Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

How do increase salaries while keeping labour costs down?


Recommended Posts

The only responsibility of a company is to raise income for its shareholders.

So companies have a conflict of interest with their employees as they aren't shareholders, nobody cares about them.

How do you solve this inverse relationship?

Apparently New Zealand has minimum pay agreements, whereby there are agreements on fair pay.

Australia has sectoral minimum payment agreements where the sector as a whole has agreed a minimum salary. (See this ft article)

So far, my ideas are an essential workers stipend, which is a top up in pay from the government for being an 'essential worker'. Such as a shelf stacker or a delivery driver.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Government protections for workers protect them from having jobs.

A big reason why Spain, Italy, Greece and France are so buggered is their absurd labour protection laws.

 

This adversarial view you are presenting between employer and employee is not how things actually run. If a business mistreats its employees, it will quickly lose its best talent and be outcompeted. The way corporations get around this is to engage the massive violent coercion of a government to destroy their competitors. 

Employee conditions are not improved by increasing State power or size. In fact, they are harmed. 

How well were employees treated in the Soviet Union?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the thread title and the OP seem to be asking slightly different things, but as far as the thread title is concerned... 

At my last job anyone on more than a basic or junior role was basically on salary freeze for 10 years, while the money free for payrises went to cover increases in the minimum wage, then there was a drive by our employer to get all staff onto the living wage. 

So basically increase the wages of your low paid staff and forget about anyone on over £20-25k. Presumably it all balances out 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, phantominvestor said:

The only responsibility of a company is to raise income for its shareholders.

So companies have a conflict of interest with their employees as they aren't shareholders, nobody cares about them.

How do you solve this inverse relationship?

Apparently New Zealand has minimum pay agreements, whereby there are agreements on fair pay.

Australia has sectoral minimum payment agreements where the sector as a whole has agreed a minimum salary. (See this ft article)

So far, my ideas are an essential workers stipend, which is a top up in pay from the government for being an 'essential worker'. Such as a shelf stacker or a delivery driver.

A bit of a narrow focus.

Even the chief c unt EO - Jack Welschh decided it was junk.

The problem companies have is that the higher margins work requires skilled labour.

Look at al the penny pinching companies that have been left i nthe dust by the likes of Apple Google n FB.

The top 10 US companies all pay very high wages.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Locke said:

This adversarial view you are presenting between employer and employee is not how things actually run. If a business mistreats its employees, it will quickly lose its best talent and be outcompeted. The way corporations get around this is to engage the massive violent coercion of a government to destroy their competitors.

It very much depends on the job. For those in the lowest skilled jobs they can kick out anyone who grumbles easily enough and replace them (or look for machines to kick people out and not have to replace them at all). What you say works more higher up the scale, although you don't have to look too far to find examples of companies who have lost decent employees thanks to short-sightedness and paid the price for it.

Ultimately though, looking at the question from the widest perspective, I think it's one of wealth distribution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, spyguy said:

The top 10 US companies all pay very high wages.

They'll still  be keen to reduce their wage bill though, they're just sensible enough to know when it would be counter-productive to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bluestone59 said:

I worked in a place where a guy got promoted to a management post.

Unfortunately with effect from the same day, all management posts were forced to take a pay cut.

He found he was on less money.

That's fairly common, particularly in retail where a store manager is salaried so not paid overtime and finds them selves responsible for a large retail store on the main street but earning a lot less than staff willing to do a fair amount of overtime.

Employers are also keen to move employees onto being 'self employed' as it saves the employers NI and other benefits, even if there's no credible argument that the role is self employed. 

Internships seem to be popular at the moment as well, I know a few fairly junior roles with interns in which I think equates to minimum wage but you get to learn. But then your internship ends and you get replaced with another Intern. 

Employers for low paid jobs also work around legislation as closely a spossible, my mum had he shift changed so she was working 10 mins a day less than would have entitled her to a break. That kind of thing. 

And of course you only need to be able to offer your staff 16 hours at the minimum wage, because the govt will top it up for you so your staff just about can afford shelter and food. Brilliant! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

It very much depends on the job. For those in the lowest skilled jobs they can kick out anyone who grumbles easily enough and replace them (or look for machines to kick people out and not have to replace them at all). What you say works more higher up the scale, although you don't have to look too far to find examples of companies who have lost decent employees thanks to short-sightedness and paid the price for it.

Ultimately though, looking at the question from the widest perspective, I think it's one of wealth distribution.

Even "no-skill" jobs are far better served by someone who can get up early, be on time and is a reliable worker. I think you are underestimating how much of a cost a poor employee is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a jobs MARKET.

Anyone who has the right skill sets and is worth their salt WRT work ethics doesn't need:-

  • a Union,
  • Min Wage,
  • Employment rights.

When they go to the market, they tend to set their own wages and conditions via negotiation...its basic supply and demand.

The removal of this ability of the worker is the main reason for immigration in the past and present.

Now if you are not in demand either due to your entitled attitude or your irrelevant set of skills, its a different story.

Its rather difficult for a worker to negotiate when both worker and employer know who is holding the whip hand...who is doing who a favour.

The moral here is to keep moving and learning, formal education at school and Uni are important as a foundation but ultimately only minor part of this.

You need to position yourself so that you are necessary in the economy, keep an eye on future trends...ensure you are always relevant.

This can take a lifetime of work but the ultimate goal is freedom.

Resist the comfort zone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, cbathpc said:

Sack the useless workers who are posting on HPC at 11:30 on a monday. Just keep your good staff.

 

ahem..

Are you sure, I'm hoping keeping abreast of current affairs and having an agile enquiring mind qualifies as continuing professional development.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, phantominvestor said:

So far, my ideas are an essential workers stipend, which is a top up in pay from the government for being an 'essential worker'. Such as a shelf stacker or a delivery driver.

So you want to bring tax credits back? Government topping up wages, especially for full time jobs, is such a bad idea I don't know where to start. We saw all of the perverse incentives of such during the tax credits era, and all of the perfectly rational responses from the people who took advantage. That's bad enough (16 hour pw positions at who-cares-how-much pay, because all that matters is tax credit eligibility), but my main objection is on principle. If a full time wage isn't enough to live on, then it's not a real job. Either pay more to attract an employee who can make a living working for you, or go without. If that means we have to pay a few more pounds on our weekly shop at Tesco then that is a reasonable trade-off. There should be very few or no "in-work" benefits, IMO. The tax credit system at its heart was effectively corporate welfare, which allowed companies to offer min-wage jobs, often part time, in the knowledge that people would take them and the government would make up the difference. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Locke said:

Even "no-skill" jobs are far better served by someone who can get up early, be on time and is a reliable worker. I think you are underestimating how much of a cost a poor employee is.

Fair point, but then it comes down to how many reasonably reliable potential employees there are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, mattyboy1973 said:

If a full time wage isn't enough to live on, then it's not a real job. Either pay more to attract an employee who can make a living working for you, or go without. If that means we have to pay a few more pounds on our weekly shop at Tesco then that is a reasonable trade-off. There should be very few or no "in-work" benefits, IMO. The tax credit system at its heart was effectively corporate welfare, which allowed companies to offer min-wage jobs, often part time, in the knowledge that people would take them and the government would make up the difference. 

Agree in theory, but in practice it all backfires. People like their cheap stuff and will vote for governments to keep it cheap, even if it means government paying wages businesses should be paying. The other downside is that if wages go up ways of just getting rid of the jobs altogether will get accelerated. Plenty of people here seem to cheer that on but the reality it's a very serious problem we've not got a solution to (beyond hoping something will magically turn up because it usually has done for a relatively short period of history).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cbathpc said:

Sack the useless workers who are posting on HPC at 11:30 on a monday. Just keep your good staff.

 

ahem..

ha...good one!

Is it that easy? A direct link between being useless and posting here?

Are all working at 1130?

Such a simple binary assumption gives a clue to all about your level of capability.

What opportunities might your employer miss out on with that level of analysis on the books?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Agree in theory, but in practice it all backfires. People like their cheap stuff and will vote for governments to keep it cheap, even if it means government paying wages businesses should be paying. The other downside is that if wages go up ways of just getting rid of the jobs altogether will get accelerated. Plenty of people here seem to cheer that on but the reality it's a very serious problem we've not got a solution to (beyond hoping something will magically turn up because it usually has done for a relatively short period of history).

All true as well. I think we are heading inexorably towards some kind of universal basic income.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Riedquat said:

It very much depends on the job. For those in the lowest skilled jobs they can kick out anyone who grumbles easily enough and replace them (or look for machines to kick people out and not have to replace them at all). What you say works more higher up the scale, although you don't have to look too far to find examples of companies who have lost decent employees thanks to short-sightedness and paid the price for it.

Ultimately though, looking at the question from the widest perspective, I think it's one of wealth distribution.

Indeed.

However, the UK has labour laws and minimum wages and welfare to protect the bottom ~50%.

Thats was until, err Labour, allowed half of EE to pour in, destroying the lowest earners labour premium and increasing their living costs.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, spyguy said:

Indeed.

However, the UK has labour laws and minimum wages and welfare to protect the bottom ~50%.

Thats was until, err Labour, allowed half of EE to pour in, destroying the lowest earners labour premium and increasing their living costs.

Shh, good for GDP innit?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cbathpc said:

Sack the useless workers who are posting on HPC at 11:30 on a monday. Just keep your good staff.

I have gotr rid of 2 peoploe in the last year who spent hours on social media in my time for thwich they were being paid

 

4 minutes ago, spyguy said:

Indeed.

However, the UK has labour laws and minimum wages and welfare to protect the bottom ~50%.

Thats was until, err Labour, allowed half of EE to pour in, destroying the lowest earners labour premium and increasing their living costs

hushhhhhhhhh you cannot say that you will be called a swivel eyed rabid racist. Even though you are correct.  The same flood of people put huge pressure on houseprices. I genuinely feel for those who would like to buy a house but are unable to do so due to the high property prices, EXCEPT for people who are unhappy that property prices are so high but still support freedom of movement, easy migration, giving refugees a free house etc.  If they are so stupid they cannot understand the concept of supply and demand they deserve what they get and I have less than zero sympathy for them.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, phantominvestor said:

So companies have a conflict of interest with their employees as they aren't shareholders, nobody cares about them.

How do you solve this inverse relationship?

The first premise in nonsense. It is I am sure so in some huge corporate companies but not in most smb which make up most of the UK employment.  I understand as do many others that my staff are assets and I reward them accordingly.  My sales guy last year earned in excess of 100k which is more than I took in salary.  Same my denier developer.

As to how to solve the inverse relationship the answer is simple and it is happening every week - automation AI robotics.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mattyboy1973 said:

So far, my ideas are an essential workers stipend, which is a top up in pay from the government for being an 'essential worker'. Such as a shelf stacker or a delivery driver.

From the taxpayer not the govt

 

2 hours ago, Roman Roady said:

is a jobs MARKET.

Anyone who has the right skill sets and is worth their salt WRT work ethics doesn't need:-

  • a Union,
  • Min Wage,
  • Employment rights.

When they go to the market, they tend to set their own wages and conditions via negotiation...its basic supply and demand.

The removal of this ability of the worker is the main reason for immigration in the past and present.

Now if you are not in demand either due to your entitled attitude or your irrelevant set of skills, its a different story.

Its rather difficult for a worker to negotiate when both worker and employer know who is holding the whip hand...who is doing who a favour.

The moral here is to keep moving and learning, formal education at school and Uni are important as a foundation but ultimately only minor part of this.

You need to position yourself so that you are necessary in the economy, keep an eye on future trends...ensure you are always relevant.

This can take a lifetime of work but the ultimate goal is freedom.

Resist the comfort zone.

All very true

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, richmondtw said:

From the taxpayer not the govt

Hold on, you're quoting something I quoted - I'm against in-work benefits in general. As to the distinction between the taxpayer and the government, there isn't one. I wish people would stop talking about government paying for things and instead acknowledge that we are all paying for this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, phantominvestor said:

The only responsibility of a company is to raise income for its shareholders.

So companies have a conflict of interest with their employees as they aren't shareholders, nobody cares about them.

How do you solve this inverse relationship?

Apparently New Zealand has minimum pay agreements, whereby there are agreements on fair pay.

Australia has sectoral minimum payment agreements where the sector as a whole has agreed a minimum salary. (See this ft article)

So far, my ideas are an essential workers stipend, which is a top up in pay from the government for being an 'essential worker'. Such as a shelf stacker or a delivery driver.

Cut taxes and NI. Pay being taken home increases. VAT cuts would also be an effective pay increase.

If taxes were cut enough Britain would become competitive. Businesses would migrate here and pay would increase. State spending would need to go down, though. So don't hold your breath.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 418 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.