I'm not saying you can't believe that, you can believe what you like, but you believe in putting a responsibility on an employer to do things that lie outside of their normal sphere of operation yet you're not saying why they should bear that responsibility. Where do you draw the line and why? If we start saying that employers are responsible for stuff that in their employees life outside of work where do we stop? Or is it just some arbitrary point where the employer's responsibility for what goes on in an employee's life outside of work stops? And where there is a responsibility there is a right, it can't just be one sided.

Dally wrote:Seems Walmart made net profit of c. $17 billion on turnover of c. 469 billion in their latest reported year. So, about 3.6% of turnover. Couldn't readily see staff numbers and what % of revenue staff costs represent. But, it would seem liklely that a big hike in wages would wipe out profit. "Instead of spending billons each year to buy back shares of its own stock in an effort to boost the price of shares, the company could redirect those funds to employee raises, said Amy Traub, a senior policy analyst with the self-described "progressive" Demos in New York City. She said based on the $7.6 billion Walmart spent buying back shares last year, the company could have given its low-wage employees raises of $5.83 an hour." So $7.6bn (which would not wipe out their profit) would give their low paid employees a raise of $5.83 an hour. http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/11/walmart_could_raise_wages_with.html The actual report is here: http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/A%20Higher%20Wage%20Is%20Possible.pdf It is also reported here but the interesting thing is just how much Walmart spends buying back shares at the end: http://www.salon.com/2013/11/19/wal_mart_could_pay_every_us_employee_14_89_just_by_not_buying_its_own_stock/ Quote:So, is your argument that because Walmart pays low wages it should not exist at all, which is how I interpreted what you said? No. My argument is they have the wherewithal to pay more by forgoing share buy backs and so should do so. So the rest of you post is irrelevant based on a false assumption.

Dally wrote:Seems Walmart made net profit of c. $17 billion on turnover of c. 469 billion in their latest reported year. So, about 3.6% of turnover. Couldn't readily see staff numbers and what % of revenue staff costs represent. But, it would seem liklely that a big hike in wages would wipe out profit. "Instead of spending billons each year to buy back shares of its own stock in an effort to boost the price of shares, the company could redirect those funds to employee raises, said Amy Traub, a senior policy analyst with the self-described "progressive" Demos in New York City. She said based on the $7.6 billion Walmart spent buying back shares last year, the company could have given its low-wage employees raises of $5.83 an hour." So $7.6bn (which would not wipe out their profit) would give their low paid employees a raise of $5.83 an hour. http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/11/walmart_could_raise_wages_with.html The actual report is here: http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/A%20Higher%20Wage%20Is%20Possible.pdf It is also reported here but the interesting thing is just how much Walmart spends buying back shares at the end: http://www.salon.com/2013/11/19/wal_mart_could_pay_every_us_employee_14_89_just_by_not_buying_its_own_stock/ Quote:So, is your argument that because Walmart pays low wages it should not exist at all, which is how I interpreted what you said? No. My argument is they have the wherewithal to pay more by forgoing share buy backs and so should do so. So the rest of you post is irrelevant based on a false assumption.

Paying someone a fair days pay for a fair days work is (or rather should be) an obligation and it is not a responsibility. That obligation should equate to a minimal level wage which in this country should in my opinion be the Living Wage.

The Living Wage is linked to the cost of living so any employer paying it escapes the charge of immorality for paying poverty level wages.

Would that level of wage lift everyone out of benefits? No because things like high rents in certain areas still won't be covered.

The fact people on the living wage may still need benefits would not necessarily be a reflection on poorly paying employers but also on other factors such as rents as I said. These are different issues that also need addressing so the tax payer is not burdened with things that ought not to be their responsibility (and I do mean responsibility here).

However there is still an issue of excessive profits and pay disparity. If even though an employer is a Living Wage employer they need to realise that doesn't represent a maximum. If they can afford to pay more than that to their workers they should because that would represent an equitable distribution of wealth the workers helped generate. It would recognise the workers contribution rather than handing huge fat bonuses to a select view. The fact paying their workers more would also reduce the benefits bill is a happy coincidence.



It's nothing to do with an employers responsibility for stuff in their employees life, it's to to with pay, pure and simple.

DaveO wrote:"Instead of spending billons each year to buy back shares of its own stock in an effort to boost the price of shares, the company could redirect those funds to employee raises, said Amy Traub, a senior policy analyst with the self-described "progressive" Demos in New York City. She said based on the $7.6 billion Walmart spent buying back shares last year, the company could have given its low-wage employees raises of $5.83 an hour." So $7.6bn (which would not wipe out their profit) would give their low paid employees a raise of $5.83 an hour. http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/11/walmart_could_raise_wages_with.html The actual report is here: http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/A%20Higher%20Wage%20Is%20Possible.pdf It is also reported here but the interesting thing is just how much Walmart spends buying back shares at the end: http://www.salon.com/2013/11/19/wal_mart_could_pay_every_us_employee_14_89_just_by_not_buying_its_own_stock/ No. My argument is they have the wherewithal to pay more by forgoing share buy backs and so should do so. So the rest of you post is irrelevant based on a false assumption. But what were shareholders expectations when investing in Walmart? I know people invest in a number of UK companies because they have a policy of returning funds to shareholders in excess of their usual dividends.

DaveO wrote:"Instead of spending billons each year to buy back shares of its own stock in an effort to boost the price of shares, the company could redirect those funds to employee raises, said Amy Traub, a senior policy analyst with the self-described "progressive" Demos in New York City. She said based on the $7.6 billion Walmart spent buying back shares last year, the company could have given its low-wage employees raises of $5.83 an hour." So $7.6bn (which would not wipe out their profit) would give their low paid employees a raise of $5.83 an hour. http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/11/walmart_could_raise_wages_with.html The actual report is here: http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/A%20Higher%20Wage%20Is%20Possible.pdf It is also reported here but the interesting thing is just how much Walmart spends buying back shares at the end: http://www.salon.com/2013/11/19/wal_mart_could_pay_every_us_employee_14_89_just_by_not_buying_its_own_stock/ No. My argument is they have the wherewithal to pay more by forgoing share buy backs and so should do so. So the rest of you post is irrelevant based on a false assumption. But what were shareholders expectations when investing in Walmart? I know people invest in a number of UK companies because they have a policy of returning funds to shareholders in excess of their usual dividends.

But the problem there is increasing wages increases the cost of living which then means wages need to increase. In other words you get destructive inflation. We tried that in the past under old Labour and it practicially destroyed the country.

You cannot increas wages without increasing productivity and we have to compare ourselves here with the international labour market.

An obligation is a responsibility, so using the term obligatation to swerve the issue isn't even pointless semantics, it's just pointless full stop. I'm not stopping people from having this opinions or beliefs, I'm simply asking how they rationalise, in a consistent way, the idea that an employer should be responsible for parts of their employee's lives outside of their employment? Minimum wages, living wages, whatever psuedo-scientific method is used to come up with the magic number doesn't really interest me because I think it's largely an arbitrary response to the complexity of individual circumstances, it's a bit like arguing over angels dancing on a pin head, ceteris paraibus aggregate labour demand will shift with changes with aggregate labour costs. What I think is interesting here is why people believe employers responsibilities/obligations should extend outside of the employment itself and where they place the cut off?

Its not that the employer is responsible for for its employees private life, where they live, how much of their wages they spend on housing, utilities, council tax, all of the necessary things that you need to locate yourself close to where your place of employment is, thats not the point at all.

Those things are the responsibility of government.

Prior to WW1 no one gave a fook about social conditions, apart from a few well known examples of Victorian pioneers in the art of improving housing conditions for their workers in the belief that if they sorted out at least that part of their lives then a more contented and faithful workforce would ensue - apart from those it took wholesale desolation of a generation of those who classed themselves as "the ruling class" to start to realise that there had to be another way, fast forward another twenty five years and another wholesale decimation of the male population and a country sacked the wartime leader in favour of one who would deliver what they had been promised for so long.

Absolving themselves of a responsibilty to provide affordable rented homes was the second worst thing that a UK government has ever done, pocketing the proceeds of council house sales instead of re-investing them in newer properties was the very worst thing they did and we have the consequences now, UNaffordable rented homes to anyone on a basic wage, not just unaffordable but unobtainable for anyone on a basic wage that hasn't got a guarantee of a minimum weekly wage to prove to a landlord.

Couple that with a cycle of employer-favoured conditions and we are where we are until more employment is created and the cycle changes so that employers have to raise rates to attract the "right sort" of employee although with the last five years being boom years for employment agencies offering bugger-all for random hours (I deal with them every day) then I'm not even sure that an employment boom will change the current situation.

Well said Jerry.

In my opinion agencies are a massive problem. They offer no certainty and treat people like poop. Ringing them up on the day to tell them what, if any, work they have today, for how long and where it is. Combine that with an inflexible JSA system and it's no wonder to me that the unemployment figures have fallen but it just masks the true problem. Little/no guaranteed work, inflexible & lazy employers, high housing/living costs.

Debenhams have a warehouse not far from where I live, they are using an employment agency to staff it. I have no idea why a firm the size of Debenhams has any need whatsoever for an agency. They must have an HR department. It's just laziness, pure and simple. It's easier to leave it to an agency.

Great for Debenhams, cr£p for the workers.

Funnily enough they've ended up with a massive proportion of their warehouse staff being Polish/Eastern European. As is the Agency representative that employs people for the warehouse.

Its not uncommon, in fact its very common, I see similar things every working day, name all of the top five supermarkets in the country and they will all own or sub-contract massive warehousing operations, warehouses so big that it takes you ten minutes to walk from one end to the other, and 90% of those warehouses will be crewed by agency workers, this time of year we are just about to hit the xmas lockdown where all development projects shut down so that everything is focused on the xmas period, during this time the influx of agency workers will be massive, all on daily contracts subject to site swapping on a whim - I've been in this business and dealing with supermarkets and manufacturing plants since 1983 and I've never experienced anything like these last ten years for the desertion of employment responsibilty en masse by every business that you care to name to the point where as a company we had to get into bed with the agencies as they are now the biggest employers in the country - I would hate to be leaving school now as I did back in '74 with few qualifications and no idea of what I wanted to do, for if that was me now I'd be in one of those warehouses, drifting.

They could then deduct the tax that the company has already paid i.e. employers NI and corporation tax and see who owes who what.

The government could simply increase the minimum wage and remove employers NI? everyone happy.