patiirc Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Pat, you're either still on those drugs for your many conditions, or you're mind is scrambled by pub girl.  Neither, fella  What is so hard to get your head around? Or is it that you prefer the doom and gloom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted June 17, 2011 Author Share Posted June 17, 2011 Sorry lad, but it's not the same as the opt-out option for working hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Halitosis Romantic Posted June 17, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted June 17, 2011 The laugh was more incredulity at your statement there Pat. It's nowhere near as trivial an issue as the opt-out agreement over working hours.  Yes it is! Its exactly the bloody same.  We have covered elsewhere that there are professions that dont get minimum wage anyway.  The scaremongering and Doom-merchanting about oh companies will only employ those who opt out and those who can and cant do this and whatever is a bit rich when it is exactly like opting out of the Working Time Directive  Technically people shouldnt be working 35 hours or more in a week, company gives them the option to do more ie Over Time or change hours at will as is the case with many places these days and they have to sign a bit of paper waivering their rights to keep to the 35 hour week   In this case you would have to sign to say you have to opt out of the minimum wage Plus according to that you can opt back in at any time as well.Of course there would be pressures not to but they arent holding a bullet to your head to do it  As far as I see it, its a response to where companies especially small ones have during the recession have 'forced' workers to take pay cuts anyway instead of laying off and folding. Yes its a false economy as its propping up failing ventures that should probably go to the wall anyway. But its already being and has been done. This is just legitimising the process enabling people to take a pay cut to below the minimum should they want to.  No one has to sign. Okay their Job prospects may not be great, but that's active discrimination anyway for chosing one part of the law over the other and surely the Unions would recognise that anyway rather than bleat about how it is bad for the poor and the rich are going to get richer? or is that too straightforward?  pat, as it is, plenty of people struggle to earn enough to live on the minimum wage. I myself cannot afford to live on minimum wage if I'm working below 24 hours a week. Now consider that companies are allowed to say "We're only going to employ people who are willing to opt out of the minimum wage", and instead of paying someone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted June 17, 2011 Author Share Posted June 17, 2011 Don't be a cunt, are you damaged in the head or something? Are you Thatcher? Secretly, are you Margaret Thatcher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Mike Castle Posted June 17, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted June 17, 2011 pat, the difference is quite obvious. Â If you choose not to opt out of doing over 35 hours a week, they can just hire someone additional to do those hours. It's just a bonus for people who would like to work long hours for more money, and they don't lose out like that, if anything, they would save money by you not opting out because they don't need to pay overtime. Â But this idea is going to give companies the go-ahead to hire people for the exact same job that is currently being done, but for a much cheaper wage bill. To even think companies wouldn't take advantage of it is nuts. Â As for whether I'd sign it. I'd not want to, of course I wouldn't. It would be ridiculous to WANT to work for less money (unless you're some weird quirky masochist who gets off on working a lot for no real gain instead of pain or something, I'm sure there's fetishists out there for that), but if the system changes to be set up to allow companies to employ people for below the minimum wage, then it simply becomes a case of "who will be willing to work for the lowest cost?" Which in turn means you check the hours the job is offering, then work out an hourly wage that covers your bills, food and transport, and have that as the lowest you can offer to work for. Â Oh, and yes, you could opt back in to the minimum wage, but the company would likely require a minimum contract length which would prevent you opting back in during that time (otherwise you could opt out, join the company, and immediately opt back in), and at the point you could opt back in, if you chose to do so, they could quite easily say that they can't afford to pay all the staff and are letting one go, namely you for upping your wage bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Dammer Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Pat, you're either still on those drugs for your many conditions, or you're mind is scrambled by pub girl. Â Such a lame reply when someone's gone out of their way to reply to your every point. Â Havnt businesses been crying out for something like this? As has been mentioned there are many jobs that are simply not sustainable at minimum wage so it will likely create a number of new jobs and help businesses build their work force and there are many jobs that are incentivised. I'm not saying its a good thing or a bad thing but I think its definitely worth discussion, which is basically what's happening, and its kind of the governments job to discuss these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Sorry lad, but it's not the same as the opt-out option for working hours. Why not?  Both affect what pay you can achieve  Both would require employee and employer to Opt out if they so choose. They could even be on the same bit of paper if you wanted to save money on that  ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 So people get fucked over, and because it happens, we should legitimize it? ... Actually, I just read your argument more closely. Proles? Fuck off. You're a monster. Bleating unions? Don't be a cunt, are you damaged in the head or something? Are you Thatcher? Secretly, are you Margaret Thatcher?  Clearly its hump day or something?  Im the doom and gloom merchant apparently and all you lot are seemingly doing is pouring scorn on something that even by the quoted legislation is quite straightforward and changes nothing unless YOU CHOOSE to do something about it and is basically another bit of paper to sign should you so wish.  But yeah, Im the damaged in the head one, for not going straight to the worst possible outcome assuming its gospel and then empathising that oh woe the poor will be shat on again argument, because you are convinced that's exactly what will happen. Millions of automatons will just sign it and take a pay cut because they cannot think for themselves and will wonder why in amazement that they are getting less money  Im fucking poor and even I can see its much ado about fucking nothing, yet people are trying to make it an issue like its some how uberimportant and life altering Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Dead Mike Posted June 17, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted June 17, 2011 I honestly don't get the argument of 'I've earned a shit wage in the past so it's fine for everyone else to', it's exactly the same as whenever there's discussion about industrial action someone says 'I've not had a pay-rise in 5 years so why should they' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted June 17, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted June 17, 2011 If you allow an opt-out on the minimum wage, you haven't got a minimum wage. Â Oh, and the difference between the two is that the UK didn't specifically introduce maximum working weeks, that was an EU measure. We put the opt-out in place so that it effectively had no meaning. The minimum wage was a UK policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted June 17, 2011 Author Share Posted June 17, 2011 Im the doom and gloom merchant apparently and all you lot are seemingly doing is pouring scorn on something that even by the quoted legislation is quite straightforward and changes nothing unless YOU CHOOSE to do something about it and is basically another bit of paper to sign should you so wish. Pat, the fact that you can't see the glaringly obvious fact that this is basically just a way for companies to get round paying people the minimum wage so they can save themselves money is mind-boggling. Â It's been explained to you by a few people already. You really do astound me sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Mike Castle Posted June 17, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted June 17, 2011 Sorry lad, but it's not the same as the opt-out option for working hours. Why not?  Both affect what pay you can achieve  Both would require employee and employer to Opt out if they so choose. They could even be on the same bit of paper if you wanted to save money on that  ? One allows you to earn more money if the employer is up for you doing so.  The other allows you to earn less money as companies cost cut all over the shop.  Let's see... one benefits the employee but only if they choose it to... one benefits the company and in the current job climate they dictate whether to employ someone for minimum wage or not.  Seriously, if the company is NOT allowed to give preference to people willing to work below minimum wage, what, exactly, would be the point in taking less money than minimum wage? It would be pointless as no fucker would take it. The fact it is there means that companies would be ALLOWED to give that preference, which would mean we would have a minimum wage, but it would be pissed all over as companies choose to employ people "voluntarily" taking below minimum wage (Or as would happen, are forced to take below minimum wage if they're unemployed as the Job Centre would say that they had to accept that work if it was available). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ReturnOfTheMack Posted June 17, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted June 17, 2011 So people get fucked over, and because it happens, we should legitimize it? ... Actually, I just read your argument more closely. Proles? Fuck off. You're a monster. Bleating unions? Don't be a cunt, are you damaged in the head or something? Are you Thatcher? Secretly, are you Margaret Thatcher?  Clearly its hump day or something?  Im the doom and gloom merchant apparently and all you lot are seemingly doing is pouring scorn on something that even by the quoted legislation is quite straightforward and changes nothing unless YOU CHOOSE to do something about it and is basically another bit of paper to sign should you so wish.  But yeah, Im the damaged in the head one, for not going straight to the worst possible outcome assuming its gospel and then empathising that oh woe the poor will be shat on again argument, because you are convinced that's exactly what will happen. Millions of automatons will just sign it and take a pay cut because they cannot think for themselves and will wonder why in amazement that they are getting less money  Im fucking poor and even I can see its much ado about fucking nothing, yet people are trying to make it an issue like its some how uberimportant and life altering   Isnt the point that companies will chose the person who DOES agree to sign it over the one that doesnt? And yeah, I'd say it would become pretty much life altering for a lot of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 But this idea is going to give companies the go-ahead to hire people for the exact same job that is currently being done, but for a much cheaper wage bill. To even think companies wouldn't take advantage of it is nuts.  Have you even read the legislation in David's first post? The employee would have to agree to it in the first instance. There is nothing at all to say that they have to do it.  As mentioned before afaik they couldnt discriminate against those who didnt want to work with the minimum wage because of the various legislations that have been imposed. Yes there would be all kinds of office politics and what not, but when isnt there anyway?  With regards to your they will be able to hire people who will do a job cheaper, yes, they can. Companies can do that anyway. See anything that is 'off the books' and is something Ive already mentioned before. it would be naive to think that this sort of shit doesnt happen already, hence why it really isnt all that important in the grand scheme of things and all the posturing and bleating really is a load of hot air.   As for whether I'd sign it. I'd not want to, of course I wouldn't. It would be ridiculous to WANT to work for less money (unless you're some weird quirky masochist who gets off on working a lot for no real gain instead of pain or something, I'm sure there's fetishists out there for that), but if the system changes to be set up to allow companies to employ people for below the minimum wage, then it simply becomes a case of "who will be willing to work for the lowest cost?" Which in turn means you check the hours the job is offering, then work out an hourly wage that covers your bills, food and transport, and have that as the lowest you can offer to work for. Oh, and yes, you could opt back in to the minimum wage, but the company would likely require a minimum contract length which would prevent you opting back in during that time (otherwise you could opt out, join the company, and immediately opt back in), and at the point you could opt back in, if you chose to do so, they could quite easily say that they can't afford to pay all the staff and are letting one go, namely you for upping your wage bill.  So people can be employed for cheaper.. Yay for legitimising Interns and Apprentices and what not. Many councils already pay a nominal amount to do these things that are not minimum wage as technically it its not a waged job and for the experience. So you can hire more. As said its already being done. But you know come at us with the worst because that's what will happen. The unions and workers rights movements have said it will and then they can go I told you so when it all comes to fruition, despite again it already happening anyway.  I like the supposition about a bit of legislation that's not already in place and the looking at how much it will fuck everyone over. Going back to the working time thing Doctors and Nurses unions were up in arms about it affecting Junior doctors hours and such like and causing no end of shit.. without checking is that still a massive disaster now? are they unable to cope? and so on? if it is I'll stand corrected but Ive not heard a peep since. How is this any different. Its all about scaring people. because its bad isnt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 If you allow an opt-out on the minimum wage, you haven't got a minimum wage. Oh, and the difference between the two is that the UK didn't specifically introduce maximum working weeks, that was an EU measure. We put the opt-out in place so that it effectively had no meaning. The minimum wage was a UK policy.  That sums it up pretty well, but I'll say it again, the minimum wage currently protects those in the lowest paid jobs. Because they'll at least earn whatever the minimum wage is. Introducing an opt out removes that protection, and essentially removes the minimum wage. Even America hasn't attempted to remove it's minimum wage like this, and you don't get much more free market than that.  I don't entirely understand what pat's trying to say, the fact that minimum working hours has an opt out clause is a completely different matter. If pat doesn't believe there should be a minimum wage, to help stimulate the economy by creating lower labour costs, and therefore believes it's socially acceptable to be paying people 2 or 3 pounds an hour, then I guess that's his choice. But to suggest it's doom and gloom to point out an opt out clause to the minimum wage essentially removes the minimum wage? Well that's just not true, it's not even a matter of opinion, it completely invalidates it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.