to be offering £8 p/h for part-time work in my small company

[AgathaPinchBottom]

Hi folks, I run a small business (1 year old) and have a fairly new baby, and I am looking for part-time help at work. Someone recently wrote to me asking me for work and I replied saying I could offer them £8 an hour (to answer phone, take enquiries etc). They replied saying they wouldn't even consider it unless I doubled the figure. Can't really afford to pay someone this. AIBU to think £8 enough? (Also - it would start at £8 and go up to £10 in a few months as business improves). Opinions gratefully received.

As the job is during school hours then I think £8ph is perfectly reasonable as there is no childcare cost to fork out for.

Gatecrashing here but what do you think I should ask for, for working in a coffee shop. In the SE, quite a wealthy area but outside London. £7 a hour I thought? Asking as a potential employee not an employer BTW. I saw jobs at Costa Coffee for £6.50 an hour in the same area recently.

Insomnia, as much as you can without pricing yourself out of the market. So if the going rate is 6.50/hr but you can speak another language and you're near tourist attractions, demand an extra 50p since you can serve the influx of French tourists much better (just a random example, but i hope you see the point ).

Good idea - definitely will talk myself up. Let's say there is a lot on my CV! They have read it and want to speak to me so they are aware of that. Its an owner run business rather than a big chain.

Thanks faaaagh, as you were everyone. :)

blimey no wonder these jobs never seem to go up with inflation, so many seem to think it's reasonable!

I work for a big company in London (or not depending on what side of the argument you were on on the thread in question!) and with London weighting I get less than that, but it's retail which is notoriously crap despite being (physically) hard. Personally I'd love it if it wasn't for the school holidays problem (are you anywhere near Croydon?! ), it's far easier work than I currently do and for more money.

It's nothing to do with whether the pay is reasonable, it's being pragmatic about what you can get for the hours you can do. If you're trying to fit work in around childcare then you take what you can get Companies have you over a barrel when your working hours are limited.

I'm a deputy manager in a pre-school in south east London and I earn £8 per hour, plus I have a degree and am working towards EYPS.

So, from my pov, £8 per hour for admin is more than reasonable.

I'm near Croydon MrsDimitri

But if you can't actually live on it without the help of either a partner who also works (and earns much more than you) or government help,(Like tax credits) then HOW is this reasonable?
I mean, I get that it is based on the REALITY of the laws of supply and demand e.g other people wanting school friendly hours, but that is not the same as it being reasonable really.
Also, I dont think admin IS unskilled, is it? I am absolutely shit at it, and find it really hard! (and I have two degrees!)

8/hour sounds reasonable to me.

The applicant sounds SO rude, so you wouldn't want her representing your company anyway I imagine! She is kidding herself if she thinks she'll be getting 16/hour for that kind of role.

northernrock it is relatively unskilled. Compared to some of the specific examples others have raised, such as requirements for degrees, professional qualifications, minimum number of years experience, et - in terms of skills, plenty of offices have office juniors on minimum wage doing basic admin tasks. We're not talking about taking minutes at global corporation HQs or being PA to the CEO of a large bank, which I assume is a role in the same general area but which (I presume!) needs much more than your basic "admin skills".

And as for "you can't live on it" - that's what flatshares are for. Or living at home for a few years until you start earning more money. Or rent/buy a place with a colleague, sibling or friend until your circumstances allow for alternatives. I also think you'll find that most (i'd love to get real stats) of the working population with children earning under about £35k a year needs tax credits to meet their basic needs - basic in terms of food, council tax, housing costs, commuting costs, childcare, etc. And if you're single it's similarly a struggle. Think of minimum wage - what sort of person earning under a grand after tax can afford to live (as I assume you mean - independantly albeit frugally) on their own properly? Barely any - my youngest sister lives in the north of England and I'm pretty sure an adult working 35hrs a week on minimum wage couldn't afford to actually live.

But tha'ts the situation we're in - I'm not saying it's good, I'm just telling it how it is.

However, until we get teachers, nurses, etc earning relatively more, there's absolutely no way I can have much sympathy for an easy position admin employee demanding £16/hr (£33k a year). It's just silly!

Or living at home = Or living at the parental home

I know, I said earlier that I need tax credits to live now, and I hate it.
I think the minimum wage should be much more so that people can be independent of the state.

"And as for "you can't live on it" - that's what flatshares are for. Or living at home for a few years until you start earning more money."

The thing is, if you work in a lot of places in this country you never really do make more money.
Or, if you need to quite your original job to take something with more child friendly hours,(My old job was sometimes 16 hour days and I am single so it was not possible) you have to have top ups from the state to live.

So being working poor (on ,say, £8 an hour) does not necessarily make you really young.
I can't see a bunch of flat sharing 21 year olds wanting me and my child.And as for moving in with my parents...

northernrock that's true about age, I suppose - in which case you're pretty much at the mercy of those tax credits, I agree.

I think the minimum wage should be much more so that people can be independent of the state.

But why would they? Subsidising private firms totally false labour bills in this way provides a ready button to press at election time They're not going to tie that noose around your neck and take it off when you complain it's chafing a bit "Vote for us, we'll help you out more", "don't vote for them, they want to cut credits for the old/ill/young/black/white/insert other random feature of a group of people here". Smart stuff when you think about it

They pay £6.50 an hour round here for that kind of thing.

As I discovered after I was made redundant and considered doing something a lot more junior.

Childcare for x 2 children works out at £8.50 an hour here, hence never applying for any of those jobs!

Well yes faaaaghinatub, I do think that the govnmt actively needs the electorate to be somewhat dependant on them-that way we can't make too much trouble.
Don't know about false labour bills though, or why the govnmt would need to subsidise?
It would just mean (shock horror) slightly fewer massive profits for the company. It would also mean a happier and more stable workforce, but that is not in the interests of the people who run things, is it?
I do realise that people who run tiny companies and are starting out can't afford to pay a lot, but if they absolutely had to factor in real wages, then they just would.
If you can't make your company profitable enough to pay at LEAST £8 ph then frankly, you have no business being in business.