Saints and paying the Living Wage.

Can some of you morally correct people start E-Mailing my company and tell them they are not paying me enough?

 

Are you lot real?

 

The fact of the matter is these people if indeed they are paid as low as you say actually agreed to work for the renumerance they are given. Before they started they should have negotiated aliving wage or not taken the position.

 

NB Please tell my company I need a 200% wage increase and annual bonus of 2 months wages Please

Not everyone has the choice of negotiating a wage with their employer and need the job badly enough to accept the minimum wage. I could understand if SFC was a struggling small business they would only be able to pay a minimum amount but surely all employees of EPL Clubs could expect

the "slightly above the poverty line" living wage. The people usually caught up in this bind are women and casual employees, often in quite powerless situations.

Has it occurred to you that some of the staff have been employed by the club via the DWP and don't have the 'luxury' of turning down a job offer, even if it is on crap wages. They'll get sanctioned if they refuse.

Has this been proven yet?

Has this been proven yet?

No but that won't stop BTF getting hysterical.

Can some of you morally correct people start E-Mailing my company and tell them they are not paying me enough?

Are you lot real?

 

The fact of the matter is these people if indeed they are paid as low as you say actually agreed to work for the renumerance they are given. Before they started they should have negotiated aliving wage or not taken the position.

 

NB Please tell my company I need a 200% wage increase and annual bonus of 2 months wages Please

I do wonder what world some people live in.

I could not care less what the club pays its non footballing staff

Has it occurred to you that some of the staff have been employed by the club via the DWP and don't have the 'luxury' of turning down a job offer, even if it is on crap wages. They'll get sanctioned if they refuse.

I could not care less what the club pays its non footballing staff

There are perks + benefits from working at SMS that prob makes it Desirable Job. From the cleaning woman who catches a glimpse of Pelle in his Underpants, to the Security Guard who gets to come on here and claim to be ITK, the Value of these Benefits compensates for any deficiency of Wages. Stands to reason, otherwise they would be working at Tesco

 

The fact of the matter is these people if indeed they are paid as low as you say actually agreed to work for the renumerance they are given. Before they started they should have negotiated aliving wage or not taken the position.

 

This is an absolutely laughable comment. What planet do you live on where low skilled workers can bargain their wages? They accept what they can get. The alternative is being on benefits, and they should be commended for going down the option of working in a crap job for bad pay

I reckon they should pay whatever is necessary to get the right type of person to fill a position, and then, if they're doing a better than average job and working hard, they should give them a Pay Rise. I don't feel like I need to write to Kat and tell her this though. She probably knows it already

This is an absolutely laughable comment. What planet do you live on where low skilled workers can bargain their wages? They accept what they ca

n get. The alternative is being on benefits, and they should be commended for going down the option of working in a crap job for bad pay

Absolutely right.

They will probably be getting in work benefits anyway, to supplement their paltry wages. AND THAT'S THE WHOLE ISSUE! Tax payers contribute to in work benefits for those on very low wages. So, in reality, tax payers SUBSIDISE the wage bill of wealthy football clubs that prefer, on the whole, to pay obscene wages to their players and senior staff.

I could not care less what the club pays its non footballing staff

Do you want the troops going out on empty stomachs, metaphorically speaking?

Absolutely right.

 

They will probably be getting in work benefits anyway, to supplement their paltry wages. AND THAT'S THE WHOLE ISSUE! Tax payers contribute to in work benefits for those on very low wages. So, in reality, tax payers SUBSIDISE the wage bill of wealthy football clubs that prefer, on the whole, to pay obscene wages to their players and senior staff.

They pay the going rate for the jobs they are employed to do.

Absolutely right.

 

They will probably be getting in work benefits anyway, to supplement their paltry wages. AND THAT'S THE WHOLE ISSUE! Tax payers contribute to in work benefits for those on very low wages. So, in reality, tax payers SUBSIDISE the wage bill of wealthy football clubs that prefer, on the whole, to pay obscene wages to their players and senior staff.

What subsidy are you talking about here? Aren't we just talking about the teenagers/students that sell the food and drink?

All the living wage would do is move jobs back to India and other developing nations. You make it cheaper for a company to be based elsewhere, they will go.

Having a minimum wage and topping up with working tax credit is absolutely fine.

Absolutely right.

 

They will probably be getting in work benefits anyway, to supplement their paltry wages. AND THAT'S THE WHOLE ISSUE! Tax payers contribute to in work benefits for those on very low wages. So, in reality, tax payers SUBSIDISE the wage bill of wealthy football clubs that prefer, on the whole, to pay obscene wages to their players and senior staff.

I dare say that that PAYE contribution from just one player, more than compensates for any and all benefits received by support staff. I don't suppose the Tax Man is losing much sleep over this.

All the living wage would do is move jobs back to India and other developing nations. You make it cheaper for a company to be based elsewhere, they will go.

 

Having a minimum wage and topping up with working tax credit is absolutely fine.

So you're saying St Mary's will relocate to India?

:D

This is an absolutely laughable comment. What planet do you live on where low skilled workers can bargain their wages? They accept what they can get. The alternative is being on benefits, and they should be commended for going down the option of working in a crap job for bad pay

Which is where you are 100% wrong if people stood up for the wages they deserved we would not be having this discussion. The only time I could not negotiate my own wages was when I became an Indentured apprentice and my father did it for me (was not good) why cannot (in your words Low skilled workers) stand up for a meaningful wage?

Where does low skilled come into this debate anyway? who at any stage said the people at SFC were low skilled unless talking about Pelle and his scoring.

So you're saying St Mary's will relocate to India?

 

:D

Any job that can dealt with solely by phone and Internet only can be handled anywhere in the world.

Ticketing, media, IT, legal etc

Any job that can dealt with solely by phone and Internet only can be handled anywhere in the world.

 

Ticketing, media, IT, legal etc

But, in the main, we're talking about stewards, cleaners, bar staff - and yes, I know, that many of these will be employed via agencies. But the club can still dictate the wages that should be paid

Any job that can dealt with solely by phone and Internet only can be handled anywhere in the world.

 

Ticketing, media, IT, legal etc

You do realise that most low paid jobs are the least capable of being offshored - that's one thing they have going for them.

I could not care less what the club pays its non footballing staff

Why not? Do you not have empathy for others less fortunate than you?

All the living wage would do is move jobs back to India and other developing nations. You make it cheaper for a company to be based elsewhere, they will go.

 

Having a minimum wage and topping up with working tax credit is absolutely fine.

There's a fair argument that an across the board living wage would cost jobs, but we're talking about our so called community club that can clearly afford it

Why not? Do you not have empathy for others less fortunate than you?

I'm writing a strongly worded email to ASDA DEMANDING they tell me that if they pay the living wage or not. Its OUTRAGEOUS the they are posting £700m profits whilst the people who unload the lorries for them earn the minimum wage. I'm am LIVID.

There are perks + benefits from working at SMS that prob makes it Desirable Job. From the cleaning woman who catches a glimpse of Pelle in his Underpants, to the Security Guard who gets to come on here and claim to be ITK, the Value of these Benefits compensates for any deficiency of Wages. Stands to reason, otherwise they would be working at Tesco

... who also pay below the living wage

I'm writing a strongly worded email to ASDA DEMANDING they tell me that if they pay the living wage or not. Its OUTRAGEOUS the they are posting £700m profits whilst the people who unload the lorries for them earn the minimum wage. I'm am LIVID.

Not sure what your point is. You seem to be suggesting its "uncool" to care about things?

There's a fair argument that an across the board living wage would cost jobs, but we're talking about our so called community club that can clearly afford it

Why are only those of minimum wage deserving of more money?

There's a fair argument that an across the board living wage would cost jobs, but we're talking about our so called community club that can clearly afford it

let's share the recorded post tax profit for the year to 30 Jun 2013 among the minimum wage workers.

Why are only those of minimum wage deserving of more money?

I'm sure many people deserve more than the minimum wage and many more earning above the minimum wage should earn more still, but this is about paying the Living Wage.

If people no longer have rely on state benefits when they're in paid employment, it means the taxpayer no longer subsidises the wage bill of employers who could well afford to pay more.

It's a moral issue too IMO.

I'm sure many people deserve more than the minimum wage and many more earning above the minimum wage should earn more still, but this is about paying the Living Wage.

 

If people no longer have rely on state benefits when they're in paid employment, it means the taxpayer no longer subsidises the wage bill of employers who could well afford to pay more.

 

It's a moral issue too IMO.

Anyway, I'm not sure who Saints emply that this would be relevant to. Most staff on low pay would only be doing a few hours a month.

Who's to say the "Living Wage" is sufficient? Will that ensure that anyone of such an hourly rate would not take a penny of any kind of benefit from the state?

 

Anyway, I'm not sure who Saints emply that this would be relevant to. Most staff on low pay would only be doing a few hours a month.

Yeah you're right. Let's all adopt an I'm Alright Jack attitude and blinker ourselves to the immorality of the situation eh? After all, we wouldn't want to have to pay a few pence more to watch a match, now would we - unless of course it was to pay another few £K a week to a few blokes kicking a ball around?

Yeah you're right. Let's all adopt an I'm Alright Jack attitude and blinker ourselves to the immorality of the situation eh? After all, we wouldn't want to have to pay a few pence more to watch a match, now would we - unless of course it was to pay another few £K a week to a few blokes kicking a ball around?

 

Why are only those of minimum wage deserving of more money?

If ever there was an archetypal internet argument which is beyond futile to even begin to discuss, this is it.

Why are only those of minimum wage deserving of more money?

Delldaysesque.

Paying the living wage?

Where does it all end?

Saints issued a response last week, to Andrew Pope - Labour candidate for New Forest East.

He initially wrote to Ralph Krueger and Khali Parsons (Supporter Relations Manager) - and received a reply that says that Saints 'value' all employees and are now 'considering' and discussing whether and how to implement the living wage for all members of club staff.

I don't really see why a cleaner or a caterer who happens to work for a football club should be paid more than a cleaner or caterer who works for any other company.

I don't really see why a cleaner or a caterer who happens to work for a football club should be paid more than a cleaner or caterer who works for any other company.

Well, I think the point is, no one can reasonably live off the minimum wage. Hence the campaign for everyone to increase it to the living wage. In the meantime, each business has an ethical decision to make - do I care about all my staff to ensure they are paid a fair salary that they can reasonably live off. Some companies might go for it, others won't, dependent on how much they care about the wellbeing of their staff. But generally speaking, smart companies are figuring out that healthy staff = better productivity.

I think Saints' response is excellent, although I wouldn't expect any less.

I think any business that can afford to pay employees the living wage as opposed to the minimum wage has a moral obligation to do so. Premiership football clubs can clearly afford to pay the employees the living wage and so should do so.

Well, I think the point is, no one can reasonably live off the minimum wage. Hence the campaign for everyone to increase it to the living wage. In the meantime, each business has an ethical decision to make - do I care about all my staff to ensure they are paid a fair salary that they can reasonably live off. Some companies might go for it, others won't, dependent on how much they care about the wellbeing of their staff. But generally speaking, smart companies are figuring out that healthy staff = better productivity.

 

I think Saints' response is excellent, although I wouldn't expect any less.

This is a common assertion, but takes no real account of the huge diversity in family/household circumstances.

If you're the only breadwinner in a family of four, seems impossible to provide on that income. If you're a youngster living rent free with Mum and Dad...... or your partner works and is quite well paid, then things are enormously different.

The idea that benefits are subsidising what companies pay in wages is also rather misguided in my view. If your labour is worth only £7 per hour to a company, they aren't going to pay you more than £7 an hour. The government might think these people need a top-up - say £3 - from welfare benefits to help them get by. And they might be right. But that's not the company's fault. A company isn't going to pay £10ph for labour it values at no more than £7ph.

I think any business that can afford to pay employees the living wage as opposed to the minimum wage has a moral obligation to do so. Premiership football clubs can clearly afford to pay the employees the living wage and so should do so.

I doubt Saints employ many/any staff on minimum wage anyway.

I think any business that can afford to pay employees the living wage as opposed to the minimum wage has a moral obligation to do so. Premiership football clubs can clearly afford to pay the employees the living wage and so should do so.

Why should they? If you work as a toilet cleaner it doesn't matter if your cleaning up the queens toilet or the dirtiest bog in Aberdeen, you're still a toilet cleaner.

Bog cleaners of the world, unite and take over

Why should they? If you work as a toilet cleaner it doesn't matter if your cleaning up the queens toilet or the dirtiest bog in Aberdeen, you're still a toilet cleaner.

Not the way the world works. Many comparable jobs in terms of content and responsibility will be paid differently depending on the size of the firm, the sector and the part of the country they're in, among other things.

Think Saintsweb should follow suit and bump Chalet up to living wage pls

I don't really see why a cleaner or a caterer who happens to work for a football club should be paid more than a cleaner or caterer who works for any other company.

It's an economic issue as well. As pointed out, no one can properly live off the minimum wage and the difference has to be made up by in work benefits and health costs when people aren't able to look after themselves as they should be able to. I'm obviously sympathetic in some senses to companies that don't have enough money to pay their workers to live on, but Saints easily do - it's literally pennies to them in the context of their entire wage budget and would make a huge difference to any workers not paid enough to live on.

I could not care less what the club pays its non footballing staff

Thats because you're a c u n t who would be happy to kill people for a living.

All the living wage would do is move jobs back to India and other developing nations. You make it cheaper for a company to be based elsewhere, they will go.

 

 

Having a minimum wage and topping up with working tax credit is absolutely fine.

So if Saints started paying the Living Wage to people who poured our Half Time pints, they would have to start pouring the pints in India ?

Thanks for pointing that out.

Can't even believe that there is any debate on this....Bloody hell, if you're paying some employees millions a year then surely you have a MORAL (it's not a dirty word-honest) to pay other employees the living wage. Don't talk about market value cra* either. We've all seen where blindly relying on the great god of the market has got us in recent years. I'm sure some companies would put their employees market value as 20 pence an hour if they could get away with it

This is a common assertion, but takes no real account of the huge diversity in family/household circumstances.

 

If you're the only breadwinner in a family of four, seems impossible to provide on that income. If you're a youngster living rent free with Mum and Dad...... or your partner works and is quite well paid, then things are enormously different.

 

 

The idea that benefits are subsidising what companies pay in wages is also rather misguided in my view. If your labour is worth only £7 per hour to a company, they aren't going to pay you more than £7 an hour. The government might think these people need a top-up - say £3 - from welfare benefits to help them get by. And they might be right. But that's not the company's fault. A company isn't going to pay £10ph for labour it values at no more than £7ph.

I think your understanding of economics is faulty here. If a business can get someone to do 10 pounds per hour of work for only 7 pounds, they have an incentive to pay the lesser amount and will do so unless forced to pay the higher amount either by their own morals, public pressure, the government, or the market. Given that the UK is now operating in a voluntarily austerity induced recession, workers do not have the negotiating power to push wages up at the bottom so the market cannot do the job. Since you government doesn't seem to care about ending the recession it has created, I doubt it will do the job either which leaves only public pressure and the business' own morals. The two work better in combination.

As for different people needing different amounts of money to earn a living wage depending on their situation, that is certainly true but I doubt there is going to be system which employers investigate how much money each employee needs to have just enough to get by and then pays each employee that minimum amount.