so small.A penny on diesel hits me around 8 times more than paying people decent money.

It is different though for me because im not contracting full time staff and only need them a couple of days a month so pay much higher per hour to compensate for its only a couple of days.

That's however the point.When a business cant offer anything more secure,and only needs short term labour it should pay more.In the ops post this "agency" wanted people on short term hours,no security,massive risk,nightshift and all for NMW.

Then they wonder why nobody wants it.

[Executive Sadman]

A face that needs a slap.

He reminds me of the gormless one on that essex car dealership thing from a couple of months back. Maybe its the ears?

[SNACR]

You talk of the need for business to be competitive- but what is it they are competing for? The answer is simple- they are competing for a share of the wages paid out to the people employed by business- because in general demand for goods and services is a function of wages.

So assume that your future view of employment comes to pass and more and more people end up in insecure employment that pays less than it's full time counterpart- what impact will this have on the pool of wages available to consumers- that pool will go down- which means less demand for goods and services.

So the more successful business is in reducing the wages it pays out, the less demand there will be for goods and services- which will in turn lead to further attempts to cut wages in order to remain 'competitive'.

I don't disagree with your predictions- but to me they represent not the success of the free market model but a failure. As far as I can see there is no feedback mechanism in the free market paradigm that would allow it to incorporate the reality that it's labor force and it's customer base are the same thing- and lacking that insight the free market is quite capable of industriously sawing off the branch upon which it is sitting.

This isn't as big issue as you make out. I'm pretty sure plenty of plumbers, builders and carpenters spend money despite not being on full-time PAYE. In any case, if Asda Walmart goes out of business, due to a lack of wage slaves and benefit recipients to furnish with cheap tat and low quality food, then big woop.

I'm not really making social commentary on the particular rights and wrongs of it but, I do hold the people sat on the metaphorical branch a lot more responsible for the branch sawing than some nebulous, and evil, invisible hand of the free market. They voted for a party that opened the floodgates to immigration (multiple times) and they bought the cheap goods made cheaply elsewhere. I think they should take a lot of the pain if, as you seem to want to, you pass the pain on to those who weren't responsible, are you any better than George Osborne yourself?

[SNACR]

The guys are self employed as they get work from agencies as and when ,they don't claim benefits.They simply submit a tax form as everyone else self employed.I don't use my warehouse I destuff at a warehouse several people use and they have insurance to cover anyone working on site.(that's how we can undercut Amazon sharing the big costs)

The extra wgaes doesn't even come into my costs its so small.A penny on diesel hits me around 8 times more than paying people decent money.

It is different though for me because im not contracting full time staff and only need them a couple of days a month so pay much higher per hour to compensate for its only a couple of days.

That's however the point.When a business cant offer anything more secure,and only needs short term labour it should pay more.In the ops post this "agency" wanted people on short term hours,no security,massive risk,nightshift and all for NMW.

Then they wonder why nobody wants it.

I think you're right but I would be unsurprised if you could find workers on the terms he was offering in areas of high immigrant labour.

[Goat]

You talk of the need for business to be competitive- but what is it they are competing for? The answer is simple- they are competing for a share of the wages paid out to the people employed by business- because in general demand for goods and services is a function of wages.

The problem is that the business pays 100% of the cost of higher wages but gets <0.0000000001% of the benefit.

[Hectors House]

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/danny-james/53/952/638

What a moron

[SNACR]

The problem is that the business pays 100% of the cost of higher wages but gets <0.0000000001% of the benefit.

People moan about trickle down being BS but there's not much trickle up either.

The problem with increasing low end job wages is they spend the least with SMEs and areas likely to boost employment. The reality is too much will likely to go on fags, online gambling and imported tat.

[Goat]

The employer:

• Gave 4 hours notice to the agency (not the employee);

• Wanted 50 people that night(?);

• The potential employees would probably have been awake all day and then expected to do a full night shift for minimum wage at extremely short notice.

If someone asked me to do that I would give the employer two fingers as well. The employer could be better prepared and realise that he has 50 jobs to fill and so start finding people a little earlier. The employer sounds like a tuckwitted fwat to me.

Yep, something sounds very strange in this story, I find it hard to believe that any employer would suddenly need 50 workers at very short notice unless someone has screwed something up unbelievably. I find it very hard to believe that any competent RA would agree to find 50 workers for min wage at 4 hours notice.

My bet is the whole story is a fabrication intended to drum up some free publicity for the RA.

[Hectors House]

Danny James - sex addict

Is this the same one?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8602811.stm

[workingpoor]

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/danny-james/53/952/638

What a moron

Shades of Ratner here

[wonderpup]

This isn't as big issue as you make out. I'm pretty sure plenty of plumbers, builders and carpenters spend money despite not being on full-time PAYE. In any case, if Asda Walmart goes out of business, due to a lack of wage slaves and benefit recipients to furnish with cheap tat and low quality food, then big woop.

I'm not really making social commentary on the particular rights and wrongs of it but, I do hold the people sat on the metaphorical branch a lot more responsible for the branch sawing than some nebulous, and evil, invisible hand of the free market. They voted for a party that opened the floodgates to immigration (multiple times) and they bought the cheap goods made cheaply elsewhere. I think they should take a lot of the pain if, as you seem to want to, you pass the pain on to those who weren't responsible, are you any better than George Osborne yourself?

Surely those 'floodgates' being opened is in accordance with your free market principles- or would you advocate the creation of an artificial scarcity of workers to drive up wages?

I was simply taking your predictions for the future of employment and pointing out a problem- can we continue to run a society based on consumer spending and the ability to service a lot of credit while at the same time destroying the earning power and job security of more and more people?

As you point out- those who deploy the zero hours temp style system will undercut those who don't, forcing their competitors to do the same- and as this practice moves up the value chain- which it is- then soon even those who currently have good secure incomes will become reluctant to spend more or take on more debt.

At the level of the individual company the zero hours/ temp work paradigm is a no brainer- why would you not go down this road if you can simply buy the skills you need on an ongoing basis- it makes perfect sense.

But this is exactly how the tragedy of the commons problem arises- because what might be good viewed from the micro level can be seen to be bad at the macro level- and creating a society of people who are less well paid, have far less job security and no long term stability is-to put it simply- bad for business.

[SNACR]

Surely those 'floodgates' being opened is in accordance with your free market principles- or would you advocate the creation of an artificial scarcity of workers to drive up wages?

I was simply taking your predictions for the future of employment and pointing out a problem- can we continue to run a society based on consumer spending and the ability to service a lot of credit while at the same time destroying the earning power and job security of more and more people?

As you point out- those who deploy the zero hours temp style system will undercut those who don't, forcing their competitors to do the same- and as this practice moves up the value chain- which it is- then soon even those who currently have good secure incomes will become reluctant to spend more or take on more debt.

At the level of the individual company the zero hours/ temp work paradigm is a no brainer- why would you not go down this road if you can simply buy the skills you need on an ongoing basis- it makes perfect sense.

But this is exactly how the tragedy of the commons problem arises- because what might be good viewed from the micro level can be seen to be bad at the macro level- and creating a society of people who are less well paid, have far less job security and no long term stability is-to put it simply- bad for business.

Depends on the business, probably ok for the payday loans business.

I'm not sure free markets, globalisation and freedom of movement are the same interchangeable ideologies you suggest.

[TheMadJock]

A business employing full-time contracted staff on the traditional basis is, and will remain, uncompetitive.

Zero hours, automation and self-employed is the future. Mostly, it's the fault of people's purchasing and voting choices - a lot of whom are probably now moaning about it.

This guy is obviously an attention-seeking ***** but, I'm not sure why people think businesses should or will pay more than they need to when they buy labour. Half the people moaning on this thread will probably buy something off ebay later and change the search result setting to lowest price first as an almost involuntary response.

Why the hell should everyone else pay extra tax so benefits/top-ups etc can give someone just about enough to survive on because businesses around the country pay less than a living wage? They are being subsidised; like I said, if you can't pay someone properly then you're out of business.

I know it's a complex issue but it's just not right when all these people go around spouting off about 'lazy, work-shy people' when their whole business model is based on leeching off others.

[moneyfornothing]

You talk of the need for business to be competitive- but what is it they are competing for? The answer is simple- they are competing for a share of the wages paid out to the people employed by business- because in general demand for goods and services is a function of wages.

So assume that your future view of employment comes to pass and more and more people end up in insecure employment that pays less than it's full time counterpart- what impact will this have on the pool of wages available to consumers- that pool will go down- which means less demand for goods and services.

So the more successful business is in reducing the wages it pays out, the less demand there will be for goods and services- which will in turn lead to further attempts to cut wages in order to remain 'competitive'.

I don't disagree with your predictions- but to me they represent not the success of the free market model but a failure. As far as I can see there is no feedback mechanism in the free market paradigm that would allow it to incorporate the reality that it's labor force and it's customer base are the same thing- and lacking that insight the free market is quite capable of industriously sawing off the branch upon which it is sitting.

+1000000 ... There is a middle ground to be found between capitalism and socialism.. How is the big question..

[sombreroloco]

Pay a proper rate for night shifts, you scrounger.

Plenty of East Europeans willing to work for less than NMW. British workers are just lazy and pampered.

[@contradevian]

Plenty of East Europeans willing to work for less than NMW. British workers are just lazy and pampered.

Not in this case they weren't.

[SarahBell]

Not in this case they weren't.

How many hours flight is it from eastern europe?

It's one of those stories where you know there's many layers to this. Is he going to advertise abroad now for workers after having found the local attempt didn't work?

[eztiger]

http://metro.co.uk/2013/10/20/businessman-slams-lazy-jobseekers-after-no-one-applies-for-50-vacancies-4154102/

Minimum wage for nightshift.

Wow night shift for minimum wage thats a massive drop from my recollections of night shift rates over the last 20 years which I think were at least around 1 and a half times the standard wage which was above the minimum wage.

[disenfranchised]

Why the hell should everyone else pay extra tax so benefits/top-ups etc can give someone just about enough to survive on because businesses around the country pay less than a living wage? They are being subsidised; like I said, if you can't pay someone properly then you're out of business.

That's the capitalist game - take as much in the form of benefit-subsidised labour as you can whilst simultaneously avoiding as much tax as possible.

Until we have a left of centre party who are interested in the wellbeing of working people, rather than just the redistribution of token amounts of wealth and the appeasement of the failed dinosaur unions, it won't get any better.

[billybong]

If someone had signed a zero hours contract in order to do a night shift (or any other shift for that matter) and then the work didn't materialise then that person would still be counted as employed for the purpose of benefits and for the purpose of the employment statistics etc.

They were discussing that issue on the radio a couple of days ago.

Once a person signs a zero hours contract then they are counted as employed even if they never get any work.

To then become unemployed they have to resign (or be sacked) from the contract and sign on for JSA etc.

Under those circumstances the only people likely to be interested in such work are people with no entitlements to benefits whatsoever - so the chance of a bit of work might help with whatever income they can scrape together outside of work.

Edited October 22, 2013 by billybong

[Eddie_George]

Wow night shift for minimum wage thats a massive drop from my recollections of night shift rates over the last 20 years which I think were at least around 1 and a half times the standard wage which was above the minimum wage.

Yes, in my summer holidays in 1997, I think I got £12/hour for a night shift at a factory doing stacking on a 12-hour shift, sweeping etc. If not £12, it was no lower than £10/hour. I remember that the day rate was lower in any case.

[Bora Horza]

I saw a job recently in North London that paid the same for day and night shift... £6.80/hour

The 'Incentive' to work night shift was that full time hours might be available but if you worked days/lates then only part time hours would be on offer. This was a zero hour contract too.

I got paid more for my 1st job nearly 17 years ago!

[Goat]

Yes, in my summer holidays in 1997, I think I got £12/hour for a night shift at a factory doing stacking on a 12-hour shift, sweeping etc. If not £12, it was no lower than £10/hour. I remember that the day rate was lower in any case.

I saw a job recently in North London that paid the same for day and night shift... £6.80/hour..

..I got paid more for my 1st job nearly 17 years ago!

The consequence of new labour's unlimited immigration and multiculturalism: a vast flood of workers willing to do any job for minimum wage bidding down the wages for everyone else thus ensuring that the job that would've paid £10/hour 15 years ago now pays £6.80.

[Bora Horza]

The consequence of new labour's unlimited immigration and multiculturalism: a vast flood of workers willing to do any job for minimum wage bidding down the wages for everyone else thus ensuring that the job that would've paid £10/hour 15 years ago now pays £6.80.

I realise the causes behind it.

In my area of east London, British/English have gone from being the majority to being a minority in my life time. When there are plenty of jobs and the moneys ok, all these different cultures will rub along alright... but if the economy was to get much worse, then it's going to be a very unpleasant place to live in my view.

[Oliver Sutton]

A face that needs a slap.

Germans have a word for that - Backpfeifengesicht.