My word, really?

Laura Gardiner, senior policy analyst at Resolution, said: “The new minimum wage is a welcome move towards tackling low pay, particularly in social care where at least 700,000 workers are set to benefit, but implementing it will be challenging in the care sector and will require significant new public investment. Failure to do this could result in a major escalation of the illegal ‘wage theft’ that already blights the lives of far too many care workers.

“It is unrealistic to expect councils to find this extra money, given the scale of cuts they’re facing. It is important therefore that central government steps up and commits to providing this vital investment in social care.which will give a major boost to staff and improve the quality of care.”

Wow.

You mean that paying employees more money costs employers more money?

Why didn’t anybody tell us?

8 thoughts on “My word, really?”

  1. >and will require significant new public investment.

    No it won’t. No extra money will be invested – for this will yield no extra returns to the people doing the ‘investing’. Giving lots of staff a wage rise isn’t normally investment – it’s usually just reflecting the reality of operating costs or regulation.

    If they bought machines so they could sack some staff that might be investment, but being the public sector, even if they could they won’t.

    What she means is it will require “significant extra public spending” but that doesn’t sound like such and easy sell right now.

    I must admit I was wondering how inflationary this move is going to be – anything where the main cost is low paid staff (like care homes, child care, hand car washes) is going to have to either shut up shop or charge vastly more….

  2. “It is unrealistic to expect councils to find this extra money”

    As you say Tim, really? Because before Wednesday it wasn’t unrealistic to expect employers to find that extra money. Before Wednesday it was an amployers’ subsidy.

  3. As Ironman- weren’t we told that the wealthy employers were being subsidised via the various in work benefits? About time the greedy local councils paid their way!

  4. One of our local councils (probably the City Council rather than the County Council, but after the Walker reforms who knows?) is splurging large sums of money on extravagant new cycle lanes (replacing decent ones I’ve used for decades) that will probably prove no better for cyclists, and will almost certainly be worse for everyone else.

    As long as such waste is perpetual and obvious, why should anyone take seriously council claims to poverty? Stop being so wasteful you fuckers. And try getting the productivity of your labour force up to respectable standards.

  5. So councils will have to cut more services.
    All those campaigning for living wage – including the unions – might find themselves having to pay more.
    Imagine if had increased to level the campaigners wanted…..

  6. Council waste does have to be seen to be believed.

    I went out a council job a couple of weeks back – a temporary repair to a cattle grid.

    My firm sent me and a transit pickup of gear to do the actual job. The council sent two blokes who arrived nearly an hour late(my firm were charging me out by the hour), to put out 4 roadcones round the job, then stand around for two hours while I did the repair, then pick the 4 cones up again. Money well spent..!?!

  7. Perhaps I am being a bit simple but won’t the living wage just result in increased prices to the consumer?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *