Advanced search

To think that all this 'get the people on benefit to work' is less about cost saving for the economy and more about getting business owners slave labour?

(117 Posts)
Heroine Wed 05-Dec-12 13:01:40

I just can't help thinking, when I hear another daft greedy business owner claiming that 'work gives a social benefit' whilst advocating 16 year olds working for £2 an hour so that they can earn £50K a year plus from their small shop that all this low wage, internship and apprenticeship crap is just a way to further line the pockets of the relatively wealthy.

Also I had a big lecture from someone about how their business was doing badly, then I saw their massive house and two large guzzling cars whilst they have taken on three apprentices at £2 an hour - the same as one minimum wager! Its shocking.

SoniaGluck Thu 06-Dec-12 12:59:19

YANBU and I totally agree with what LauriesFairy said.

takataka Thu 06-Dec-12 13:03:20

Rubbish freddos I left home at 16. Lots if people I know dis also. With university fees as they are, there will be less people staying in post 16 education, and striking out at this age. There is no justification for paying anyone below minimum wage.

Anyhow, it has a knock on effect on ^ all^ employees of all ages, if a company can get their labour done for £2 an hour, of course they won't be employing so many staff that they have to pay properly

SantaIAmSoFuckingRock Thu 06-Dec-12 13:18:25

"We also think that everyone works harder if they are looked after and well rewarded. It's worked for us - our employees stay with us and enjoy coming to work. "

totally agree with this. no-one is going to want to leave an apprenticeship paying over min wage and paying for their courses for a job paying £2 and hour. it makes good business sense to pay your staff well and make them feel valued.

SantaIAmSoFuckingRock Thu 06-Dec-12 13:26:35

" Training people costs money, there is no good reason why that shouldn't be reflected in the pay an apprentice receives. "

people train in jobs at all ages, should a 35 year old man who has moved into a new line of work be paid only £2 and hour because he requires training on the job?

SantaIAmSoFuckingRock Thu 06-Dec-12 13:35:05

and also, if you are training someone to work in your business then why the hell shouldn't YOU be paying for the training? it is your business that will benefit from well trained staff. follow it up with good wages and are more likely to keep your employee/apprentice once their training is over.

if you cant afford to train and pay the staff you need you need to shut up shop.

ButternutSquish Thu 06-Dec-12 14:08:39

I don't disagree with what you're saying about so called apprenticeships but I do think you no idea what it's like to run a business.

A business is by design there to make money for the person who owns it. I believe any business owner has a moral obligation to look after its' staff BUT it isn't cheap to employ people. Many people take on contractors so they don't have to pay National Insurance for their staff. In my case my employee costs me approx £250 per month plus sick pay, paid holidays, maternity pay etc etc and no doubt soon I will have to pay a 3% contribution to a pension. Add to this the start up & running costs of a business which in any climate is risky.

Not all business owners are rich and live in mansions and drive fancy sports cars. I always make sure my lady is paid before me. She gets everything she's entitled to plus extras such as birthday & christmas presents and bonuses.

EldritchCleavage Thu 06-Dec-12 14:18:18

I agree with Santa. All the professions (law, medicine, accountancy, surveying etc) work on the basis you earn a proper salary doing your on the job training.

Thats life Butternut. Its a part of running a business.

Do you tell your electricity supplier that you are only paying a third of the going rate?

Staff are a cost. They provide a service. Build the proper costs into your business model. If it doesnt turn a profit, dont have that business. Simple.

SantaIAmSoFuckingRock Thu 06-Dec-12 14:42:30

" In my case my employee costs me approx £250 per month plus sick pay, paid holidays, maternity pay etc etc and no doubt soon I will have to pay a 3% contribution to a pension. Add to this the start up & running costs of a business which in any climate is risky."

sorry but all of that should be factored in when you are considering setting up a business, and yes i know that new regulations happen long after you have set up but you should be able to adjust your business to comply without it costing your current or future staff. if you cant comply with current business regulations and pay a fair (i mean NMW) wage then business is no longer a viable option for you.

SantaIAmSoFuckingRock Thu 06-Dec-12 14:44:04

and yes i totally get that businesses exist to make a profit for the business owner but profit should absoloutely not be at the expense of anyone else. salaries and working conditions should be fair not exploitative.

PessaryPam Thu 06-Dec-12 16:01:04

ButternutSquish I feel your pain.

When we had staff we treated them very well, they were not on minimum wage or anywhere near it, £45K plus more like with graduates starting around £20K. Life is much easier now as have scaled back, we pick opportunities as we fancy them, and only have ourselves to pay and worry about. I cannot see anything proposed by the Gov that would make me want to go down the route of employing people and expanding again.

I do not want to make money enough to go through the hassle and if the economy dips you can be left haemorrhaging money as its a lengthy process to get rid of people, the risk is too great.

Example, we spent 6 months working on a sale to Enron a few years back, they went bust just before we signed the deal. We had staff in place to service it, they could not just be switched off, we still had to pay them. Upshot was we stopped paying ourselves to keep the business going and them in jobs.

But as 'bosses' we are the greedy bad guys? Sod that for a game of soldiers. Easier not to play.

PessaryPam Thu 06-Dec-12 16:01:32

wannabedomesticgoddess have you ever run a business?

PessaryPam Thu 06-Dec-12 22:14:51

That's a feckin No then.

Meglet Thu 06-Dec-12 22:15:39


ravenAK Thu 06-Dec-12 22:25:00

So you've made business choices based on the current economic climate, Pam. & you've decided it makes sense for you not to hire employees.

That's quite literally 'your business', so long as you aren't asking the rest of us to sub your employment costs via workfare, & you aren't exploiting staff by asking them to work for less than NMW.

Did you mean to be so feckin' rude?


No I havent run a business. But I cant see how that invalidates my point. I have business experience. Does that count or are you still superior?

Darkesteyes Thu 06-Dec-12 22:29:52

<claps ravenAK> Totally agree raven.

PessaryPam Fri 07-Dec-12 07:27:30

wanna, you have no idea.

AnneTwacky Fri 07-Dec-12 07:44:14

All those people saying it gives them experience, and it's better than the tax payer paying/ saves them playing on their xbox etc. I would agree with you if the employers were paying them a real wage instead of a pittance.

It's absolutely immoral to expect somebody to work for you and not pay them properly. OP YANBU.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Fri 07-Dec-12 08:01:31

So much of whether it is immoral or not depends on the job. If we are talking about an apprenticeship in retail where the only training required is how to work a till, then I agree, it is wrong to pay for that job at less than NMW. But if we are talking about a traditional apprenticeship, where the trainee requires a lot of training and experience to be able to do the job properly, then I can't really see the problem with it. Apprenticeships are not suitable for all jobs, but they are great for learning trades like plumbing. I don't think employers should be expected to pay NMW to someone who is not yet capable of doing the job, but who will be very capable after having hours of input into their training. A plumber who is training someone needs to have extra time on every job to do do that training, and time is money in trades like that. Who is going to pay someone who is unqualified and with no experience the NMW to do a job they have no idea how to do?

It's better to pay young trainees a little so that they get training and experience which will enable then to earn more than NMW in the future. Otherwise they get no training, no experience, and can never hope to do a job that will earn them more.

FeistyLass Fri 07-Dec-12 08:07:03

We run a small business too and pay our staff well and give bonuses. I know a lot of small business owners and none of them are using apprentices at £2 per hour. They all treat their staff well. Hence I'm a bit confused where all this anger against SMEs is coming from. confused
It's big businesses who seem to be benefitting from this scheme and exploiting it.

QueenoftheHolly Fri 07-Dec-12 08:18:34

Oh dear! Really find this pov very confused
The thing is, really anyone can be a 'business leader' esp of a small company, if things are so unfair why not take on the challenge (& stresses etc) & have a go yourself? Worth remembering that most small businesses fail - it is tough. & why all the choppiness about people having a good car etc?

I get very annoyed by Tesco's (for eg) taking advantage of the apprenticeship scheme because they are not teaching any skills but when a young person is genuinely learning new skills, this does cost the company money - both sides see the time as an investment.

When I was at school I did jobs (for spending money) including babysitting 4 DCs including one autistic, for £1.17 / hr (I remember as the counted out the pennies! They were quite wealthy- obvious as to why!!)) waitressing for £2/ hr, office cleaning for about the same.

It helped me to learn that jobs, wages etc are supply & demand. If you want to earn lots you have to be able to do something that fewer people can do. That applies to gaining experience & expertise as well as working hard at school of course.

To me this thread rings slightly of a sense of entitlement. A kind of 'brought up on welfare' thought process.

Heroine Fri 07-Dec-12 08:56:29

I'm absolutely fascinated that you think a sense of entitlement is most evident in those brought up on welfare, and that you also clearly believe that feeling entitled to a wage that is enough to live on in one of the wealthiest countries in the world is some sort of character flaw!

It never fails to astonish me that people with at best a junior school grasp of economics feel 'entitled' to blether on about how people should be grateful for being exploited, and congratulate people whose means of making money is to make the lives of everyone around them miserable so that they can feel a few steps up.

Heroine Fri 07-Dec-12 08:57:17

Also, when you were this social hero working for £2 an hour, how many years ago was that??

Pam, do you mean to be so condescending or does it happen by accident?

You have no knowledge of what I have an idea of.

I dont need to run a business to know that these apprentice schemes which have popped up recently are nothng more than slave labour.

Real apprenticeships which contain a structured training programme and improve job and salary prospects are being seriously undermined by these schemes.

It beggars belief that people are on this thread complaining that people dont want to work for £2 per hour.

Stop believing in the "entitlement" propaganda. Its all lies. No one is acting "entitled" by expecting to be paid a decent wage!

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now