Emeritus Prof Christopher MayMar 19

As more employers (from Harvey Nichols to Hays Travel Agency) are identified (named & shamed) for not paying the minimum wage, often citing 'technical errors' now corrected.... we are also seeing claims (due to legal shifts) young people are *too* expensive to employ.

But, we're never told mid-level or top executives are too expensive to employ, nor that shareholders are too expensive to reward (via dividends); no, its always the low paid who must adjust!

#workers #politics
h/t FT

Show threadPatrick HadfieldMar 19
@ChrisMayLA6 if their business model relies on cheating low paid employees to keep going, I can't help thinking maybe it isn't a viable business. (Similarly, relying on government to top up wages through tax credits.) Just a thought...!
Show threadManc AvGeek
@patrickhadfield @ChrisMayLA6
This is another thing I complain about - these businesses, and their owners, complain that they are paying too muuch tax, and too much of that is going into paying benefits, especially top-up benefits to workers in the form of tax credits.
"That's just giving people handouts!" they cry.
But the people who benefit most from the tax credits are the big mega corps who can get away with paying people subsistence level wages.
A high Minimum Wage level tends to hurt small businesses - I can think of several small shops and takeaways near me who would go under if they didn't have their teenage children manning the tills or stocking shelves -- but low levels lead to exploitation by the big employers.
I don't envy the people who have to judge where Minimum Wage levels have to go, but I also know what it is like being paid far too little for backbreaking work.
Mar 19 at 9:48amWeb
Show threadEmeritus Prof Christopher MayMar 19

@mancavgeek @patrickhadfield

Exactly: in-work benefits are essentially corporate welfare for low-wage employers, subsidising their profits....