Boohoo claims the productivity output of its employees averages £83,700, up 13 per cent from the previous year, but pickers are paid just £11 an hour.
Productivity output is value add or something?
Boohoo claims the productivity output of its employees averages £83,700, up 13 per cent from the previous year, but pickers are paid just £11 an hour.
Productivity output is value add or something?
from my orderpicking days… productivity output is a rough measure of how well the pickers perform, expressed as value of goods shipped out v/s man-hours per shift/period/year.
With different interpretations of “Value”, as it’s one of those Spreadsheet Manager Numbers. It tells you bugger all about how efficiently your stockyard actually runs.
But Managers can point to the Number and say “See this? This can be higher!” while wiping the Brown off their noses.
Good old Marxian Surplus Value applied to a non productive job.
Although perhaps it is productive. Marx had such limited imagination that I suspect that investigating jobs such as loading and unloading things on and off of a shelf didn’t occur to him.
That strikes me as taking an annual number and comparing it to an hourly number…
Not comparing apples to apples here.
Let’s see
11*40*52 = 22,880
That’s just salary. Then there’s also going to be the company NI contributions, tax etc on top. Then also the company has to pay for building services (electricity, gas, air con), plus maintenance, rent overheads and erm, corporation tax.
All of which has to be generated from the productivity of the workers.
So yeah, nothing to see here really.
Would love for one of these companies to come out in response one day and show the working of how much per hour they make compared to the salaries, tax, overheads, etc. Just to show how they aren’t coining it in that much per hour per person – it’s only really scale the allows them to make a profit.
Very hard now to tell the Times and the guardian apart – I wonder why Murdoch keeps it going.
H1 gross profit about 440mln, apparently over 6,000 employees previous FY. One over t’other gives £77,000. Not that close really to 83/-. So probably wot Grikath said.
Curiously, the previous A&R boasts adding 1,500 “head office colleagues” over the twelve months.
The Guardian makes a loss so by this logic Polly Toynbee and that little whining homo should be paid negative salary in alignment with the guardians productivity
TMB
I have availed my self of a three months for a quid subscription for the Times. I won’t renew when the price rises. It’s like Matthew Parris has infested the whole thing, except the sport.
It took ten minutes for the garage chappy to sell me and fit a £78 tyre. Wow! That’s £468 per hour! Almost a meeeelion quid a year!
jgh gets there.
I’ll bet that that porductivity nnumber is revenue not Gross contrib. In which case looking at the wages cost ignores the GM costs of the product being sold….
Product sold for about three times the cost of labour. Sounds a bit low to me but then textiles is a low margin business.
Very hard now to tell the Times and the guardian apart – I wonder why Murdoch keeps it going.
The fact-checking is slightly better in The Times. But every single article (especially if it’s in any way negative about the UK), there’ll be one of a handful of usual suspects diving in within a few minutes of the article going up and posting some blubbering nonsense about ‘because Brexit’. And half an hour later it will have hundreds of ‘Recommends’.
I keep the sub going mainly for the puzzles and Rod Liddle on Sundays.
“Chernyy Drakon
November 23, 2022 at 9:24 am
That strikes me as taking an annual number and comparing it to an hourly number…”
It’s not that – it’s that they’re ignoring all the other value-add in the chain from before order-pick to after it all the way to the consumer.
So they’re saying it’s unfair that an order-picker moves 80k in merchandise but only gets 28k in pay. Because al lot of the rest of that money is going to pay other people for other parts of the pipeline.