Plus 21p. Wow! Big Deal! - Page 2

Sara · 07-03-2008, 16:47

Changing the subject slightly. I'm sure i read not long ago that along with the minimum wage there is also a minimum holiday entitlement. Does anyone know if this is correct or have i been dreaming again?

jambutty · 07-03-2008, 17:26

I’ve posted this quote before and I make no apologies for posting it again.

The world has enough for every man's need, but not enough for every man's greed.
-- Mahatma Ghandi

Or more appropriately:
This country has enough for every man's need, but not enough for every man's greed.
-- Mahatma Ghandi

And therein lies the problem. 10% of the population are taking 90% of the cake and to make matters even worse the bulk of it is going abroad.

blazey · 08-03-2008, 18:42

I used to work for £3.25 an hour when I was 16.

I don't think there should be a maximum rate. I don't think there should need to be a minimum rate either.

21p is a reasonable rise in my opinion though.

emamum · 08-03-2008, 19:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by blazey

I used to work for £3.25 an hour when I was 16.

I don't think there should be a maximum rate. I don't think there should need to be a minimum rate either.

21p is a reasonable rise in my opinion though.

i once had a job where they paid me per day and it worked out as £1 and hour...... is that fair?

THAT is why we have minimum wage! because some employers dont give a monkeys about their employee's and will pay as little a possible

entwisi · 08-03-2008, 20:42

as Cyfr mentioned, in 'working' households it is not uncommon for both parents to be working which gives youa combined of ~£23K

not huge but not rubbish either. What I have a bigger issue with is that on these sort of salaries its almost impossible to buy a house and then to afford to run it.

should we have a maximum? no way! how do you drive people to perform better if they can reach a point where they get no reward for that effort? Without that this country is right royally stuffed

blazey · 08-03-2008, 21:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by emamum23

i once had a job where they paid me per day and it worked out as £1 and hour...... is that fair?

THAT is why we have minimum wage! because some employers dont give a monkeys about their employee's and will pay as little a possible

Depends what your job was and how old you were, and how good you were at the job in my opinion.

Equal pay isn't fair to a lot of people but we have that. Who said life was fair?

Lilly · 08-03-2008, 21:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by entwisi

as Cyfr mentioned, in 'working' households it is not uncommon for both parents to be working which gives youa combined of ~£23K

not huge but not rubbish either. What I have a bigger issue with is that on these sort of salaries its almost impossible to buy a house and then to afford to run it.

should we have a maximum? no way! how do you drive people to perform better if they can reach a point where they get no reward for that effort? Without that this country is right royally stuffed

I agree with you. No way should we have a maximum wage.

At least no-one is working for a pittance these days thanks to the mimimum wage. My first job paid £40 for a 40 hour week. That's £1 an hour. At least you don't get that these days.

Neil · 08-03-2008, 23:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by emamum23

i once had a job where they paid me per day and it worked out as £1 and hour...... is that fair?

You must have thought so or you would not have done it.

emamum · 09-03-2008, 00:05

i didnt, i took the job to tide me over till i found a better one... some money was better than none at the time... i worked for 7am to 8pm 7 days a week. sometimes working day, night and the next day.. i was 17 at the time and i had bills to pay.

blazey · 09-03-2008, 00:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

You must have thought so or you would not have done it.

I get the feeling it was a paper round...

I think you should be paid the quality and amount of work you do, not just a standard rate of pay regardless of the work done.

for example, if you have two builders... one is strong because he works out in his extra time, and has the ability to shift more bricks, and do more labour in general, whilst the other isn't as strong and can only shift 3/4 of the bricks that the first can move.

more work gets done by the first builder so he shouldn't get the same standard of pay just because he's the same age, same experience etc.

That's the way I see it anyway. You want more money, work harder. In this day and age everyone has access to education and support, there is no reason why you cant get qualifications and stick with your low paid jobs. You just have to get up and do it instead of standing around whinging about it.

blazey · 09-03-2008, 00:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by emamum23

i didnt, i took the job to tide me over till i found a better one... some money was better than none at the time... i worked for 7am to 8pm 7 days a week. sometimes working day, night and the next day.. i was 17 at the time and i had bills to pay.

emma what was this job?

emamum · 09-03-2008, 00:09

taxi operator..... yes i was taken advantage of, but, like i said, i needed money, i had rent and food and bills to pay.

cherokee · 09-03-2008, 00:36

Do you know this thread could easily be linked with the polish child benefit thread, If less were allowed to be sent to polish families perhaps our minimum wage would look half decent.
sorry dont mean to link the two

blazey · 09-03-2008, 02:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherokee

Do you know this thread could easily be linked with the polish child benefit thread, If less were allowed to be sent to polish families perhaps our minimum wage would look half decent.
sorry dont mean to link the two

how about raising taxes so we can increase wages a bit and send a bit more out in child benefit at the same time

obviously saving a bit of the taxes to go towards a nice new car for gordon brown...

you cant discriminate like that, there'd be an uproar.

Neil · 09-03-2008, 02:43

How about getting rid of this Government that year on year spend more than they raise in taxes?