Jump to content
Demitri_C

The Chairman Mao resembling, Queen hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

That's the problem with encouraging McDonald's workers to strike over pay

If he wins and presides over government what happens when everyone who gets paid from that government does the same! 

Everyone in the country getting a £10k pay rise? Cool, I'm sure that's realistic 

In real terms Nurses, Police, Fire fighters etc etc have taken a hefty pay cut since 2010 due to 5 years of wage freezes and then 1% pay rises for a couple of years.  Had their wages gone up in line with inflation wages would have increased approx 30% since 2010.

Edited by markavfc40
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

In real terms Nurses, Police, Fire fighters etc etc have taken a hefty pay cut since 2010 due to 5 years of wage freezes and then 1% pay rises for a couple of years.  Had their wages gone up in line with inflation wages would have increased approx 30% since 2010.

tbf, so have most people. My wages have only risen on a per hour basis in that time via a promotion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

That's the problem with encouraging McDonald's workers to strike over pay

If he wins and presides over government what happens when everyone who gets paid from that government does the same! 

Everyone in the country getting a £10k pay rise? Cool, I'm sure that's realistic 

Obviously not, no. There are millions of reasons why that won't happen.

And £15p/h is obviously an opening bid, rather than the likely outcome at the end of the negotiations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

I agree I am in the same boat. This is the race to the bottom culture I am on about. They played private sector off against public sector pretty much from the first day they came into office in 2010. Public sector workers getting a better pension than private ,don't try to improve private sector pensions instead down grade public sector ones. Freeze public sector pay encouraging private sector to go the same way.

The masses are worse off than we were in 2010 in real terms and many have happily gone along with it because those worse off than them got a bigger kicking.

Agree with this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Obviously not, no. There are millions of reasons why that won't happen.

And £15p/h is obviously an opening bid, rather than the likely outcome at the end of the negotiations.

But that's the problem, Corbyn is attacking the people at the top of companies who earn a lot of money and wanting them to earn less so that the people at the bottom can earn more* but that might be ok for a mega rich company such as McDonald's who can afford it (but like I said they won't, they'll pass it on to the consumer) but what about the wider impact to the job market and the economy? Them giving any kind of pay rise skews the market, it doesn't drag everyone else up by the boot straps especially because it flirts with retail which is a largely unprofitable sector, how many kids working on the highstreet will be ditching that job for McDonald's if this happens? 

He's Robin hooding, if you earn money you have to give it to other people, I bet he's not talking about a massive pay cut for himself to make sure the people at the bottom of Labour's ladder earn north of £15 an hour 

It just doesn't work, let's all boo the man who earns money because its unfair... Its not always unfair 

* not even taking in to account how the guy at the top of McDonald's got there compared to the kid flipping the burgers got to where he is in life

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

not even taking in to account how the guy at the top of McDonald's got there compared to the kid flipping the burgers got to where he is in life

I'm sorry but that's merely objectionable 'just desserts' bollocks, mate.

Edited by snowychap
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

But that's the problem, Corbyn is attacking the people at the top of companies who earn a lot of money and wanting them to earn less so that the people at the bottom can earn more*

* not even taking in to account how the guy at the top of McDonald's got there compared to the kid flipping the burgers got to where he is in life

I doubt that Paul Pomroy was born into similar circumstances to the majority of McDonald's workers, but leaving that aside, your view of Corbyn's beliefs here is not correct. The argument is not that people at the top of companies should earn less so that workers can earn more; he is neither proposing a maximum salary, nor directly redistributing wealth. There is no plan for a Labour government to dictate how much McDonald's pays its employees, as long as it pays its workers above the minimum wage (which is obviously not going to be £15/hour any time soon). The company can continue to pay their bosses as much as they like (though they may face a higher tax rate under a Labour government).

30 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

Them giving any kind of pay rise skews the market, it doesn't drag everyone else up by the boot straps especially because it flirts with retail which is a largely unprofitable sector, how many kids working on the highstreet will be ditching that job for McDonald's if this happens?

These points seem contradictory. What would likely happen is that profit margins will decline somewhat, while customer service would probably improve, as McDonald's notorious high staff turnover rate would suddenly decline. Of course it would also be easier for McDonald's to hire at the margins, but since you would expect less staff turnover there would be fewer vacancies, and they might choose to close some of their less-profitable locations. A job at McDonald's wouldn't suddenly become prestige, though; it's still dirty, physical, aggressive, long hours, and more dangerous than it should be.

As I said before, this is very hypothetical because £15/hour is an opening bid.

45 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

He's Robin hooding, if you earn money you have to give it to other people, I bet he's not talking about a massive pay cut for himself to make sure the people at the bottom of Labour's ladder earn north of £15 an hour

I'm no expert, but I don't believe Corbyn is paid by Labour - he presumably earns his income through his role as an MP. Political parties contain relatively few paid employees, and they earn enough money to live as a graduate within commuting distance of central London, so while nobody becomes a millionaire working for any political party, it ain't like working in McDick's.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an example of what Labour want to do, in term of bridging the gap between bosses and workers, is to introduce a 20:1 pay scale, where the top earner can not earn anything more than 20 times more than the lowest paid worker. This will certainly be the case, if the plans to bring the Royal Mail back into public ownership takes place. I don't see anything wrong with that personally. It would stop people like Rico Back coming into a company like the Royal Mail, and being given £6m straight away, before he's even done anything. 

Edited by dAVe80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Public v Private is a joke

I trained as a teacher, went in at 22.5k after 4 years of uni. A professional.

I quit, moved to Poland where salaries are way lower. Within 4 years in IT, in the private sector, I am earning more than I was as a teacher in the UK. In Poland!

If I moved back to UK, I'd be looking at jobs starting around 55k/60k.

More power to the strikers tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

As an example of what Labour want to do, in term of bridging the gap between bosses and workers, is to introduce a 20:1 pay scale, where the top earner can not earn anything more than 20 times more than the lowest paid worker. This will certainly be the case, if the plans to bring the Royal Mail back into public ownership takes place. I don't see anything wrong with that personally. It would stop people like Rico Back coming into a company like the Royal Mail, and being given £6m straight away, before he's even done anything. 

As a ”natural fairness” type argument it’s impossible to disagree with, really. As a realistic policy it’s sadly a joke. Why? Aston Villa pays players, what, say some get 2 million quid a year. Now the reception needs at least 100 grand a year to comply. So the job of receptionist gets outsourced and villa pays a fee to a company for “services”. Or another hypothetical example, I am an apprentice at big co. Plc. I get national minimum wage. The boss gets 2 million a year for 2000 hours work. Enforce the ratio and the boss gets a 1.6 million pay cut...or head office moves to Holland or Paris or Monaco. Who exactly wins out of all this?

its absolutely the case that executive pay has shot up way beyond natural levels since the late 70s. And it did so because they realised they could.  Putting the genie back in the bottle is harder. The pay scale thing is a great “idea”. It’s fluffy and warm and virtuous. It’s not, sadly, ever going to be implemented, because it’s not practicable and saying the obvious (tax the **** out of the rich) isn’t quite as fluffy, though would be more effective.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, blandy said:

As a ”natural fairness” type argument it’s impossible to disagree with, really. As a realistic policy it’s sadly a joke. Why? Aston Villa pays players, what, say some get 2 million quid a year. Now the reception needs at least 100 grand a year to comply. So the job of receptionist gets outsourced and villa pays a fee to a company for “services”. Or another hypothetical example, I am an apprentice at big co. Plc. I get national minimum wage. The boss gets 2 million a year for 2000 hours work. Enforce the ratio and the boss gets a 1.6 million pay cut...or head office moves to Holland or Paris or Monaco. Who exactly wins out of all this?

its absolutely the case that executive pay has shot up way beyond natural levels since the late 70s. And it did so because they realised they could.  Putting the genie back in the bottle is harder. The pay scale thing is a great “idea”. It’s fluffy and warm and virtuous. It’s not, sadly, ever going to be implemented, because it’s not practicable and saying the obvious (tax the **** out of the rich) isn’t quite as fluffy, though would be more effective.

We'd be talking about a publically owned service though, rather than a private company, like a football club. It would be hard to enforce it in the private sector, granted. Although the commie in me is screaming privatise the top 100 companies, and make football clubs fan owned, but we'll leave that one for a few years down the line of a Corbyn government! 😉

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

Public v Private is a joke

I trained as a teacher, went in at 22.5k after 4 years of uni. A professional.

I quit, moved to Poland where salaries are way lower. Within 4 years in IT, in the private sector, I am earning more than I was as a teacher in the UK. In Poland!

If I moved back to UK, I'd be looking at jobs starting around 55k/60k.

More power to the strikers tbh.

There' a curious amount of six figure 'management' and 'admin' type jobs in the public sector. As though there's a class of people creaming off the top. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting debates on raising the minimum wage, must admit I'm far more convinced of a basic income guarantee as a way to solve a lot of ills.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dAVe80 said:

We'd be talking about a publically owned service though, rather than a private company

I get that, as a starting point. Do it though and you won't half struggle to recruit into the public sector at management level, when they can earn way more in the Private. Right now, there are a lot of overpaid chief execs across the board, and there's a good moral argument to say that things like NHS trusts, those Free schools (whatever they're called, I forget) are just schemes for sometimes borderline useless Execs to get paid an awful to of Taxpayer money. I completely sympathise with the aim of a more equitable society and a return to reasonable pay ratios, I just struggled to see a practical way to implement it, even over time.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, blandy said:

I get that, as a starting point. Do it though and you won't half struggle to recruit into the public sector at management level, when they can earn way more in the Private. Right now, there are a lot of overpaid chief execs across the board, and there's a good moral argument to say that things like NHS trusts, those Free schools (whatever they're called, I forget) are just schemes for sometimes borderline useless Execs to get paid an awful to of Taxpayer money. I completely sympathise with the aim of a more equitable society and a return to reasonable pay ratios, I just struggled to see a practical way to implement it, even over time.

The counter argument to that would be pay the lowest earning staff more money, then the execs can earn the wages to compete with the private sector, but I see your point of view. Alas the revolution is thwarted for another day! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, blandy said:

I completely sympathise with the aim of a more equitable society and a return to reasonable pay ratios, I just struggled to see a practical way to implement it, even over time.

Implementation isn't the problem.  I'm sure we have all sorts of bright people who can work that out, even with people thinking up wheezes to evade it.  The issue is having the political will to do it, and creating enough popular support to make it easier for that political will to develop beyond the ranks of the enthusiasts.  Talking about it as a feasible and desirable thing to do is one step in that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, peterms said:

I'm sure we have all sorts of bright people who can work that out, even with people thinking up wheezes to evade it.

You're more trusting than I, then. I've seen little or no evidence of the "wheeze thinkers" being out-wheezed by Gov't or civil service minds in any kind of even gentle crack down on high earners. Something like upping income tax take from the very wealthy is relatively simple compared to legislating a maximum pay ratio and all the complications that brings, yet they still appear to find ways round it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, peterms said:

Talking about it as a feasible and desirable thing to do is one step in that.

I note even Labour merely has it as an  "idea", rather than "we will" or "we can", going by Dave's post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, blandy said:

You're more trusting than I, then. I've seen little or no evidence of the "wheeze thinkers" being out-wheezed by Gov't or civil service minds in any kind of even gentle crack down on high earners. Something like upping income tax take from the very wealthy is relatively simple compared to legislating a maximum pay ratio and all the complications that brings, yet they still appear to find ways round it.

Tax is a good example of a case where there's not the political will to do something effective.  From the lack of staff employed in tackling tax dodging, to letting the private firms of accountants write the tax code, to the lack of tough sanctions, we demonstrate a lack of political will to deal with the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â