David Cameron will tell Britain's business leaders on Tuesday that the best way to protect themselves against ‘attacks' from Ed Miliband is to reward their workers with a pay rise.
I could not agree more.
The share of profits in the UK economy has been rising. Real wages have fallen, as has labour's overall share of the total economy. I have argued Britain needs a pay rise for a long time, as have trade unions, including those I work with such as Unite.
But on the day that the HSBC scandal shows that there is one rule for the wealthy in this country and quite another for the rest of us this call rings very hollow indeed.
We do indeed need a pay rise but to get it we need a relaxation of restrictions on union rights.
In fact we need to encourage union membership.
And we need policies to cap high pay.
And to increase the minimum wage to a living wage.
And to abolish zero hours contracts.
And to stop forcing people into low paid, marginal self-employments.
And to ensure that everyone pays their tax.
We do not need empty promises. We need real action to transform the lives of those who struggle to make ends meet in a way the people Cameron is addressing will never come close to understanding.
So yes, Britain needs a pay rise, but it needs a lot more than that. It needs real rights for working people. And those are not, as far as I can see, are not being offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
“we need a relaxation of restrictions on union rights”
So which legislation would you repeal?
“And we need policies to cap high pay.”
How will you do this? Will you make it illegal to pay someone more than a certain amount?
“And to abolish zero hours contracts.”
Some workers find such contracts flexible, work well for them and are happy with them. Why should they be abolished if that is the case?
All these issues are so extensively dealt with elsewhere I will ignore them here
pay rises would have to be in the order of %200 to give most a fighting chance of catching up on house price/rent increases -not much chance of that-in fact not much chance of anything except Cameron’s lies before an impending election, a bit like his ‘broad shoulders carrying the burden’ bullsh*t as he came into office-to quote Al Franken:’Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.’
Richard you say “Real wages have fallen” but how do you actually know this? What confidence do you have that this statement is correct?
Note that I accept that if you take the sum of total gross earnings and divide it by the number of people in employment(pro rata hours) then the figure will be lower in real terms (allowing for inflation) than it was a few years ago. But there could be reasons for this other than stagnant pay.
Also you wish to “abolish zero hours contracts”.
Could you be more specific. Do you mean for all jobs which have a ZH contract? By all means provide me with a link to a more detailed source.
The literature on this issue is enormous
Please do not waste my time
Resolution Foundation publish a detailed analysis of pay trends each year, most recently http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/low-pay-britain-2014/ – this confirms that pay is falling. There are many other references available. As Richard says, the literature on this issue is enormous.
Thanks Howard
Things ok?
“The literature on this issue is enormous”
Which issue? Average wage calculations or ZH contracts?
I am happy to read any example of the “enormous literature” on either issue. A simple link would be fine.
Just go and use google
You will be deleted for timewasting in future
Richard
I think you are being a little unfair here. I don’t need to google Zero Hour Contracts to find out about them. I know what a ZHC is. As secretary of a small social club I issued a number of ZH contracts to bar staff.
I was asking specifically about your wish to ban them. This is your opinion about which you may have written previously in which case I am happy to read anything you have to say on the matter.
For the record, if you are saying ban exclusivity clauses then I agree with you.
And i reiterate: you too can use google
Bill -have a look at Richard Wolff’s analysis on ‘Capitalism Hits the Fan'(http://www.capitalismhitsthefan.com/) but I suspect you are not really interested in challenging ossified viewpoints.
I watched a few minutes but I’m not sure it’s totally relevant to the UK.
Thanks anyway.
Try the Office for National Statistics [1] and Chart 6.1 “Average earnings and consumer prices annual growth rates.”
or FT.COM
“One top 20 shareholder expressed surprise at the extent of ‘Sir Bill Somebody’s’ 60% salary hike to £6.8M after investors holding more than a third of stock voted against its remuneration report in 2011.” [2]
[1] http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_372372.pdf
[2] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fdb70362-92d3-11e1-aa60-00144feab49a.html#axzz3RLQ9e7UA
” Try the Office for National Statistics [1] and Chart 6.1 “Average earnings and consumer prices annual growth rates.” ”
Tony – thanks for the link but I’m not sure you’ve fully understood my questions. Let me give you a simple example to illustrate the point.
Consider a company which employs managers and workers. There are 20 managers and 80 workers (i.e. 100 in total).
Managers are paid £1000 per week
Workers are paid £500 per week
The total wage bill for the company is £60,000 and the average wage weekly wage, therefore, is £600 per week. Ok?
Now let’s suppose that the company wants to expand production so it decides to take on 20 more workers. The company now has 100 workers and 20 managers (i.e. 120 in total).
Following recruitment of the new workers, the total wage bill for the company is £70,000 – but the average weekly wage has fallen to £583.
No-one is being paid any less than before but the average weekly wage has fallen by £17 per week (2.8%). What’s actually happened is that the ratio of managers to workers has changed.
I am simply speculating that might be what’s happened over the country as a whole. The “new” jobs created in the past few years are quite possibly in the less senior positions so are dragging down average wages. I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise.
Thanks Bill – I understand your example, I was not surprised. Are you a statistician or political researcher? if so, you’ll know the simple example you gave is deceptive; its akin to Cameron “Household economics” model of how to run the economy. “Average values” are used when data is ‘descriptive’ i.e. a Normal distribution, wages and wealth distributions are non-parametric. We use, and ONS use, median rather than average and percentile, deciles and quartile etc to describe wage and wealth distributions.
The ONS’s data published in 2014, figure 1 “Median full-time gross weekly earnings in current and constant (2014) prices, UK, April 1997 to 2014” shows Earnings have reduced successively since 2008. [1] I think you know this anyway. In the public sector it is even more pronounced and lets not consider the low-paid and non-employed who are worst affected. You also noted ZCH again with an exception argument – Ok when the worker really wants this option – but not the rule, please.
My earlier comment on Sir Martin Sorrell’s remuneration increase of 60% in one year emphases that wage increases are focussed on the highest paid. I think you know this anyway.
[1] http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_385428.pdf
Tony_B says
“We use, and ONS use, median rather than average and percentile, deciles and quartile etc to describe wage and wealth distributions ”
Ok – a company has 9 staff.
3 are on £300 per week
1 on £400 per week
1 on £500
1 on £600 etc
Median = £500
Now 2 new workers are employed both are on the £400 rate.
New Median = £400
In fact even it every employee was given a 10% pay increase the effect of employing 2 lower grade workers would still bring down the median wage to £440.
You are applying micro logic to a macro issue
Thanks Bill. You’ve shown if you employ lower paid workers the median wage falls – correct. Point proved wages are falling.
TO ‘protect themselves from attacks from Ed Miliband’ what sort of a reason is that to give the workers a pay rise? If Labour doesn’t win the election can they take the money back because they won’t be attacked by Cameron or whoever is leader of the conservatives by then.
TO ‘protect themselves from attacks from Ed Miliband ‘
This is bogus nonsense to enhance the pretense that we are involved in a legitimately democratic election where there are more than Rizla papers between parties when it comes to corporate power and a banking system that controls the money supply.
Cameron thinks he can fool the benumbed electorate into imagining it’s a left/right battle like the ‘old days’. He’s sadly correct in thinking this!