There's been another Tory in the headlines, saying the minimum wage is a bad idea for a group of people. I'm not going on what else got ignored in headlines, but he's stuck his head up so people should think about what the minimum wage actually is for.
It's not designed to keep people out of work, it's not there to penalise companies and cut their profits. It's there to pay people a decent wage. Whether it is a living wage or not isn't something I'm going to go into. What Philip Davies seemed to be arguing was that people should be allowed to undercut the minimum wage if they wanted to. He was talking about those who are on incapacity benefits mainly, but the meaning remains the same, if you undercut for some, why not for more, and then all.
First point, who would decide the ones who would be allowed to undercut the minimum wage? I've seen at least one person on twitter arguing that everyone should be allowed to undercut the minimum wage and be paid what they're worth. Everyone has the right to argue how much they're paid, in most jobs they are paying well above the minimum wage, and you can undercut in those circumstances, but not below the minimum in my opinion.
As I see it, the main benefit of having a minimum wage is to keep people paid a decent amount, it's not overly high as far as I'm concerned, and it keeps employers from employing effective slave labour. Private companies want to maximise their profits, which is fair enough. People want to be paid for their labour, the argument arises how much is appropriate to be paid. It's not about dignity, I'm not certain the minimum wage level currently allows for that, but it's about not using people.
If you allow one group to sell themselves to some company at a lower level you are saying to them they are worth less, not worthless, but worth less to you, to us, and to society than others in this country. We may not all be equal, but it's not a bad idea. To say to someone if you can't get a job then lower yourself to working for levels below anyone else, really a good idea? I don't think so. I'm sure (some) companies would jump at it, and it might get more disabled people into work, but is it worth that? Surely better to provide some encouragement to get them into work, financial or otherwise, although likely only financial objectives will appeal to some companies.
Because if you start saying the minimum wage doesn't apply to all, you've killed it. If you say that it can be undercut legally, then it will be. There was a campaign in the Independent about tips to waiting staff in restaurants, those were/are? still allowed to make up to minimum wage. This shows that if some places can undercut they will undercut, as far as they possibly can. They want to keep and increase their profits, that's fair enough, but it should not be at the expense of their workforce.
I agree with everything that Mr. Davies is saying.
ReplyDeleteI'm 49 years old, have Asperger's syndrome and have never had a job.
I need to be able to offer an employer something so that he will at least just consider giving me a job; and I reckon that his being able to pay me less than statutory minimum wage might just do it.
I doubt I would be any worse off than actually being paid a proper wage because of the complex interactions between the various benefits I receive and the amount of money I have to pay to social services for my care. In effect a wages subsidy would be in operation.
I desperately want to work, and need to work, so that I can fully contribute to, and participate in, society; and strive to become the best person I'm capable of becoming - and the minimum wage legislation is hindering me in my search for employment.
I can see your point, and agree that employers do need incentives, but I just don't think that incentive should be working for below minimum wage. I don't know what it could be, or should be, but the principle of minimum wage is important in itself, and to allow anyone to undercut I disagree with.
ReplyDelete