Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log In with LinkedIn Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

With your Shetlink login details, all classifieds, private messages, and invoices are now accessed through the new Njord | Market system. Please see Njord | Market FAQ for more details.

Photo

UKIP


  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

#16 shetlandpeat

shetlandpeat

    Re-member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5360 posts

Posted 28 September 2014 - 04:44 PM

As you know the answer already, I do not need to answer, however, there should be reductions in business taxes that will allow the cost to be burdened. Many large employers do reap the benefits with a lower level of staff turn over which anyone knows becomes an added cost. Small businesses are striken with crippling taxes, this should be addressed. Where the thought of yours is due to individual status, the collective benefit will roll out, it does however need some forward planning. As you know, there is a gread deal of advantage in employing young folk. Some of the cost of that is taken on by the Government. This will put more money into the community, which much of which is put back into the community. It can only be wrong that folk are paid so little they have to claim benefits, far better to turn it around, give what would have been the benefit claim to the employer to alow employees the greater choice. They may opt to stay in cheaper accomodation and spend the difference back into the community. The issue does come to a community if a large emporium dominates it and removes the money to other climates. This is where communities need to support community ventures and businesses.



#17 brian.smith

brian.smith

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 318 posts

Posted 28 September 2014 - 04:47 PM

As you know the answer already, I do not need to answer, however, there should be reductions in business taxes that will allow the cost to be burdened. Many large employers do reap the benefits with a lower level of staff turn over which anyone knows becomes an added cost. Small businesses are striken with crippling taxes, this should be addressed. Where the thought of yours is due to individual status, the collective benefit will roll out, it does however need some forward planning. As you know, there is a gread deal of advantage in employing young folk. Some of the cost of that is taken on by the Government. This will put more money into the community, which much of which is put back into the community. It can only be wrong that folk are paid so little they have to claim benefits, far better to turn it around, give what would have been the benefit claim to the employer to alow employees the greater choice. They may opt to stay in cheaper accomodation and spend the difference back into the community. The issue does come to a community if a large emporium dominates it and removes the money to other climates. This is where communities need to support community ventures and businesses.

What ever way you look at it Peat it only puts what we either the consumer or the employer pay perhaps a maximum wage cap may reap more rewards for us poor folks and using that to pay lower earners more least that way its self financing

#18 shetlandpeat

shetlandpeat

    Re-member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5360 posts

Posted 28 September 2014 - 05:38 PM

That is one possibility, though I would guess some would say that would affect those who should be rewarded for skilled and/or creative work. The council has that policy already, they use pay banding, even though I am expected to do a skilled job which takes a high level of training and exceptional risks, I will never get any more money by adding any new skills. Sadly, this sort of policy is forcing skilled folk, who, in this instance the public have paid to train, to leave and then contract their skills back to the council via private companies. During a recent EPR (Equal Pay Review) organised and managed by the Blue administration at the time, capping the lower grades enabled the higher grades to increase their lot, and also give them the ability to reorganise to suit themselves, at the lower grades cost. This caused bad feeling and a lower moral, which we are still feeling 4 years later, whilst we struggle to get folk with similar skills for such a capped rate. I would wonder if that capping in the private job scene would also lead to that senario. Could a small business afford it? The money then would have to be right in the first place.



#19 brian.smith

brian.smith

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 318 posts

Posted 28 September 2014 - 06:07 PM

That is one possibility, though I would guess some would say that would affect those who should be rewarded for skilled and/or creative work. The council has that policy already, they use pay banding, even though I am expected to do a skilled job which takes a high level of training and exceptional risks, I will never get any more money by adding any new skills. Sadly, this sort of policy is forcing skilled folk, who, in this instance the public have paid to train, to leave and then contract their skills back to the council via private companies. During a recent EPR (Equal Pay Review) organised and managed by the Blue administration at the time, capping the lower grades enabled the higher grades to increase their lot, and also give them the ability to reorganise to suit themselves, at the lower grades cost. This caused bad feeling and a lower moral, which we are still feeling 4 years later, whilst we struggle to get folk with similar skills for such a capped rate. I would wonder if that capping in the private job scene would also lead to that senario. Could a small business afford it? The money then would have to be right in the first place.

I asume you are referring to the Public sector which is one of the main causes of the problem

Edited by brian.smith, 28 September 2014 - 06:08 PM.


#20 shetlandpeat

shetlandpeat

    Re-member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5360 posts

Posted 28 September 2014 - 06:49 PM

Many private companies pay the Living Wage, reading why they have done it and the benefits they report can be quite exciting.

 

The public sector (which does include a council), may not be all to blame. I agree that there have been some issues in the past that jaded the perception of these folk who have work, but chose to become the subject of the will and whim of a few claiming to represent the many. Most of the time, it is aspirations and they have not always been thought through. Public sector employees include everyone who is paid from collective taxes.

 

As I say, councils have capped wages, no one from the masses are getting these huge pay rises. I read, just as a thought, that if the minimum wage were to rise as has the stock exchange over the same time, it would now stand at about £18 an hour. Anyhow, while public sector employees are now having their wage reduced, either by capping in restrictive grades and/or by pay rises below the inflation rate, folk who work for them will feel agrieved.

 

What I have also noticed ove the recent years, is the attitudes of the public sector have been changing, as has those who negotiate on behalf of the employees with this machine. I am heavily involved with this. It is quite an odd senario, me, a lowly grade four employee working with those on grades 3 and four times my level to improve our collective lot. My employer has had half a billion in cuts over the last few years, the final 300 million over the next 2 years. While this is going on, we are told that the situation in the "real" is improving, though, what is noticable is that these "real" world people are making off the council due to a lack of provision, this is to do with staffing levels.

 

As we know, councils are not the only public sector, though folks seem to think they are. The NHS are being primed for take overs, this is clearly evident, the same is going on with them, a reduction in pay structures to make it an atractive TUPE agreement, which they will still have to top up the difference from the "real" employers existing T&Cs.

 

Money has only a percieved worth, that is why we think we need more of it. My thoughts are more about having an equal worth, and one that can be improved upon. Working with timebanks is an interesting way of working. Something I would recomend, I have contributed to the bank, so far, have never needed to take. Though, as someone not in the "real" world, I could get three months notice and be sacked, at any time. The Public Sector is changing, it is now up to the "real" world to work with that, rather than exploiting the situation. Folk are still fighting for jobs that can sustain them, in both worlds.


Edited by shetlandpeat, 28 September 2014 - 06:53 PM.


#21 Suffererof1crankymofo

Suffererof1crankymofo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 763 posts

Posted 28 September 2014 - 07:00 PM

Was gonna post this earlier but site had tech problems:-

 

And some folk wonder why companies move abroad ...

 

Example in my line of business:

 

An outsourcing company in Scotland charges their clients 45p per audio minute dictated and would pay staff 30p pam.  Last time I looked, they were looking for typists with experience in typing up documents for the Police and health authorities.

 

One in England charges their clients £1.10 pam dictated and the pay structure varies from 50p pam up to 80p pam dependent upon accuracy, mainly legal.  The largest in England pays around 60p pam dealing with a variety of clients, ranging from local authorities, medical, surveying, market research, etc.

 

I used to undertake work for one of the above but when the pay worked out at under £5 per hour, I stopped; besides, I had built up a client base.  However, I do know of other virtual PAs who use such outsourcing agencies as a springboard.

 

I regularly receive e-mails from companies in India and South Africa offering to do typing at 20p pam.

 

A friend in London is job hunting and is currently earning £28,000 pa as a secretary.  She was quite shocked at how few admin/secretarial positions are being advertised compared to a few years ago.  Instead of employing say 4 secretaries per department, a lot of companies are now employing only one secretary per department to deal with urgent work and to check the work that comes in from New Zealand/South Africa/India each morning (sent the day before), save it on system and print off.  Other jobs that are available tend to be contract positions so that employers don't have to pay holiday pay, NI, etc.

 

I voted no in the referendum.  Several of my clients have policies whereby they won't employ the services of contractors from abroad.

 

Could I drop my rates to compete with India?  Nope.  When I do sub-contract it's on a self-employed basis and whilst my hourly charge-out rate is above the min. wage for non-audio work, I couldn't afford to outsource it at £8.00 plus per hour.

 

Many call centres are based abroad.  Some insurance companies have moved back to the UK but even then, they tend to employ home workers at around £7.50ph but other companies such as the like of BT still have call centres abroad.

 

It's not a straightforward case of poor management, it's a case of having to be competitive in a GLOBAL market.  Every time goods/services are bought from abroad, chances are there's a knock-on effect for UK businesses.

 

But then you'll get some folk who think that the minimum wage doesn't affect jobs whatsoever - what planet are they on?


Edited by Suffererof1crankymofo, 28 September 2014 - 07:11 PM.

  • brian.smith likes this

#22 shetlandpeat

shetlandpeat

    Re-member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5360 posts

Posted 28 September 2014 - 07:59 PM

It is though, how it is managed.

 

For instance, if we forget the profit of the self employed, that is, you earn enough to sustain yourself and no more (this includes living costs) then, if I were to run my self employed business, as described above, from a 3 bed semi that costs, it would be far more expensive than say a one bed studio flat. If I move that 3 bed semi to India, then of course, I could charge far less.

 

The senario is, regardless of your GLOBAL needs, the cost of living in this country prohibits the lower costs. There can only be one way to do this, that is, to pay similar wages as they do in India and let the rest of society pick up the cost. You do however have to look at the future costs as well. We will be in a situation where folk will think more of the money than their health, as we know, when we had a similar system where folk were paid a small wage, the health of the nation deteriated. The health inequality will seriously widen, it is already about 8 years in some areas, no less than 1 mile from extremes. Add to that, if there is less money in the community, less taxes are collected, but those on the lower wage will pay propotionally the most tax. If we are to keep the same level of services, then the burden of cost for those services will shift heavily over to those who have the money, this then will take us to the situation where the money is sent overseas to tax havens or the like, this is already happening with Virgin Care and Circle Health, both of which have substantial NHS contracts.

 

It seems that there is more however to the wage system, for instance, a current job advert for a call centre bod in India, pays a hundred thousand INR but, you need to be the minimum of bi-lingual and have deplomas.

 

http://www.placement...icio-325881.htm

 

However, there is now problems, as reported in this....

 

http://www.callcentr...centres-147.htm

 

It is a fine balancing act, I personally would prefer healthier people than to go back to an age where birth dictates longevity.

 

The minimum wage is a protection, not a standard. Companies though do take advantage of the minimum wage, taking folk on as appretices reduces the costs down to less than £3 an hour for the first year.



#23 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2251 posts

Posted 28 September 2014 - 09:19 PM

The minimum wage is a protection, not a standard. Companies though do take advantage of the minimum wage, taking folk on as appretices reduces the costs down to less than £3 an hour for the first year.

It sticks in my throat to agree with SP but, I have to admit that the minimum wage is a protection that is sorely needed.

Unfortunately, that 'protection' has not kept pace with inflation and lags behind by a considerable margin.

 

As for apprenticeships.  I believe that the taxpayer SHOULD subsidise these to some extent.  After all, they are building a skllled future workforce.

 

What I am opposed to is 'cheapskate' businesses who pay skilled workers the bare minimum wage thereby, forcing/obliging them to claim benefits.

I am also opposed to big(?) businesses who outsource their support(?) operations to other countries in order to remain 'competitive'(?).  Exporting jobs is a cancer that 'globalists' (posh word for tax dodgers) seem very keen to nourish.


Edited by Colin, 28 September 2014 - 09:19 PM.

  • shetlandpeat likes this

#24 shetlandpeat

shetlandpeat

    Re-member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5360 posts

Posted 28 September 2014 - 09:43 PM

^ aww, I am touched.

 

Happily, I agree with the above comment, and with out any pain what so ever.

 

There needs to be different ways of achieving this. You can still have this and improve the lot of the tax payer, without causing one section of them to stagnate in order to maintain the system. Yup, there are those slester jobs. If folk do jobs you would not do, why then force them into poverty, if anything, you should pay them more and the minimum. Without them, where would you be?



#25 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9298 posts

Posted 29 September 2014 - 12:46 AM

A fair day pay for a fair days work is one thing, but the more legislation you impose on the free market the more you artificially manipulate the price of any given product or service, frequently creating a situation where there is an absurd disparity between price and value.

 

Likewise, the public sector by default of its current design sets a notional price on the products/services they deliver based entirely on what the themselves preceive them to be worth, and what the participants can get out of the deal, not on the value the recipients, who are also footing the bill for them, place on them. Creating yet another entirely artificial set of prices and values.

 

A minimum wage was good, in theory, but in practice it pans out with any work which isn't worth £6+/hr to an employer, simply doesn't get done. Or if it has to be done, its done by under the counter methods, whereby the person doing it is getting even less per hour due to the nature of the arrangement, than was being paid to whoever did it prior to the minimum wage.

 

The sooner all public services go out to private tender the better, there's absolutely no good reason why they can't, and with it a price for them more in line with their actual value might be achievable. Even the SIC have proof positive staring them in the face of how much they could potentially save by putting everything out to tender - eight years ago they put the Foula Ferry out to tender, the winning tender save the taxpayer a significant sum over what it had been costing them to run it themselves, when it came up for renewal the winning tender came in with another well over £100k saving over the earlier winning tender, and the reason given for it was entirely the result of the SIC cutting all of their own Admin etc relating to the contract to the bare minimum.

 

If the same boat, same crew, same service, but with different management and streamlined admin, can save the taxpayer multiple £100k on a small boat making a twice weekly return trip, the potential savings if the same were rolled out across the board are mind boggling.


Edited by Ghostrider, 29 September 2014 - 12:49 AM.

  • Gorgonzola Butt-cheese and brian.smith like this

#26 Gorgonzola Butt-cheese

Gorgonzola Butt-cheese

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 514 posts

Posted 29 September 2014 - 04:47 AM

http://www.debtbombshell.com/

 

 

If it could be paid off at 50 million per day how long would it take ?



#27 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2251 posts

Posted 29 September 2014 - 07:29 AM

A fair day pay for a fair days work is one thing, but the more legislation you impose on the free market the more you artificially manipulate the price of any given product or service, frequently creating a situation where there is an absurd disparity between price and value.

Capitalism via the 'free market' has shown that there is some legislation that is very necessary. 

eg;

Private care homes that cut every corner they can in order to make profit by employing unskilled/untrained workers etc.

As for a disparity between 'price' and 'value'.  Just who is it that assigns the 'value' bit?  The people who cannot be bothered to look after ageing relatives and are willing to 'buy' the care?  If so, then they are the ones who fix the value and, if they are only capable/willing to pay a certain amount, then the implications of this arrangement are obvious.

eg;

The food budget for one of the local, privately run, care homes is less than £1 per day per head.

(Un-verified but from a good source)

 

I would agree that (with the exception of the NHS) there is no good reason why a lot of public sector jobs/work should not be 'farmed out' to the private sector but, before I would support such a move, there would have to be cast iron guarantees that all control and ownership of the contractors would remain 'local' and accountable.

 

"work which isn't worth £6+/hr to an employer, simply doesn't get done. Or if it has to be done, its done by under the counter methods, whereby the person doing it is getting even less per hour due to the nature of the arrangement, than was being paid to whoever did it prior to the minimum wage."

 

Examples, or is this just an opinion?

 

My experience suggests that 'work that isn't worth the minimum wage' gets bundled in with other work that falls into the same category and is done by unskilled labour hired for that very purpose.

 

As for the ferry operations.  Well, it works for the buses...  The only 'proviso' I would make on that one is that the SIC should purchase the ferries and then, rent them out to the contractors'.



#28 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2251 posts

Posted 29 September 2014 - 07:32 AM

A fair day pay for a fair days work is one thing, but the more legislation you impose on the free market the more you artificially manipulate the price of any given product or service, frequently creating a situation where there is an absurd disparity between price and value.

Capitalism via the 'free market' has shown that there is some legislation that is very necessary. 

eg;

Private care homes that cut every corner they can in order to make profit by employing unskilled/untrained workers etc.

As for a disparity between 'price' and 'value'.  Just who is it that assigns the 'value' bit?  The people who cannot be bothered to look after ageing relatives and are willing to 'buy' the care?  If so, then they are the ones who fix the value and, if they are only capable/willing to pay a certain amount, then the implications of this arrangement are obvious.

eg;

The food budget for one of the local, privately run, care homes is less than £1 per day per head.

(Un-verified but from a good source)

 

I would agree that (with the exception of the NHS) there is no good reason why a lot of public sector jobs/work should not be 'farmed out' to the private sector but, before I would support such a move, there would have to be cast iron guarantees that all control and ownership of the contractors would remain 'local' and accountable.

 

"work which isn't worth £6+/hr to an employer, simply doesn't get done. Or if it has to be done, its done by under the counter methods, whereby the person doing it is getting even less per hour due to the nature of the arrangement, than was being paid to whoever did it prior to the minimum wage."

 

Examples, or is this just an opinion?

 

My experience suggests that 'work that isn't worth the minimum wage' gets bundled in with other work that falls into the same category and is done by unskilled labour hired for that very purpose.

 

As for the ferry operations.  Well, it works for the buses...  The only 'proviso' I would make on that one is that the SIC should purchase the ferries and then, rent them out to the contractors'.

 

http://www.debtbombshell.com/

 

 

If it could be paid off at 50 million per day how long would it take ?

Why bother?

 

Just find the people we owe the money to and, nuke them....<G>



#29 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2251 posts

Posted 29 September 2014 - 07:37 AM

Sorry for the messed up post. 



#30 Gorgonzola Butt-cheese

Gorgonzola Butt-cheese

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 514 posts

Posted 29 September 2014 - 07:31 PM

Yes Colin we could fire off all the nukes , well having paid so much for them it seems a waste not to use them, and overnight we could.

a.) Become a country free of nuclear weapons

b.) Reduce the number of countries / organisations that the country is in debt too.

 

But I doubt we have enough warheads for option b , and off course none of this debt actually exists in reality ?

 

 

Joking aside , I am sure all EU Bureaucrat enthusiasts would like to welcome in the new commissioner for fisheries.

 

The ideal man for the job as he has not been voted in by any fisherman , instead selected by a small group of people who know nothing about  fishing.

He of course also knows nothing about fishing.

 

He's a top bloke!

 

"Karmenu Vella served with Prime Minister Dom Mintoff during the years of political turmoil in Malta at a time when democracy and civil liberties were eroded.[3] During the period Karmenu Vella was involved with two particular incidents were violence and intimidation by Labour Party activists brought the Labour Government of the time into disrepute. The first, referred to as Black Monday, followed a demonstration held in October 1979 where a sizeable number of Labour activists proceeded from a political activity led by Dom Mintoff and Karmenu Vella towards the private residence of the then Leader of the Opposition, Eddie Fenech Adami. The activists violently ransacked Eddie Fenech Adami's house and in the process injured members of the family. The activists also proceeded to set fire to the printing press operated by The Times of Malta and attacked various offices of Members of the Opposition. A second incident took place in 1987 where Karmenu Vella was reported to be seen with a violent crowd which attacked the buildings of the Law Courts causing damage and destroying a number of important court documents.[4] Karmenu Vella was also involved in a controversy in 1986 whereby his driver at the time was accused of having murdered a political activist from the Opposition Party. Karmenu Vella was reported to have provided an alibi for his driver which eventually led to the driver being acquitted of the murder charges. This case is still pending and to date the police have failed to bring anyone to justice with respect to this murder."

 

and also 

"In 1993 a small party newspaper, run by the now Judge Lawrence Mintoff, wrote a number of articles highlighting Karmenu Vella's links to an Alberganti, an Italian national accused of defrauding Mid-Med Bank of millions of euros.[13]

Karmenu Vella, together with another Labour MP Charles Mangion, was accused of having falsified tax declarations for a number of years with respect to a company which they jointly owned.[14]"