abolish the minimum wage

P. Breathnach

Shelflife wrote: »

my problem with the min wage is this, a 20yr old whos only qualifiaction is that they can breath and walk at the same time gets €8.65ph. the problem lies in what do you pay someone who is good at stacking shelves and working in a shop when someone who is barely competent is on €8.65.

the other thing is that the retail trade is subject to the JLC rates which mean that this barely competent 20yr old now gets €9.36 phr. thats an 8% increase for being alive -no extra productivity no nothing so this makes the retailers problem worse , how much does he now pay his good workers when the barely competent worker is on nearly 20k per year.

please dont mention why dont we get rid of the 20yr old, its very hard to sack someone who just does enough in their job, in fact its hard to sack someone who is crap at their job.

the JLC awarded a 2.5% increase earlier this year, which struggling retailers had a legal obligation to pay, some staff members in retail outlets offered to forgo the raise in order that everyone kept their jobs and hours- this was not allowed under the legislation and so staff were let go.

thats why minimum wage systems dont work.

Your basic premise is that if you hire somebody who is not capable of doing a job, that person does not deserve minimum wage. On that point, I would agree with you.

Where I part company with you is in the extension of that to suggest that it is the minimum wage that is wrong, rather than the incompetent worker.

Taxipete29

Shelflife wrote: »

my problem with the min wage is this, a 20yr old whos only qualifiaction is that they can breath and walk at the same time gets €8.65ph. the problem lies in what do you pay someone who is good at stacking shelves and working in a shop when someone who is barely competent is on €8.65.

the other thing is that the retail trade is subject to the JLC rates which mean that this barely competent 20yr old now gets €9.36 phr. thats an 8% increase for being alive -no extra productivity no nothing so this makes the retailers problem worse , how much does he now pay his good workers when the barely competent worker is on nearly 20k per year.

please dont mention why dont we get rid of the 20yr old, its very hard to sack someone who just does enough in their job, in fact its hard to sack someone who is crap at their job.

the JLC awarded a 2.5% increase earlier this year, which struggling retailers had a legal obligation to pay, some staff members in retail outlets offered to forgo the raise in order that everyone kept their jobs and hours- this was not allowed under the legislation and so staff were let go.

thats why minimum wage systems dont work.

I dont know of any job that doesnt have a probationary period. If the person is that bad this will show up during that time. No need for a reason they are just let go.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

lol. You asked me for the link to the CSO website, which you do every few weeks. I refused to give it to you yet again. Riskymove gave you the link and tried to explain it to you. The fact is the point about the 973.09 average pay was copied and pasted from the C.S.O. ' s own website. There was a few pages in that thread where it was explained to you. The cso link is there to help you.;)

That is such an outrageous distortion that I conclude that you are intentionally telling lies.

ntlbell

Taxipete29 wrote: »

I dont know of any job that doesnt have a probationary period. If the person is that bad this will show up during that time. No need for a reason they are just let go.

What do people tend to do in that first 6 months?

Taxipete29

ntlbell wrote: »

What do people tend to do in that first 6 months?

Look if someone works hard in the first 6 months and then suddenly their productivity goes way down upon being made permanent there are disciplinary procedures you can follow to get rid of them.

Shelflife

a couple of points here, i never said they were incompetent i said they were barely compenent.

you cant discipline/sack someone who does their job albeit barely.

during the celtic tiger it was virtually impossible to get ANY shop staff so sometimes you had to hire a standard below what you normally would.

ntlbell

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Look if someone works hard in the first 6 months and then suddenly their productivity goes way down upon being made permanent there are disciplinary procedures you can follow to get rid of them.

It won't usually go way down, it will just barley tick over and depending on how big the company is probably won't be noticed, where it needs to be.

the fact there's procedure's is utterly pointless when the person who needs to enforce them spends _his_ _her_ day on face book, and the person who they report to spends their day replying to said face book.

it's a game and is played by plenty of lazy showers.

saying their's procedure's is just a tad naive

Tipp Man

shoegirl wrote: »

But the minimum wage is not 20 euros an hour, its 8.75, there is a huge difference. So if he hires one guy, say on a 30 hour week, adding PRSI and overheads of about 10 percent, he's really still only talking about 16k a year - its not huge. From family members who did at one stage take apprentices, however, the problem was not the pay, it was the poor quality of employee at that level - they were lazy, didn't want to do "dirty work", and were unreliable in terms of turning up, on time, and not calling in sick (or not turning up and not turning in sick). And that was the 80s, by the way, not the so-called Tiger years, when there was high unemployment.

That said, it would depend on a lot of other business factors such as if he would have enough capacity to guarantee somebody 30 hours of work, how much he gets paid per job, if its on time, how much insurance etc would cost him. In short, if it would pay him to hire somebody at any cost. The minimum wage itself is not that high in the context of high skilled or quality operations where having an extra body means the volume and/or variety of work can increase and thus income with it.

To be honest, even at the circa 40k a year level, I see a lot of very very lazy and poor value workers (who seem to think that they have an entitlement to this level regardless of the quality of their input) - that to me is the real problem, not the actual wage level. I have a gob****e working indirectly for me who I do not have the power to sack, but I wouldn't pay the minimum wage for his "work", never mind the massive overpayment he gets for very small quantities of poor quality "work".

sorry I was saying that he wanted to employ 2, hence the €20 an hour which brings it up to what 34-35k per annum which is a fair bit to a small business no matter what way you cut it

Tipp Man

Shelflife wrote: »

my problem with the min wage is this, a 20yr old whos only qualifiaction is that they can breath and walk at the same time gets €8.65ph. the problem lies in what do you pay someone who is good at stacking shelves and working in a shop when someone who is barely competent is on €8.65.

the other thing is that the retail trade is subject to the JLC rates which mean that this barely competent 20yr old now gets €9.36 phr. thats an 8% increase for being alive -no extra productivity no nothing so this makes the retailers problem worse , how much does he now pay his good workers when the barely competent worker is on nearly 20k per year.

please dont mention why dont we get rid of the 20yr old, its very hard to sack someone who just does enough in their job, in fact its hard to sack someone who is crap at their job.

the JLC awarded a 2.5% increase earlier this year, which struggling retailers had a legal obligation to pay, some staff members in retail outlets offered to forgo the raise in order that everyone kept their jobs and hours- this was not allowed under the legislation and so staff were let go.

thats why minimum wage systems dont work.

Excellent post which also highlights the utter stupidity of some of our employment laws - for example if i want to work more than 48 hours a week i am breaking the law if i do - irregardless of if i am happy to do it, need the money, whatever. Its madness

Tipp Man

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Your basic premise is that if you hire somebody who is not capable of doing a job, that person does not deserve minimum wage. On that point, I would agree with you.

Where I part company with you is in the extension of that to suggest that it is the minimum wage that is wrong, rather than the incompetent worker.

You raise a good point in so far as too many workers don't give a toss about it. But do you not think that the very generious welfare system combined with the high minimum wage kind of fuels this don't give a s##t attitude, these people don't care if you sack them (which is actually very difficult) because they can get just as much on welfare and live reasonably comfortable

If welfare and minimum wage were lower they might be more eager to work harder for their money??

Taxipete29

ntlbell wrote: »

It won't usually go way down, it will just barley tick over and depending on how big the company is probably won't be noticed, where it needs to be.

the fact there's procedure's is utterly pointless when the person who needs to enforce them spends _his_ _her_ day on face book, and the person who they report to spends their day replying to said face book.

it's a game and is played by plenty of lazy showers.

saying their's procedure's is just a tad naive

Well look if there are management problems also then I think these companies have more issues than the minimum wage is to high. I think you are the naive one, thinking that I will rise to your obvious attempt to bait me into an argument that is sliding off the topic

The fact is the minimum wage is there to protect employees who in some industries were subjected to subsistence wages for the work they did.

The problem in this country is not the minimum wage. Its the people who work in jobs that are not at this level having a sense of entitlement to more than the minimum wage. There is a level of snobbery by many people who see any job even remotley close to the minimum wage beneath them. Admitted this attitude has changed a bit considering the changes in the economy but it does exist.

Take the example of Retail. The average retail worker is earning only the
minimum wage for that sector, yet the next pay jump in your average symbol store or supermarket is supervisor/ assistant manager who can be earning double that amount. Are they doing double the work?? They have more responsibility, but does that equate to deserving of double pay?? No.
The reason they are paid good salaries is to prevent employee fraud which is far more likely at this management level. The problem is not the minimum wage, its peoples attitudes in general

P. Breathnach

Tipp Man wrote: »

You raise a good point in so far as too many workers don't give a toss about it. But do you not think that the very generious welfare system combined with the high minimum wage kind of fuels this don't give a s##t attitude, these people don't care if you sack them (which is actually very difficult) because they can get just as much on welfare and live reasonably comfortable

If welfare and minimum wage were lower they might be more eager to work harder for their money??

There always were, and there will be always be, people with a bad attitude to work (sometimes, it is a matter of a bad attitude to a particular type of work, and they might perform well at something else). An employer has to take care to avoid taking on people who won't do a job properly, or take the correct steps to get rid of them.

During the Celtic Tomcat years, employers had a more restricted choice of people, especially before large-scale immigration. Now they are spoiled for choice: there are huge numbers of good workers available. They don't need the incentive of lower welfare and wages.

Taxipete29

Tipp Man wrote: »

Excellent post which also highlights the utter stupidity of some of our employment laws - for example if i want to work more than 48 hours a week i am breaking the law if i do - irregardless of if i am happy to do it, need the money, whatever. Its madness

Thats a European Law (like much of our employment law). These laws are there to protect people. The rigidity sometimes penalises genuine cases but by and large they work well and were long fought for. The employers who find employment laws burdensome are the very ones who would exploit workers if these laws were not in place.

Noreen1

ntlbell wrote: »

It won't usually go way down, it will just barley tick over and depending on how big the company is probably won't be noticed, where it needs to be.

the fact there's procedure's is utterly pointless when the person who needs to enforce them spends _his_ _her_ day on face book, and the person who they report to spends their day replying to said face book.

it's a game and is played by plenty of lazy showers.

saying their's procedure's is just a tad naive

You may have difficulty sacking a superviser/manager without clear proof of misconduct, (Which is not impossible to get!) but disciplinary procedures/demotion are eminently possible under the terms of the average contract of employment.
You do have a signed contract of employment, I presume?
Noreen

Victor

SLUSK wrote: »

The minimum wage causes unemployment and should be abolished all together. What do you guys think?

Many economies without a minimum wage still have unemployment. Explain that.

We need to improve competitiveness at the middle and higher income levels, not the lowest level.

SLUSK wrote: »

Obviously you take away all social welfare as well. There should be no such thing as a dole(that is my libertarian view).

But people have made social insurance contributions. Surely they are entitled to a payout? By comparison, there are some income protection schemes available from insurance companies. Should they also be abolished?

Shelflife

[quote=Taxipete The employers who find employment laws burdensome are the very ones who would exploit workers if these laws were not in place.[/quote]

easy to see you are not an employer taxipete, a few years back i had a member of staff stealing from me, the amount of proof, videos etc and the time it took 6 weeks to get everything in place so as to avoid unfair dismissal and other legislative rights was crazy. it cost me €500 at least to sack someone that was stealing from me every day.

Its also crazy that in my business if for some reason i feel that you are are bad influence in the workplace it is very hard for me to get rid of you , yet if the employee feels that i am a bad influence on them then they can just up and leave me in the lurch with no penalty.

P. Breathnach

Taxipete29 wrote: »

...

The problem in this country is not the minimum wage. Its the people who work in jobs that are not at this level having a sense of entitlement to more than the minimum wage. There is a level of snobbery by many people who see any job even remotley close to the minimum wage beneath them. Admitted this attitude has changed a bit considering the changes in the economy but it does exist.

Take the example of Retail. The average retail worker is earning only the minimum wage for that sector, yet the next pay jump in your average symbol store or supermarket is supervisor/ assistant manager who can be earning double that amount. Are they doing double the work?? They have more responsibility, but does that equate to deserving of double pay?? No.
The reason they are paid good salaries is to prevent employee fraud which is far more likely at this management level. The problem is not the minimum wage, its peoples attitudes in general

I think you make a good case. I have the impression that pay differentials within all types of business have widened greatly over the years. It is hard to set down principles for pay relativity, but I am not convinced that the gap between management pay and entry level pay should be as great as it appears to me to be.

Taxipete29

Shelflife wrote: »

easy to see you are not an employer taxipete, a few years back i had a member of staff stealing from me, the amount of proof, videos etc and the time it took 6 weeks to get everything in place so as to avoid unfair dismissal and other legislative rights was crazy. it cost me €500 at least to sack someone that was stealing from me every day.

Its also crazy that in my business if for some reason i feel that you are are bad influence in the workplace it is very hard for me to get rid of you , yet if the employee feels that i am a bad influence on them then they can just up and leave me in the lurch with no penalty.

There will always be people who abuse the system. This happens on both sides, but as the employer is in more of a position to abuse the employee the law will always favour the employee.

It doesnt matter if I am not an employer. I can see your point and it is unfair that it takes so much effort to get rid of an obvious thief, but you have unscrupulous employers from bygone days to thank for the need to have stringent laws to protect workers.

Tipp Man

Taxipete29 wrote: »

There will always be people who abuse the system. This happens on both sides, but as the employer is in more of a position to abuse the employee the law will always favour the employee.

It doesnt matter if I am not an employer. I can see your point and it is unfair that it takes so much effort to get rid of an obvious thief, but you have unscrupulous employers from bygone days to thank for the need to have stringent laws to protect workers.

Or is it a socilist - protect the poor and less well off - agenda that pushes these employemnt laws?? How many countries in Europe have left leaning governments at the moment??

Scofflaw

I'd agree that it's difficult to get rid of employees - I had a fairly useless employee in a small company (she was 20% of the permanent employees), and the other directors were extremely cautious about getting rid of her. Rightly or wrongly there was a perception that it was extremely easy for her to take an unfair dismissal case if she was fired - and even the possibility that she might do so was a serious concern. A small company can't afford to spend time in court or money on lawyers.

The employee in question certainly wasn't minimum wage - she was about the 'middle/junior management' level where I would see most of the inflated pay and expectations as being during the Celtic Tiger years.

I still haven't seen any case being made for the link between a minimum wage and unemployment. Those who feel there is a link appear to have put nothing forward yet apart from "it stands to reason" plus the occasional anecdotal case where a potential employer has said employing people in minimum-wage jobs "wouldn't be worth it". However, the latter might equally well be the case without the minimum wage, because what you have to pay someone is only a part of the hassle involved in taking on another employee.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Taxipete29

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think you make a good case. I have the impression that pay differentials within all types of business have widened greatly over the years. It is hard to set down principles for pay relativity, but I am not convinced that the gap between management pay and entry level pay should be as great as it appears to me to be.

The gap is greater I would imagine in some sectors than others and a change on this kind of scale requires some real serious changes in attitudes on all sides. I think it would be to all our benefits in the long run. Reducing the gap between the haves and the have nots should be the goal of every society and this can only be acheived through people working, not through welfare.

Scofflaw

Tipp Man wrote: »

Or is it a socilist - protect the poor and less well off - agenda that pushes these employemnt laws?? How many countries in Europe have left leaning governments at the moment??

Virtually none...even "New Labour" are barely left-leaning these days.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tipp Man

Taxipete29 wrote: »

The gap is greater I would imagine in some sectors than others and a change on this kind of scale requires some real serious changes in attitudes on all sides. I think it would be to all our benefits in the long run. Reducing the gap between the haves and the have nots should be the goal of every society and this can only be acheived through people working, not through welfare.

Hold on, a lot of people who earn a lot are working damn hard for it and have a lot of responsibility on their shoulders - quite often its the lower paid who can stand up and walk out the door at 5 care free. It's way too easy to say Jo is earning 200k, thats too much for 1 person. Fact is he could be better value to his company than Pat who is on 30k

Fighting Irish

SLUSK wrote: »

Obviously you take away all social welfare as well. There should be no such thing as a dole(that is my libertarian view).

survival of the fittest, bring it on

Tipp Man

Scofflaw wrote: »

..even "New Labour" are barely left-leaning these days.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Seriously???

Denerick

The only way this would work is if Welfare was slashed and prices fell dramatically, otherwise we'd have a brand new generation of 'working poor'. If you were picking mushrooms for 3 Euro an hour and if the dole was giving you 200 a week, you'd be an absolute muppet.

Victor

ntlbell wrote: »

When you take the other side of the coin a SME with 8-10 staff who are now struggling, they could maybe keep all staff on at 6-7e or let two go.

As the choice is removed from them it means they _have_ to let someone go rather than opting to reduce the wage.

If you bring in an appeal process where company's can show their books and prove they can't afford to apply for some form of exception, the employee will just go to somewhere else.

Oh, how the world has changed. Back in the days of the boom, when it was suggested that profit sharing be used instead of pay rises SMEs owners ran a mile.

Tipp Man wrote: »

I can only offer anecdotal evidence from a recent conversation.

We were recently building a new farm shed, and got a local firm to do it, excellent work i have to say as well, but the boss was talking to us 1 day and said that he could do with hiring 2 young fellas, 18-21 i suppose, to help them out, nothing skilled, just kinda runners for them doing a bit of this and that.

It would increase his productivity as he would spend less time messing about. However he said that he couldn't afford to fork out the guts of €20 per hour on unskilled labour and still make a profit at the end of the day

Which of you is fibbing. Minimum wage for workers under 23 is about €5.

Taxipete29

Tipp Man wrote: »

Or is it a socilist - protect the poor and less well off - agenda that pushes these employemnt laws?? How many countries in Europe have left leaning governments at the moment??

Why should the poor and the less well of not be protected?? Why is a socialist agenda when it comes to rights for employees so bad??

Tipp Man

Victor wrote: »

Which of you is fibbing. Minimum wage for workers under 23 is about €5.

Maybe you mean under 13's:D Nobody gets outta bed in this country for a fiver an hour

please see attached

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/employment/employment-rights-and-conditions/pay-and-employment/pay_inc_min_wage

Victor

Tipp Man wrote: »

Maybe you mean under 13's:D Nobody gets outta bed in this country for a fiver an hour

please see attached

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/employment/employment-rights-and-conditions/pay-and-employment/pay_inc_min_wage

Apologies, its €6.06.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/employment/employment-rights-and-conditions/pay-and-employment/pay_inc_min_wage#rates