Jubilee and Olympic security - jobseekers working for free

[rockape34]

They're doing pretty well then...

 

[Markintime]

You wrote - 'They use those profits to create more outlets and thus more jobs.' - giving the impression that businesses expand to create jobs. Jobs may or may not be a by-product of expansion, they are not the reason for it. Where possible, businesses will expand while getting rid of jobs.

I doubt that anyone apart from you drew that impression from what I said. I was talking about how profits are used not the reason for making them which isn't, incidentally, as black and white as you seem to think.

In this case, a company was contracted to provide, I presume, some sort of stewarding positions. The jobs therefore existed and should have been paid accordingly, minimum wage at least. As I understand it, the company chose instead to not pay any 'going rate' for stewarding, and instead called the whole enterprise a job creation scheme, where people were obliged to prove their suitability for a possible future job. The people were coerced into doing it for 'benefit wages', that were not payed by the company concerned. There were no terms or conditions to which they could agree or disagree.

As I said the people should have signed off JSA and been paid.

Nowhere have I suggested that they be paid twice. However, if there's a need for large numbers of people to have temporary, one or two-day type jobs, then there should be systems in place to allow for temporary suspension of benefit without undue disruption to the claimant.

Yes there should but if they were deemed as under training then the JSA was covering their training. The fault is if the company charged a huge amount to provide staff. The reality may be that they were only allowed to cover their costs, if that is the case do you still object?

Or some system in place, as above, to allow for odd-day temp work.

Indeed but as long as the JSA is reduced by a commensurate amount.

The going rate should be at least minimum wage, rather than benefit wage. And they were employed. The fact was, the jobs were only temporary. They could only exist because the company was able to exploit a government scheme and thus exploit the workers.
And how do we know that anybody will have impressed enough to be taken on for the future imaginary job. Surely the company can again take advantage of some government scheme, whereby some other workshy, feckless dolite can be coerced into working for 3 months on benefit wages.

You assume that the company made a vast profit. I have no idea what they charged but my personal experience with training companies is that they are restricted in what they can charge for and how much. They cannot operate like a temping agency for instance and they couldn't pimp someone out for 3 months. I don't know if anybody will have impressed enough or not, the fact is neither do you. The point I was making was that they could either bellyache about having to do a couple of days work experience or they can use it as an opportunity. Do you want some "workshy, feckless dolite" continuing to live his pointless existence and being a burden on the state or do you think they should be encouraged to get off their arse and earn a wage? If we stopped making the benefit a wage for doing nothing we might have less people who find the lifestyle so appealing. Most of these training companies were set up by Labour and are funded by public money and they are expressly told that they are expected to fund themselves where they can. I do know one thing, if they were bidding for a tendered contract then they will have to have gone in cheap to get it. Consider yourself lucky an Eastern European company didn't get the contract because then they would have flown people in, done the gig and flown them out and no-one would have have had the chance of on the job training or work experience.

 

[Wordsmith]

If you recruit someone for your business, you don't automatically say "what's the cheapest I could employ them for?" That's a false economy and will result in damage to your business. Instead you say "what skill set does the person need to have and what will I need to pay to get that skill set?"

Lets say I'm taking on a new person for the purchasing department. Then my shopping list might include:

-- Experience of the field they will be purchasing goods in
-- Decent negotiating skills
-- Experience of ISO 9000
-- Etc.

I'd then go and look at some job adverts placed by other companies in my area and see what they're paying. That's my benchmark for what I've got to pay. Let's suppose I think that £25,000 is the going rate for the job. Then I'll advertise it for £20,000 - £25,000 with slightly more available for an exceptional candidate. That gives me flexibility in who I hire.

-- I might pay £20,000 for someone inexperience but with real potential.
-- I might pay £27,500 for someone more senior who can bring a few extra things to the table.

If I take this person on, I would hope they stay with me for at least three years. If I add up their wages for this period, together with my costs, I'm making an investment of £100,000 in that individual. That's a lot of money for a small business.

If I underpay the person, I won't get the right person for my business. if I pay someone £18,000 and put them in charge of a purchasing budget of £500,000 a year, they would easily cost me £25,000 in poor purchasing decisions - far more than I've saved on their wages.

Sensible businesses pay the going rate. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys - and your business will soon be in trouble. But has also been pointed out, if you overpay, you'll be too expensive relative to your competitors, and the business will start to fail.

Neither should we ignore the fact that an person's destiny is in their own hands. They can't be forced to work for a company. If they don't like the pay, then they should look for a job that pays better. If they can't find a job that pays better, then they need to invest time in improving their skills so that they can get a job that pays better in the future.

Wordsmith

As a PS: I practice what I preach. I study in my own time with a view to making my job more secure at my present company and giving me the best chance of getting a job elsewhere if I decide to.

 

[Markintime]

You are correct. You did not say that businesses exist to provide jobs. I used the term, responding to your statement that businesses expand and thus create more jobs, which I deemed to be inaccurate as it's only a possible by-product. I concede the point.

There was a general impression that business owners deserve all the rewards, as they had the idea and worked for nothing to get said businesses off the ground. This is palpably untrue. As you have pointed out, the money to start a business has to come from somewhere. As I pointed out, it's not possible to survive if there's no money, therefore to suggest that business owners work for years, for nothing, is bollocks.

You clearly have very little grasp of what it takes to start a business. All the money goes into growing the business and making it a success and the barest minimum is taken out in personal wages. If I have created a business and worked long and hard to make it work and grow then who does deserve most of the rewards? However most ownbers are only too happy to reward success in others, that's why bonuses are paid, as much to encourage as to reward.

I suggest that you wouldn't see the value of a skilled workforce, if you could get a desktop machine to do all their work for you, that didn't require paying.

Well you'd be totally wrong. The most valuable workers of all are those that have a customer interface. Customers aren't machines and they don't like dealing with machines and a bad employee who deals with the customers can lose you contracts you may have taken years of hard work to gain.

However if I made millions would you sooner I employed men to carry me everywhere on a sedan chair or would you sooner I bought a car? Sometimes a machine has a place.

 

[Regalia]

What we are witnessing is the upgrade of an admin snafu to full-blown media sh*tstorm. Debrief and carry on.

 

[Tremaine]

Aaah, the Olympic Gold Rush again. Work experience when collecting benefits isn't always a bad thing, and opportunities are to be welcomed. If we're to offer more job opportunities and work experience, at least make them viable pathways in to employment and not mickey mouse firms and their worthless bits of paper. Would these people have been treated better had they been employed and of more assumed value?

Aside from the mess that is the DWP, we now have policing on the cheap, and mickey mouse security with qualifications from badly run NGO's. Benefits claimants may have signed off from their JSA to attend this event. Apart from the security implications using these agencies and workers, NGO's are essentially trusted private businesses with public money. And deemed "socially responsible": failed on part one.

There definitely is a hard line attitude towards the unemployed, but these agencies shouldn't exploit or neglect their charges. CPUK seem to have failed on that one, as apologies are already in. Reluctantly agreeing with Lord Prescott for once: "It would be completely inappropriate for a company that appears to have such a blatant disregard for the care of its workers to be policing such a prestigious event." Responsible and competent outfits don't get this kind of Press and reputation.

 

[BugzDaMick]

Please post a reputable reference to this please - i.e. mainstream newspaper and not wiki.

As Wal-Mart only have 9,600 stores worldwide, they'd have real trouble locking workers into 22,000 stores in the US. (Check the Wal-Mart corporate website for confirmation for store numbers).

I'd have more respect for your opinions if your facts weren't demonstrably incorrect.

Wordsmith

Yup! Dropped a bit of a bullock there. The number should have read “2,200”. My apologies for the misleading information. Sausage fingers an’ all.

Can we get away from this carefully nurtured notion that all the unemployed are work-shy scroungers? While some are, most are not. Just blithely stating: “Well, they can go out and get a job if they can’t live on their benefits”, is just repeating the nasty gobment line to divert attention away from themselves. There are no fuckin’ jobs! And even when work is available, it’s extremely low-paid and mostly unpleasant.

No-one seems to have put two and two together here. The fact that it's not worth their while to go to work because they'd only get as much as they get on benefits is not an indication that benefits are too high (because they really are the bare minimum) but a very clear sign that even the minimum wage is far too low. If the unemployed could look forward to much higher wages, then that would be incentive enough. And all this bollocks about "paying what the market will bear" is a pitiable justification for only shelling out the absolute minimum in remuneration. It's strange that all those rules and regulations that are part and parcel of everyday employment for the average working person, don’t apply the further up the management chain you get. Workers are constantly monitored to ensure that they provide “value for money” and don’t shirk, but who monitors the bosses who rake in 10, 20 or 30 million or more per year and who most probably sit on a half-dozen other management boards? How can you actually “earn” such sums? Oh, they’re worth it, I often hear. But they produce absolutely nothing. Nurses, on the other hand, are just in the process of having their wages cut. And they really are essential staff. Does no-one see anything wrong with the values that we’ve allowed to encroach on our society?

“A fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work” is also another one that should be consigned to the shite-heap. Employees don’t pay fair wages and they don’t want to either, because that would mean that they’d earn less in profits. And profits, and the growth in profits, is what it’s all about. If a company’s in trouble, it would rather dump 40 skilled employees on £50,000 a year each than two totally useless board-members on a million a year apiece.

There are two reasons to start a business; either to be independent or to enjoy the “double-status” condition. I chose to be independent and I’m a freelance translator. I don’t employ anyone else and I can choose how much I earn. I also don’t exploit others.

There are others, far too many, who want the “double status”. First, they can say they run a company and "earn” correspondingly, for the social status, and then they can have the smartest cookies in the universe in their employ, but they can turn round and always maintain that they’re the top cheese because they pay the wages. It’s a cheap and dirty method of establishing and coercing personal “respect”, i.e. superiority, instead of actually earning it.

Companies are not only competing for markets, but also for status, for year-on-year growth. If they report that profits are two percent lower, it's a catastrophe. They might have cleared, say, five million after tax in the previous year, so the reporting year is still well in the black. But “profits" are lower. It’s a perverse status race driven purely by ego. The highest profits, the biggest company and the most employees, that's what counts. That's what impresses. And that will only get worse as time progresses. What a fuckin’ perverse world we live in.

MsG

PS. By the way, MiT, MaccyD is a franchise company. They take no risks, but rake in the profit, paying their employees as little as they can get away with. Make no mistake about that.

 

[Taffd]

.

You clearly have very little grasp of what it takes to start a business. All the money goes into growing the business and making it a success and the barest minimum is taken out in personal wages. If I have created a business and worked long and hard to make it work and grow then who does deserve most of the rewards? However most ownbers are only too happy to reward success in others, that's why bonuses are paid, as much to encourage as to reward.



Well you'd be totally wrong. The most valuable workers of all are those that have a customer interface. Customers aren't machines and they don't like dealing with machines and a bad employee who deals with the customers can lose you contracts you may have taken years of hard work to gain.

However if I made millions would you sooner I employed men to carry me everywhere on a sedan chair or would you sooner I bought a car? Sometimes a machine has a place.

I wish you'd stop making assumptions about me. You have no idea how many businesses I've started, or have run. You have no idea whether they've been successful or not.

I originally challenged the notion that business owners take nothing out of their businesses, that all money is reinvested. People cannot survive on nothing. They have to live. They get money to live from somewhere. If they take nothing out, it's because they have access to other money and thus do not need to. If they do not have access to other money, and take none from their business - they die. Because they can't live on nothing.

If you're telling me that you're in business to provide jobs, or that you expand to create jobs, then I call you a liar. While you may create jobs in order to expand, job creation is not your prime motive.

I have no idea what business you're in but I suggest that if it was manufacturing, and you could get a machine to do the job of any number of employees, then you would do so. I suggest that if your business had shareholders, you'd be obliged to, in order to maximise their profits.

Furthermore, I am not prepared to accept that you speak for 'most' employers, or 'most' owners.

 

[Markintime]

.

I wish you'd stop making assumptions about me. You have no idea how many businesses I've started, or have run. You have no idea whether they've been successful or not.

How many companies have you started and how many have you run?

I originally challenged the notion that business owners take nothing out of their businesses, that all money is reinvested. People cannot survive on nothing. They have to live. They get money to live from somewhere. If they take nothing out, it's because they have access to other money and thus do not need to. If they do not have access to other money, and take none from their business - they die. Because they can't live on nothing.

I didn't say that business owners take nothing out of their business. What I actually said was that initially they have to take the bare minimum in order to make their business succeed. There may well be quite a gap between starting your business and receiving your first cheque and it is the business owner who has to fund that from their own funds. Most business owners will take the bare minimum until there is a steady supply of money coming into the business. I'm surprised that you didn't know that if you started a business.

If you're telling me that you're in business to provide jobs, or that you expand to create jobs, then I call you a liar. While you may create jobs in order to expand, job creation is not your prime motive.

I have not said that I'm in business to create jobs, however I am delighted to do so because it enables my business to expand and grow and it lightens my load. I'm in business to make money but in doing so I create jobs. I have never said that I am in business to create jobs and I have not tried to insult you or pull you down, perhaps you wouldn't mind treating me with the same respect with which I treat you?

I have no idea what business you're in but I suggest that if it was manufacturing, and you could get a machine to do the job of any number of employees, then you would do so. I suggest that if your business had shareholders, you'd be obliged to, in order to maximise their profits.

Of course a manufacturer would because in most cases he would not be able to manufacture that product at a saleable price without doing so. We all use items of machinery or technology. Do you employ someone to take a message to thse you wish to speak to or do you use a telephone? If you had a landscaping business would you employ 30 people with shears to cut a lawn of would you use machinery? You seem to be of the opinion that a business should be run to employ the maximum number of people on the maximum wage possible. Was that the way you ran your businesses?

Furthermore, I am not prepared to accept that you speak for 'most' employers, or 'most' owners.

I speak for myself, anyone who has started or run a business will be in a position to judge whether I an representative or not. I'm sure there are plenty of people reading this making up their own minds about who has their foot in reality and who doesn't.

Just out of interest do you have a skill or a trade and are you currently fully employed and if you aren't why aren't you?

 

[Buzz]

Yes, a great soundbite but it means nothing.

I had not said that their existence was to create jobs, what I said was that they use their profit to expand and to create jobs.

Do you object to the owner of a business making money?

Should he or she do all the hard work, all the years of hardship and sweat and tears to build up a viable business and then live like a pauper so they can pay the toilet cleaner £25k a year?

That's the trouble with so many people today they want everything but are willing to earn nothing.

Let me stop you there.

25K?

Do grow up, you have offered nothing to the discussion that is true so far, you are just doing your usual and bombarding the thread with lengthy and contrary replies to any poster more interesting than you as you fancy yourself an intellectual, you also hate being wrong.

Stop using the ever increasingly distorted acceptions to the general rule as a defence and explain to the class why multi nationals should have the wage bill subsidised by the tax payer?

 

[Buzz]

If you recruit someone for your business, you don't automatically say "what's the cheapest I could employ them for?" That's a false economy and will result in damage to your business. Instead you say "what skill set does the person need to have and what will I need to pay to get that skill set?"

Lets say I'm taking on a new person for the purchasing department. Then my shopping list might include:

-- Experience of the field they will be purchasing goods in
-- Decent negotiating skills
-- Experience of ISO 9000
-- Etc.

I'd then go and look at some job adverts placed by other companies in my area and see what they're paying. That's my benchmark for what I've got to pay. Let's suppose I think that £25,000 is the going rate for the job. Then I'll advertise it for £20,000 - £25,000 with slightly more available for an exceptional candidate. That gives me flexibility in who I hire.

-- I might pay £20,000 for someone inexperience but with real potential.
-- I might pay £27,500 for someone more senior who can bring a few extra things to the table.

If I take this person on, I would hope they stay with me for at least three years. If I add up their wages for this period, together with my costs, I'm making an investment of £100,000 in that individual. That's a lot of money for a small business.

If I underpay the person, I won't get the right person for my business. if I pay someone £18,000 and put them in charge of a purchasing budget of £500,000 a year, they would easily cost me £25,000 in poor purchasing decisions - far more than I've saved on their wages.

Sensible businesses pay the going rate. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys - and your business will soon be in trouble. But has also been pointed out, if you overpay, you'll be too expensive relative to your competitors, and the business will start to fail.

Neither should we ignore the fact that an person's destiny is in their own hands. They can't be forced to work for a company. If they don't like the pay, then they should look for a job that pays better. If they can't find a job that pays better, then they need to invest time in improving their skills so that they can get a job that pays better in the future.

Wordsmith

As a PS: I practice what I preach. I study in my own time with a view to making my job more secure at my present company and giving me the best chance of getting a job elsewhere if I decide to.

This of course all means nothing as you are the spotty 22 year old junior who's areas of responsibilty mostly incude making tea.

 

[Taffd]

How many companies have you started and how many have you run?

Some.

I didn't say that business owners take nothing out of their business. What I actually said was that initially they have to take the bare minimum in order to make their business succeed. There may well be quite a gap between starting your business and receiving your first cheque and it is the business owner who has to fund that from their own funds. Most business owners will take the bare minimum until there is a steady supply of money coming into the business. I'm surprised that you didn't know that if you started a business.

Again, you're tryng to talk for most business owners. What of those who don't have alternative funds for living expenses?

I have not said that I'm in business to create jobs, however I am delighted to do so because it enables my business to expand and grow and it lightens my load. I'm in business to make money but in doing so I create jobs. I have never said that I am in business to create jobs and I have not tried to insult you or pull you down, perhaps you wouldn't mind treating me with the same respect with which I treat you?

You'll find that I've already conceded the point.

Of course a manufacturer would because in most cases he would not be able to manufacture that product at a saleable price without doing so. We all use items of machinery or technology. Do you employ someone to take a message to thse you wish to speak to or do you use a telephone? If you had a landscaping business would you employ 30 people with shears to cut a lawn of would you use machinery? You seem to be of the opinion that a business should be run to employ the maximum number of people on the maximum wage possible. Was that the way you ran your businesses?

So you agree. I was making the point that where applicable, businesses will replace workers with machinery whenever possible. Businesses are only concerned with employees when said employees are seen to be beneficial for the company. I suggest that employees are, in the main, paid the minimum possible wage.

I speak for myself, anyone who has started or run a business will be in a position to judge whether I an representative or not. I'm sure there are plenty of people reading this making up their own minds about who has their foot in reality and who doesn't.

Then stop saying things like 'most owners'.

Just out of interest do you have a skill or a trade and are you currently fully employed and if you aren't why aren't you?

I thought you'd eventually get round to saying something similar.

My current status is irrelevant to this discussion. The merit of any opinion does not rest on the status of its proponent. Your responses to me thus far seem to based on the premise that I disagree with your whole stance on the matter. But you don't actually know whether or not I agree. All I've done is pick a couple of points that I felt required a challenge.

Edited to add - I picked up on the point about owners getting nothing because what you originally said reinforced a previous post by CQMS
[snip]The people who put their houses on the line. The people who pay themselves nothing for the first few years and get less than their lowest paid employee.[/snip]

 

[tiny_lewis]

Jesus guys, talk about violent agreement....

Taff/MiT

Stop and read each other's posts, as you are both arguing from different ends of the spectrum; Taff, MiT is talking about a small-medium company, ie very very few employees, where the employee-business owner relationship is very very different, as is the fundamental business purpose. MiT, Taff appears to be discussing the very large national/multi-national corporations, (plcs) - which are vastly different beasts and exists soley to make a profit. You are right, your reasons for starting a business are/were much like mine, nothing to do with money. But Taff is equally right; the moment a company has shares, then every cost that can be taken out of the business will be - including reducing the wages bill.

I actually agreed with BDM in part of his post, until he branded ALL senior managers as being on 10M+ salaries and being useless. Thats yet another polar extreme, and not reflective of all business.

He is right in the assertion that the unemployed are a voiceless, vulnerable target, and that the current level of 'benefit' is NOT adequate to live on. Neither is is adequate to fund an idle shiftless lifestyle. Witness the number of ministers who agreed to live on benefits for a month - and who jacked it in after less than a week, iirc.

"Minimum wage" was a Labour-led disaster that simply allowed every employer to set a lowest common denominator for every job, and remove negotiation. Well intentioned, but proposed by people who have never "worked" a day in their lives, and so lacked the experience to see the obvious drawbacks.

 

[Chicken_George]

Taffd and MiT, will you both please step back from the keyboard.
The firm I work for has been trading/going/running for 70 years. When the "Bosses" father started it he had 1 wagon, and moved cattle between farms and markets.
Over the years the company has slowly grown and currently employs approx. 400 people, turnover of £25million and the 94th most profitable company in the UK, and the only company in our sector to make the list.
I work there because they pay a decent wage for my trade. Last year gross £30K.
Now so long as my toil has earnt more than that over the year we're both cool and my job is safe.
For the last 2 years we have had a combined pay rise of 3%, which although we know isn't brilliant is better than no rise and considerably better than a 3% cut.

Nicked from TL, but agree, "minimum wage is a complete clusterfuck.

"Minimum wage" was a Labour-led disaster that simply allowed every employer to set a lowest common denominator for every job, and remove negotiation. Well intentioned, but proposed by people who have never "worked" a day in their lives, and so lacked the experience to see the obvious drawbacks


CG

 

[Wordsmith]

Can we get away from this carefully nurtured notion that all the unemployed are work-shy scroungers? While some are, most are not. Just blithely stating: “Well, they can go out and get a job if they can’t live on their benefits”, is just repeating the nasty gobment line to divert attention away from themselves. There are no fuckin’ jobs! And even when work is available, it’s extremely low-paid and mostly unpleasant.

The unemployed range across the spectrum from trying hard to get a job to sitting on their backside collecting their benefits. When I was production manager of a factory in Canvey Island some time ago, I used to get people coming up to the main entrance asking if there were jobs available. I'd always make a bit of time for those people because even if there were no jobs available, they were making the effort. Conversely, I did make an attempt to take on some of the long term unemployed. (There was a scheme running at the time where you got funds from the government for training if you did). The general attitude I got was that our pay was about £30 - £40 above what they were getting in unemployment benefit, housing benefit, council tax relief, etc., and as one put it: "I'm not working 40 hours for another thirty quid a week".

No-one seems to have put two and two together here. The fact that it's not worth their while to go to work because they'd only get as much as they get on benefits is not an indication that benefits are too high (because they really are the bare minimum) but a very clear sign that even the minimum wage is far too low. If the unemployed could look forward to much higher wages, then that would be incentive enough. And all this bollocks about "paying what the market will bear" is a pitiable justification for only shelling out the absolute minimum in remuneration.

You can only pay the wage that allows you to stay in business. As has been remarked, the great majority of companies in the UK are small with less than 20 workers. If I pay my workers £30,000 each and my competitor pays them £20,000, I'm out of business because I can't compete. The alternative is that I invest in machinery, make my process more efficient, make 1/3 of my staff redundant and pay the rest £30,000 a year.

If you want to see what happens to an economy that pays its workers more than the market will bear, just look at Greece.

“A fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work” is also another one that should be consigned to the shite-heap. Employees don’t pay fair wages and they don’t want to either, because that would mean that they’d earn less in profits. And profits, and the growth in profits, is what it’s all about. If a company’s in trouble, it would rather dump 40 skilled employees on £50,000 a year each than two totally useless board-members on a million a year apiece.

Companies that don't pay a market wage tend to go out of business. I worked for one such company about 6 or 7 years ago on a short term contract. It paid its manual staff minimum wage. That was the unhappiest shop floor I've ever seen - and the waste was unbelievable. The company could have paid its staff better and got better productivity, thus paying for the wage increase. Unbelievably that company is still trading - I just checked...

Companies pay the wage that enables them to maximise profit - that's not necessarily the minimum wage.

There are two reasons to start a business; either to be independent or to enjoy the “double-status” condition. I chose to be independent and I’m a freelance translator. I don’t employ anyone else and I can choose how much I earn. I also don’t exploit others.

And good for you - I've always thought it take more moral courage to be self-employed than to be a 'wage slave' like I am. But if you did take anyone on, I'll bet you'd start thinking "what can I afford to pay?", not "I'm going to pay this person £30,000 so they can have a good standard of living".

Companies are not only competing for markets, but also for status, for year-on-year growth. If they report that profits are two percent lower, it's a catastrophe. They might have cleared, say, five million after tax in the previous year, so the reporting year is still well in the black. But “profits" are lower. It’s a perverse status race driven purely by ego. The highest profits, the biggest company and the most employees, that's what counts. That's what impresses. And that will only get worse as time progresses. What a fuckin’ perverse world we live in.

It's not status, it's short termism. First, the bonus schemes given to senior management encourages short term profits not long term building - so they do everything to maximise this years profits (and bonus) and far too little to make sure the company is going to be healthy in 5 years time. The short termism is also driven by institutional investors who drive for short term profit to boost their immediate returns from their investment - rather than encouraging the company to invest for the long term - and deliver profits (and dividends) well into the future.

What did for a lot of companies during this recession was a stupid reliance on cheap credit to drive unrealistic expansion plans. The companies that have done best are those that took a deep breath, retained their profits and reinvested them - they planned for the long term.

Wordsmith

 

[BugzDaMick]

It's not status, it's short termism. First, the bonus schemes given to senior management encourages short term profits not long term building - so they do everything to maximise this years profits (and bonus) and far too little to make sure the company is going to be healthy in 5 years time. The short termism is also driven by institutional investors who drive for short term profit to boost their immediate returns from their investment - rather than encouraging the company to invest for the long term - and deliver profits (and dividends) well into the future.

Wordsmith

I’d prepared a whole bevy of rebuttals to the quitty responses of your man Wordsmith, but I decided to reduce it to a reply to this quote. I work with languages for a living. I'm a translator and, occasionally, interpreter. The English language is awash with connotations, synonyms, double-meanings and lead-ins that fetch up against sheer walls when confronted with the realities of life, just like your man Call-Me-Dave is discovering in these nasty times.

Just such an expression is “short terminism”. It actually means that the proponents couldn’t give a **** about the folks they’re disposing over and regard them as mere pawns in the pursuit of ever higher profits.

We’re supposed to be (and we’re morally and ethically charged with) building a much better and more optimistic world for our children and grandchildren. We owe them that much at least. But we have to ask ourselves just how that's turning out.

MsG

 

[Mugatu]

Well according to the mail it turns out the guardian may have embellished the story a little...
Labour camp? No, we just had a great time, Lord Prezza: Jobless Jubilee stewards dismiss 'exploitation' claims | Mail Online

 

[Markintime]

Let me stop you there.

25K?

Do grow up, you have offered nothing to the discussion that is true so far, you are just doing your usual and bombarding the thread with lengthy and contrary replies to any poster more interesting than you as you fancy yourself an intellectual, you also hate being wrong.

Stop using the ever increasingly distorted acceptions to the general rule as a defence and explain to the class why multi nationals should have the wage bill subsidised by the tax payer?

Which multi-nationals are having their wage bills subsidised?

You haven't a clue have you?

 

[Idrach]

Which multi-nationals are having their wage bills subsidised?

Well, any company employing anybody who gets tax credit - technically. But there is a fundamental point - if labour does not add enough to the organisation to cover the cost of employing that labour, then the private sector generally won't employ that labour. It doesn't matter whether the organisation's other employees add billions. You look at the marginal return - and it doesn't need to be immediate. You can look at the longer term (trainees etc.)

There is a simple trade-off - higher minimum wage, lower employment. If we set the minimum wage sufficiently low that it doesn't aggressively distort the lower end of the job market and we agree that people in work should not be worse off than if they were on benefits, then some people in these lower end jobs are going to need benefits. Companies are going to get "their wage bill subsidised". It's the difference between the social and economic trade-offs.

 

[Wordsmith]

Just such an expression is “short terminism”. It actually means that the proponents couldn’t give a **** about the folks they’re disposing over and regard them as mere pawns in the pursuit of ever higher profits.

We’re supposed to be (and we’re morally and ethically charged with) building a much better and more optimistic world for our children and grandchildren. We owe them that much at least. But we have to ask ourselves just how that's turning out.

OK - let me ask you a question. (And I'm NOT having a crack at your expense).

When you quote for your translation services, do you pitch your quote for the maximum you think you can get from your client, or do you say "I'm going to be socially responsible, I'll actually ask for 25% less so my client can pay his employees more."

If you're anything like the great majority of us, you'll charge as much as you think the market will bear.

We're all great at saying the other guy should cut his costs/moderate his demands, but as soon as it comes to ourselves, we start to look out for number one. And that (unfortunately) is human nature...

Wordsmith