I imagine one way around it would simply be to pay all unemployed people £7 per hour - at which point, wages would have to rise, and that cost would be borne by the employer rather than (as with in-work welfare) the taxpayer alone.
Minimum Wage: What's the Other Argument?
- Thread starter BvBPL
- Start date
I imagine one way around it would simply be to pay all unemployed people £7 per hour - at which point, wages would have to rise, and that cost would be borne by the employer rather than (as with in-work welfare) the taxpayer alone.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
I clearly overestimated the proportions. Oh well, sometimes it's better to learn than be stubborn. It's hard to win a debate getting numbers-crushed so I'll just concede this instead.
No, but it's still less appealing for McDonalds to come to town, same for others. It appears I have over-stated this effect, but while you may be correct that it's not material it's also virtually impossible that it's exactly zero. I will concede that it might not be enough to matter for decision-making purposes though, unless the MW goes nutzo to an unrealistic break point.
Agreed, I'd prefer a MW to those options, or most that involve extra players. MW is a lot more practical to both implement and track.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
I was a Union Steward for 20 years. This is freaking embarrassing.
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/27/8670529/la-union-exemption-minimum-wage
J
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/27/8670529/la-union-exemption-minimum-wage
J
Mise
isle of lucy
Well the article goes on to explain the rationale behind the decision. I'm not really sold, but I can at least see why they're pushing for it.
1) Companies who employ unionised workers are exempt from the minimum wage rules
2) Companies have an incentive to unionise their workforce (or hire more union workers, etc)
3) Unions can then negotiate for better conditions more broadly (i.e. on working hours, benefits, annual leave, maternity/paternity, etc, not just raw wages), relying on collective bargaining agreements rather than legislation and regulation to improve standards for workers
4) The centre of gravity is permanently shifted in the unions' favour, and collective bargaining agreements become the de facto means of workers achieving a better deal from employers
I think that logic makes sense, but as I said, I'm not entirely sold. But clearly, unions think that collective bargaining works, so it makes perfect sense to them.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Hypocracy issues are nothing new for Unions, but this is a high water mark. The article is as favorable as possible and still holds its nose.
Several people have pointed out that it is NOT necessary. It's just a talking point.
J
MrBojangles4
Chieftain
I believe that there should be no minimum wage.
Many jobs are not worth what they are currently being paid right now.
The most ignorant argument presented against this is the statement: "A two bedroom, two bathroom apartment cannot be afforded in any city in the United States at the current federal minimum wage."
The minimum wage is not meant to support a family. It is meant for the local high school kid to sweep the floor at McDonald's.
If you are 30 years old and have two kids working a minimum wage job, that is your own fault. Businesses should not be forced to pay you $15/hr because of your own irresponsibility earlier in life.
Many jobs are not worth what they are currently being paid right now.
The most ignorant argument presented against this is the statement: "A two bedroom, two bathroom apartment cannot be afforded in any city in the United States at the current federal minimum wage."
The minimum wage is not meant to support a family. It is meant for the local high school kid to sweep the floor at McDonald's.
If you are 30 years old and have two kids working a minimum wage job, that is your own fault. Businesses should not be forced to pay you $15/hr because of your own irresponsibility earlier in life.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Considering the minimum wage was implemented before there was a McDonalds, I'm going to have to view that statement with some suspicion.
What I have read on the history of the minimum wage indicates that it was aimed at creating liveable standards for adult workers.
http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/flsa1938.htm
http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/coverage.htm
That's certainly the explicit historical basis behind the Australian minimum wage award too. Basically each year the Minimum Wage Panel of thr Fair Work Commission makes a determination based on the national economy, workforce participation, living standards, the needs of the low paid, and equal pay for comparable work.
It's actually a set of different minimums by industry as well as a general minimum wage. And there's a set of lower rates for juniors (I think you can pay 15 year olds about half the adult minimum) and people with disabilities.
In practice the council of unions propose an increase and the business council no change or effectively no change. The Panel then hands down a finding on an increase each year. The effect is there's an increase every year and everyone knows it's coming which eliminates shock effects.
It's actually a set of different minimums by industry as well as a general minimum wage. And there's a set of lower rates for juniors (I think you can pay 15 year olds about half the adult minimum) and people with disabilities.
In practice the council of unions propose an increase and the business council no change or effectively no change. The Panel then hands down a finding on an increase each year. The effect is there's an increase every year and everyone knows it's coming which eliminates shock effects.
MrBojangles4
Chieftain
My point wasn't about the McDonald's. My point was that the minimum wage is supposed to pay a very low-skill worker for a job that requires no education. Adults that have children and can't afford the "Two-bedroom, two bathroom apartment" on minimum wage should not be able to. In fact, it isn't that difficult to get a job with no skills or education that pays more than $11.
High school kids tend to have jobs like sweeping the floor at a McDonald's. That job requires nothing besides maybe a criminal history background check.
That line of argument assumes that the state is going to make up the difference (unless you go down the Daily Mail line that anyone 'stupid' or 'thoughtless' enough to have children and find themselves out of work deserves to starve as a punishment), so passes the cost of providing these people away from the employer (ie, the person who actually directly benefits from their rather rubbish lot in life) to society at large. Personally I'd rather see Ronald McDonald obliged to look after his workers than the entire country go around making up for his greed.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Ronald McDonald has a better track record taking care of people than the state has of its wards.
J
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Ronald enriches a few and takes a little money from many. Sounds familiar. Ronald McDonald House is a luxury hobby it takes on. The big house is a luxury hobby taken on as well.
McDonalds fits into the niche in the economy it fits into. Inexpensive food and low wages. Though, it tends to pay competitive wages with what the State of Illinois pays me, for what that is worth. Apart from that, I wouldn't stoop so low as to compare it with the US Federal Government either, or most of the state level governments. The clown isn't even playing on the same level of hell.
McDonalds fits into the niche in the economy it fits into. Inexpensive food and low wages. Though, it tends to pay competitive wages with what the State of Illinois pays me, for what that is worth. Apart from that, I wouldn't stoop so low as to compare it with the US Federal Government either, or most of the state level governments. The clown isn't even playing on the same level of hell.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
I was going to say, McDs is not a low wage chain. Family shops are often much lower. What you do not get, unless you go into management, is benefits. Still, McDonalds has a good record of taking care of employees. So does Wallyworld.
J
Well, I do have to say that I now like the conservatives plan in the UK to raise the min wage to £9 an hour over the next couple of years, since that way I'll be earning more money!
Also, one problem with the statistic of how many workers get minimum wage is skewed, e.g. While the previous UK min wage was £6.50 ph, KFC paid their employees £6.60 ph, a mere 10p more.
Recently it went up to £6.70, but then they only need to pay £6.71 to not be classed as a minimum wage employer. Big whoop.
Also, one problem with the statistic of how many workers get minimum wage is skewed, e.g. While the previous UK min wage was £6.50 ph, KFC paid their employees £6.60 ph, a mere 10p more.
Recently it went up to £6.70, but then they only need to pay £6.71 to not be classed as a minimum wage employer. Big whoop.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
I've picked up the hobby, when I have the time and am shopping, of roundly screwing up the self-checkout lines in stores so that I can occupy an employee with fixing it. Otherwise I just go to a line with a cashier if I'm in a hurry.
I get my kicks where I can find them, I suppose.
