to judge an employer that doesn't pay at least a living wage?

[Objection]

I am passively job hunting at the moment and have noticed a huge amount of jobs that are paid below a living wage - I can't help but give a mental black mark against the companies that don't pay their staff a living wage.

I'm trying to think of why it would be acceptable; a job is a job, after all and employees are free to leave (though not much of an argument), and small independent companies may not have a big enough budgets...
but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
AIBU to immediately judge a company for paying so little?

[expecting to be told I am!]

If a company at least NMW,that's a start

Obviously it's intrinsically linked to the NMW being too low. All businesses, large or small, would trend towards minimising labour costs. Granted, for some there willl be significant trade off against other factors. That still leaves a massive number of positions which would always be NMW.

I don't really see it as their position to pay above that, rather it's the governments job to balance NMW against unemployment and the quality of life among the poor.

Not sure why you think supermarkets are raking it in - Tesco and sainsburys made only 3% profit margin.

Tesco made £2.8bn in 2012 (only £120m in 2013). Total wage bill was £7bn. A 20% pay rise (to get from NMW to 'living wage outside London) would cost them £1.4bn, so half the profit in 2012 and huge loss in 2013.

But Tesco wouldn't employ as many people as they do now if the NMW was raised by 20%. For one thing, there'd be a lot more automated checkouts and a lot less manned ones. You can't just raise wages like this and expect businesses not to restructure their business accordingly.

Tesco pay considerably more than the minimum wage, at least they always used to. Far more than ADSA and Sainsbury's, iirc

I don't really care if an employer is large or small - if it is being subsidised by the govt in the form of tax credits and LHA then it is a drain on the economy, not a viable business, and can safely be allowed to go to the wall.

Romnell but the money being spent into the economy and tax by the company, is more than tax credits etc.

Stupid response

That's a lot of companies, Rommell. How do you replace the jobs lost after they go to the wall?

Really, the problem is that the government legislates one thing, and then has to further legislate to solve the problems caused by the last bit of legislation. So we end up with mass immigration, the minimum wage, an inflated housing bubble, cost of living skyrocketing, people having to be paid tax credits in order to get by. When you go back in time prior to 1997 there really wasn't that many people being paid less than what the first NMW was at the time. Far more people are working for NMW now than were back then.

Rommell
You do realise a business doesn't open one day and boom, it can employ staff and on an ideal wage.
Do you think its better a business is running employing staff and those people's money is being topped up, or you have x amount of extra people searching for work?

I don't earn a minimum wage. It isn't enough for me so I did something about it and made sure I was experienced enough for better paid roles.

Why do I get the impression you have a sense of entitlement as to what YOU should earn regardless?

mrsbucket, you're being subsidised by the govt. TusconGirl, 1.5 million people were working below the NMW in 1997. Now 1.4 million people are working at it ie the figure has hardly changed at all. Not sure what you mean by 'mass immigration' either. kukeslala, if a business cannot operate without govt subsidy, it is not a viable business. In all of the rhetoric that we keep on hearing about 'scroungers' and 'welfare dependency' and the like, it is often forgotten that many employers, like mrsbucketxx here, are dependent on welfare handouts. It isn't sustainable.

Why is the op giving me the impression that she won't work for less than she feels she is worth? If you want to earn more than NMW then prove it rather than bleating that they are job hunting passively!

Don't they realise someone is supporting them deciding whether they will work or not.....

How is 'job hunting' passive? It sounds pretty active to me.

Op mentioned the word passive. You are either looking or not.

Rommell, you seem to be under the impression that everyone who works for minimum wage will automatically be claiming tax credits.

At least I think that's the basis for your ridiculous claim that a small business owner is being subsidised by the government if they hire an employee at NMW.

Does it become a viable business if the employee is married to someone whose income puts them over the limit for tax credits? Or if the employee has an income form elsewhere, like a business or a private pension?

Tax credits cost the economy more than £20 billion a year. LHA ditto. Both of these are largely in-work benefits. Now, either the govt just loves spunking billions away for the sheer hell of it, or lots of employers are not fulfilling their part of the reciprocal agreement between employer and employee.

handcream - ah yes, I see now that the OP isn't actively looking for work but just kind of browsing. I don't see how that translates into her/him thinking that s/he is worth more than NMW, given that s/he isn't applying for jobs. Surely anyone, whether job-seeking or not, is entitled to have an opinion about companies who are shored up by state spending?

I honestly don't believe that only 1.4 million people are working for NMW now. Even if it is true, there are many millions more working for only a few pence above it. And is the NMW equivalent today in real terms to what it was when it was first instituted? My guess is no.

Here you go, TucsonGirl:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25759780

The Low Pay Commission estimates that there are 1,386,000 minimum wage jobs.

The fact that she is deciding whether she wants to work or not is what is irritating me.

If you don't want to work for NMW then please do what the rest of us have done and make sure other options become available for you. I know - I have my tin hat at the ready and no doubt there will be a raft of reasons why they can't but really what does the OP want me to say.

The thing is though, I didn't know anyone working for £3 an hour in 1997. Everyone I knew was earning £4-£5 an hour, and this was working in factories, shops etc, for the most part. People who were secraties and admin workers were earning £12,000 a year or so even back in 1994. Now they are earning what, a couple of thousand more? Nearly a decade and a half later? How can that be right? Gordon Brown admitted that he had used immigration to prevent wage inflation, so I don't see how it can be argued that it isn't a factor.

I think you need to divorce your own imaginings about the OP's personal situation (which none of us know) from the discussion s/he has initiated which is whether or not it is unreasonable to judge employers who pay less than a living wage. I think it is not unreasonable, given that it costs the country tens of billions and goes against what I consider to be a principle which should be universally adhered to of a fair wage for a fair day's work. You may disagree with that; that's fine. You can also choose to spend your time on this thread making assumptions about the OP and talking about how great you - again, that's fine, if you think it adds to the discussion. I don't think it does, particularly, but ymmv.

TucsonGirl, I'm guessing you didn't know everyone in the country? I was earning £2.50 an hour just three years previously. I was paying £1 of that to the agency for the privilege of them granting me a zero hours contract. If I were to go on my own personal experience and the experiences of the people around me, I would have thought that that was widespread.

Rommell
But how many business on the day of trading or for a while after, are making a profit let alone enough to pay a living wage.
Is it not short sighted to think that if a business can not make this money straight away it is not viable...

If this was the case we would have very little business start ups.

I know of many businesses that took even years for the owner to be taking a wage personally, they are now making a good profit.

Most businesses are not viable though - how many fold in the first year? I don't have the figures to hand but I know that it is a high percentage. And that after leaching money off the state in the form of tax credits and LHA that their employees have to claim in order to live. They are not really doing anybody any favours.