Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Kemi B - the best form of welfare is a well paying job...

269 replies

Oofftheflooff · Today 09:18

She is absolutely right isn't she? Discussing the triple lock pension challenge and instead focusing on getting people into work. Do you agree with her ? Working 3 or 6 or 9 hours to then top up with benefits isn't the way forward (not including disabilities in here )

OP posts:
Harv3srM00n · Today 14:59

No nursery workers either, hospital porters…..

CandyCrushLevel14809 · Today 15:00

Manhattanman · Today 14:53

All of which is regrettable and those people have my sympathy but presumably they only plan to stay on NMW for as long as they have to before (hopefully) being employed in something more befitting their abilities and experience? Even if they don't, are you suggesting that NMW should be much closer to what they previously earned to make the drop less painful?

Yes, I am sure they are hoping to find employment commensurate with their skills and experience.

I don't know what the answer is, but you suggesting there are options i.e. these people are choosing to be in this 'regrettable' position and that they have the sympathy from people like you is patronising and false in many cases.

JenniferBooth · Today 15:03

Monty36 · Today 10:45

Zero hours contracts are an abomination.

The minimum wage along with ‘credits’ were introduced by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. They changed the relationship with employers and employees forever. For a modest job. Employers were quick to realise they did not need to offer any higher than the minimum and the taxpayer can pick up any shortfall.
Great. Not. The days of employers having to cough up more to workers at various times was lost forever.

It was a stupid idea. And remains one. It drains the revenue the Chancellor has to use elsewhere. And means people often don’t work full time. Great.

do you think they would really cough up more when the abolition of the wages councils has already proved the opposite

Harv3srM00n · Today 15:04

CandyCrushLevel14809 · Today 15:00

Yes, I am sure they are hoping to find employment commensurate with their skills and experience.

I don't know what the answer is, but you suggesting there are options i.e. these people are choosing to be in this 'regrettable' position and that they have the sympathy from people like you is patronising and false in many cases.

But we need qualified experienced people staying in sectors such as childcare, elderly care, TAs etc. How does people not being valued and staying to hone skills help the vulnerable? Other countries pay these people a proper wage.

Movingsomeplantsabout · Today 15:07

Being in receipt of benefits (the social, the dole) used to be a source of shame. Nowadays it’s worn like a badge of honour. That’s the difference.

Manhattanman · Today 15:09

CandyCrushLevel14809 · Today 15:00

Yes, I am sure they are hoping to find employment commensurate with their skills and experience.

I don't know what the answer is, but you suggesting there are options i.e. these people are choosing to be in this 'regrettable' position and that they have the sympathy from people like you is patronising and false in many cases.

There's a distinct difference between those who previously had a high paying career but through no fault of their own have had to accept a (hopefully temporary) NMW paying role and those who willingly take those roles from the start of their working life and expect that they will lead a comfortable existence for ever (often subsidised by taxpayers). The two are not the same groups of people and shouldn't be conflated when arguing the level of the minimum wage.

I don't know whether the minimum wage should be £1/hr or £100/hr but I do know that it will ALWAYS be less than everybody else earns by it's very nature, and the higher it rises, the more employers will look at other options.

JenniferBooth · Today 15:09

Zzxzzz · Today 11:08

I agree take responsibility for your own life

Which should include parents on £1000.00 who have chosen to have kids.

thefallenangelina · Today 15:09

Well of course. So what is Kemi doing to make sure that there are enough well-paid jobs out there? I mean jobs that pay a living wage, not just minimum wage, and enough that everyone willing to work can get such a job to start building up work experience?

JenniferBooth · Today 15:13

randomchap · Today 11:40

Are you sure that landlords would willingly drop rents? I'm unconvinced

And yet people are convinced that employers would pay more.

number1of7 · Today 15:18

Ponoka7 · Today 11:39

My DD looks like that, but my eldest, childfree DD helps her with the cost of holidays, she also buys clothes. She has the children and doesn't ask for expenses. I pay for the youngest's school uniform and most of her clothes, days out and term bus pass. The paternal grandad buys the school shoes and all the family put money in the children's bank accounts. Whenever we have them, we feed them. So life looks great on a UC top up, when in reality, it would just about keep her head above water.
For this plan to work there'd have to be, reasonable paying, full time jobs about and low cost housing. What did the Tories do about those issues during their term? Jeremy Corbyn (I'm not a fan) was laughed at when he said, let's get rid of the gig economy and make work pay. So when all our WC is supporting themselves, we'll be told we'll need even more immigration to do the low paying jobs and that's more HMO contracts for the Tories friend's and we'll be paying for immigrants rather than British permanent residents? Can someone explain why we won't pay for our population, who live in the areas were employment has been decimated, but have a unlimited budget for immigrants? Then explain why the WC, especially in the North, should accept this, when they've just had austerity, but the Tories told their friends to maximise what they claim for asylum accommodation and all the other fake/inflated contracts.

So your dd has family support and doesn’t need benefits.

Harv3srM00n · Today 15:19

Movingsomeplantsabout · Today 15:07

Being in receipt of benefits (the social, the dole) used to be a source of shame. Nowadays it’s worn like a badge of honour. That’s the difference.

Not sure those working hard find being topped up by benefits a badge of honour.

CandyCrushLevel14809 · Today 15:25

Movingsomeplantsabout · Today 15:07

Being in receipt of benefits (the social, the dole) used to be a source of shame. Nowadays it’s worn like a badge of honour. That’s the difference.

And it's attitudes like yours that send people with already an rock bottom sense of self-worth and inadequacy into depression.

JenniferBooth · Today 15:25

19lottie82 · Today 12:56

To me another issue is that “mid level jobs” just aren’t rising in line with minimum wage, or even inflation.

Jobs that used to be considered “good” are now only a small fraction over minimum wage.

Twelve years ago I worked in an office and was paid £25k, about 40% more than minimum wage, now a days the same job only pays about £28k, around 10% more than minimum wage. Plenty of other jobs are the same.

That job, at the time, would be enough for someone to live alone, renting a 1B flat, pay your other bills and maybe run a small car. Not anymore. What will happen if the minimum wage goes up again? So called “skilled” jobs will be paying the same, and employees will have no incentive to stay in roles that require learning new skills and taking on responsibility. Why would they when you could make the same working in Tesco, or similar for the same wage, with a lot less stress and responsibility?

I wonder what will happen in ten years time.

Try working in retail in December if you dont think its stressful I did and i didnt even have time to fart.

Icantbelieveitsnatcustard · Today 15:26

I think Badenoch may well be right…

CandyCrushLevel14809 · Today 15:29

Manhattanman · Today 15:09

There's a distinct difference between those who previously had a high paying career but through no fault of their own have had to accept a (hopefully temporary) NMW paying role and those who willingly take those roles from the start of their working life and expect that they will lead a comfortable existence for ever (often subsidised by taxpayers). The two are not the same groups of people and shouldn't be conflated when arguing the level of the minimum wage.

I don't know whether the minimum wage should be £1/hr or £100/hr but I do know that it will ALWAYS be less than everybody else earns by it's very nature, and the higher it rises, the more employers will look at other options.

The two are not the same groups of people and shouldn't be conflated when arguing the level of the minimum wage.

It's what you did. You did not (until challenged) acknowledge that many people are not choosing to be on NWM. And you still think that those down on their luck are taking NMW jobs temporarily.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the bone idle could try and better themselves.

JenniferBooth · Today 15:32

nearlylovemyusername · Today 13:21

why only 50%? single and with no caring responsibilities should work full time and not have any top ups

So only extra help for those who have living proof that they have had sex without contraception

Ive seen child free ppl told on here that they shouldnt be in social housing even if its a one bedroom flat and be told that they should cover the shit hours at Christmas so parents can have the time off Now they have to subsidise parents on £100,000 a year too.

Monty36 · Today 15:34

JenniferBooth · Today 14:58

I was unemployed in the 90s before minimum wage. i remember seeing jobs in the Job Centre that were paying £1.50 an hour and £50 a week. So if you think employers would step up you are wrong.

These problems with low pay started with the abolition of the wages councils in 1993 After this wages in low income jobs plummeted. (see above)

Are ppl so naive that they think employers would step up if top up in work benefits and minimum wage disappeared tomorrow. Either people are too young to remember the wages councils or they dont learn from history.

https://researchonline.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/5998/

The wage council abolition appears to have been an error then.

11AndCounting · Today 15:34

Geez, is Badenoch the best the Tories can produce? At best, its an embarrassingly vacuous comment.

Hopefully she'll be out of job soon enough!

Monty36 · Today 15:36

JenniferBooth · Today 15:03

do you think they would really cough up more when the abolition of the wages councils has already proved the opposite

Which means we bring back the councils.

JenniferBooth · Today 15:40

randomchap · Today 13:35

Then how are you going to get companies to offer 30 hour+ contracts. So many low hour contracts have the expectation that you'll be available for extra shifts at the drop of a hat, or shifts that are not the same every week. Effectively meaning that people can only have one of them.

Is Badenoch going to go after these companies, improve workers rights perhaps?

Im seeing a private dentist. Cant find an NHS one. On the bottom of the appointment slips it says if i need to cancel an appointment they need 48 hours notice or half of what i would have paid on the day will have to be paid So if i had cancelled my last appointment with less than 48 hours notice that cancellation would have cost me £150

A missed appointment on the day means full fee is still payable so £300.

My HA is fond of doing things with no notice so they would have to be asked "who do i send my invoice to" if they insisted on coming here on the day i have a dentist appointment with only 24 hours notice.

Manhattanman · Today 15:55

CandyCrushLevel14809 · Today 15:29

The two are not the same groups of people and shouldn't be conflated when arguing the level of the minimum wage.

It's what you did. You did not (until challenged) acknowledge that many people are not choosing to be on NWM. And you still think that those down on their luck are taking NMW jobs temporarily.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the bone idle could try and better themselves.

I'm losing the thread of this one a bit. My original.comment was that I believe the NMW to be too high relative to wages generally and thus offputting to employers. You presumably disagree, so where should it be, bearing in mind that lf you raise it to £15, those currently on £15 will want £17 and those currently on £17 will want £19 and so on? Where does it end? The NMW will always be the lowest of anyone earning and employers won't believe they're getting sufficient value for their £15 per hour + NI + pension contribution etc and so will try to avoid where possible. I'm surprised this is a controversial take.

Sounds like we're on the same page with your last comment.

CandyCrushLevel14809 · Today 16:04

Manhattanman · Today 15:55

I'm losing the thread of this one a bit. My original.comment was that I believe the NMW to be too high relative to wages generally and thus offputting to employers. You presumably disagree, so where should it be, bearing in mind that lf you raise it to £15, those currently on £15 will want £17 and those currently on £17 will want £19 and so on? Where does it end? The NMW will always be the lowest of anyone earning and employers won't believe they're getting sufficient value for their £15 per hour + NI + pension contribution etc and so will try to avoid where possible. I'm surprised this is a controversial take.

Sounds like we're on the same page with your last comment.

Yeah....I think different issues are becoming entwined, but that's kind of the issue - NMW maybe was never meant to be able to support someone properly (widely acknowledged, including by the government), but it's not just the young, students or the person looking for 'a little job for some pin money' who find themselves struggling on NMW and having to rely on benefits.
If the jobs aren't there, no amount of sanctions, politicians bleating on about 'getting people back to work' or supported educations schemes will help.

Manhattanman · Today 16:16

CandyCrushLevel14809 · Today 16:04

Yeah....I think different issues are becoming entwined, but that's kind of the issue - NMW maybe was never meant to be able to support someone properly (widely acknowledged, including by the government), but it's not just the young, students or the person looking for 'a little job for some pin money' who find themselves struggling on NMW and having to rely on benefits.
If the jobs aren't there, no amount of sanctions, politicians bleating on about 'getting people back to work' or supported educations schemes will help.

I fully agree and I also think we got muddled somewhere along the line. Glad we cleared that up 👍🏻

Witchlite · Today 16:20

I think employers should be forced to pay a living wage - that needs one that does not need benefit top ups. This should be all employers, including NHS and carers.

This means the government will have to pay higher salaries for staff, instead of just topping the salaries up with benefit. Private firms will have to operate a company paying a living wage or close. The state should not be subsidising them by topping up the salaries. This subsidy goes to the shareholders in the end.

Disability should be looked at again. We should look at what people can do and not what they can’t. The government has recently (this was instigated by Labour) cut the funding to help enable disabled people to find and continue in paid work. This enabled companies to employ disabled people without it costing more than able bodied people.

n.b Some disabled people will never be able to work. The state must and should pay benefits in these cases.

Childcare should be heavily subsidised, so that parents can afford to work. If they choose not to, the parents need to fund it. Specialist childcare should be available for disabled children.

There should be an overall assumption that people work to earn their keep and that companies that employ these people do so at a wage that enables them to live.

There will be exceptions, but everyone who can, should work to pay for themselves.

Havanananana · Today 16:25

Zzxzzz · Today 13:12

They should get paid what the market rate is for their skills

There is not a free market for labour because at the end of the day, people need food, accommodation, care, transport, education and so on.

The Conservative's dream is for the labour market to be totally unregulated so that employers can pay as little as possible, offer no benefits, no employee protections, skimp on working time regulations and health and safety and generally treat employees as expendible. In other words the American model, or as we used to call it - serfdom.