KPMG have become champions for the living wage precisely because it improves productivity, retention and recruitment, and helps reduce sickness.

There is a short-sighted ethos out there of treating employees as a cost, to be cut as much as possible rather than seen as an investment, is actually conducive to better performance by a company. It's bølløcks, it's short-sighted and it damages the economy at the same time.

I wouldn't be surprised. Interesting how he's never returned to the Andrew Mitchell thread.

By communism classes I assume you mean students actually learning about the 'benefits' of communism rather its many ills. If that is what you mean of course there would be uproar. Why do we want our kids taught about an evil ideology as if it is a good thing?

How exactly do you 'teach communism' anyway? Once it is taught even children will realise it is an absolute joke and reject it out of hand. There has to be some kind of sense / purpose to what is being taught.

Much of this speech by Boris is obvious. 'There will always be inequality' - well you don't say. It's fact but it offends the core principles of socialism. Presumably why the left are so up in arms about it.

A really good analogy.

Similarly, one should only have opposed apartheid if a black South African.

As opposed to something that keeps billions in poverty? And I was using it as an example, so well done for that going woooooooooosh right over your head.



And you object to a fairer society why?

Instead of just coming out with your usual soundbites and then running away, try to answer the following:

• since there is evidence that the least fair societies in the developed world actually produce worse social outcomes (health, education, crime etc) for ALL in those societies than countries where inequality is not so extreme, where is your logical argument that increased fairness is a bad thing;

• how do you propose an economy that is hugely dependent on people spending operates when those people have less and less to spend in that economy'

• what is the moral and ethical argument for greed and for greater unfairness in society;

• if society becomes even unfairer, how will that be good for society as a whole;

• if society becomes even unfairer, how qwill society have to cope with greater poverty, homelessness, fewer jobs, more low-paid jobs etc?

See above: he's posting more nonsense.

Since Ajw72 is still browsing this forum, one assumes he's spending time to answer those actual questions.

There are 300,000 $billionaies in the world.

There are 3 billion people subsisting on less than $3 per day.

How, in any civilised society, is that even approaching fair?

Still no answers and he's still around?

Well they can never actually answer anything can they? Sal's disappeared, Lord Elpers appears to have popped his clogs, and Ajw is avoiding saying anything he can't copy & paste from Wikipedia.

Some of those Daily Mail types that are always complaining about how public sector pay and pensions are higher than those in the private sector should listen to these words and stop moaning.

Its pure market forces if the public sector offers the best salaries then it attracts the best people, the IQ elites that Boris was talking about. Rather than complaining about this those in the private sector should pull up their socks and try and improve their IQs so they can compete for jobs in the public sector.

If you're the type that says "I work 50 hours a week in the private sector and I'm not rich blah blah" there's probably a simple explanation, you are thick as pigpoop and market forces have meant you found your level.

Oh Ajw71's disappeared again.

The questions must have been too difficult.

Once again you are very particular about which points that you choose to respond on!!

I have never complained about my bosses giving me a pay rise - so please don't misquote me. I have a choice - no body forces me to work for them if I was so unhappy I would find another job - and there are plenty of jobs out there if you look hard enough. As you quite rightly say that's democracy!!

NPower is doing what any responsible company should do - it is looking to maximise returns for its investors. Perhaps if the union were prepared to engage in process improvements and cost reduction ideas then shifting stuff to India might not be quite the attractive proposition it is? The problem is the union cannot engage for fear of setting a position in one chapel that could be rolled out to others - sad really, the members are just pawns in a bigger game. My wife worked at Morrisons and her whole department was transferred to Wiprow in India so we have so experience of this. She found another job - one of three she could have taken - as did virtually everyone in her department - there is work out there it is a myth that there are no jobs.

In 2012 NPower made 320m on a turnover close to 7bn so 5% is that excessive?

I ask again - what do you consider a reasonable return for any commercial enterprise to make.

You want a rise in the living wage - I agree - so why not swap employers NI for increased minimum wage?

Finally the reason I don't respond is not because I can't fight my corner it is because I have a life that doesn't solely revolve around spending every waking hour on a message board - unlike some.

How do you propose the exchequer make up the shortfall in Employers' NI? Scrapping it to enable payment of a living wage would simply be yet another case of the taxpayer subsidising delinquent employers

Where does the money come from to pay income support? taxation - do you know if the revenues from employers NI is lower than the monies paid out in income support? Unlikely - although I don't know - raising the minimum wage by 14% would be a huge vote winner as would scrapping employers NI so why not do it? Logically monies received from employers NI is much higher than the cost of income support for lower paid employees. All you would be doing is cutting out huge rafts of people employed to re-distribute the funds.

The idea that governments are financially supporting big business is a myth and no one on here has yet conclusively proved the case.

In least I make responses.



Yes you have. You've done a routine of: 'I haven't had a pay rise for three years, in The Real World', so why should anyone else – particularly those in the public services, which are not The Real World anyway'. (I remember your being challenged particularly over the last bit of that: strangely, you never did respond to being asked whether you really thought that police and teachers and nurses etc didn't work in 'The Real World')



Yes. Of course there are. There are far more jobs available than people out of work – they're just too lazy and the stats are all a lie.



You've already been picked up for posting inaccurately about this.

But let's run with your explanation of why this is a good thing and why increased profits matter more than people. Do you have one?



And you sat there and applauded and told her this was the way The Real World works and jolly good it is too, because she is less important than Morrisons improving profits.



Yes. We know. The figures are a lie. You keep pretending this, but with no fact-based evidence to show it.



Nobody has said that it is. If, however, the company then says: 'oh, we're going to shaft some people because it isn't enough', then it's immoral.



I ask again: what pay should a "supposed socialist" get for what job?



Why pander to profitable companies, by, in one way or another, having the taxpayer subsidise their profits?



So do others. Y'know, work and things like that. You find time to comment when you want – and then appear selective when challenged.

Don't be daft.

A profitable company should not need to rely on government (ie the taxpayer) to top up wages that do not allow its employees a basic quality of life.

It's quite simple. If they do not pay a living wage, they are relying on the taxpayer to make up low pay – and ensure that their own employees, who contribute to their profits, can do so without having, for instance, to live on the street or go hungry, neither of which would be conducive to continued productivity and profits.

As has been said, the likes of KPMG are evangelical about the living wage now because it works – it improves productivity, recruitment and retention, and cuts sickness. But it involves a company stopping regarding employees as simply a cost to be cut, and seeing them as an investment. But that means stopping thinking in the shortest possible terms.

And in the meantime, the taxpayer foots the bill of those employees being able to continue to go to work. That is a subsidy – pure and simple.

There is another angle to all of this though and so just to play devils avocado for a moment the example of KPMG as a Living Wage employer is very admirable but let's be honest here, the vast majority of their employees would not be minimum wage slaves anyway and the same goes for many employers in the legal and accountancy world, yes they will employ cleaners and possibly catering staff who are always ideal targets for paying peanuts to but joining any of those businesses as a bottom rung trainee lawyer/accountant etc is USUALLY not a minimum wage job, both of my daughters work in a large legal practice, one with a degree and one "just" in admin, both are on what I consider to be decent wages for their ages, no negotiation required, that was the rate for the job, far above NMW or Living Wage.

The real target for Living Wage rates is what was traditionally called "unskilled" but now isn't necessarily limited to that description, hotel working, warehouse jobs, supermarkets, social care etc there is a definite demarcation between what is regarded as manual labour (in a derisory way) and "white collar", unfortunately those manual tasks are also the ones where the employee has to take whatever the employer hands to them in terms of shifts and daily hours (or not), if you're caught in that trap (and it may suit some lifestyles) then its fine while you're young and living in shared rented accommodation or with parents but in reality your prospects of leading what we regard as a "normal" adult life are pretty slim really.

I don't disagree at all (not very effective DA stuff, then.

).

But all these companies need, say, cleaners.

Some of the most derided of the entire workforce, yet try operating without them. Anywhere the public actually visited – shops, restaurants etc – would go out of business before long. So just as with any other employee, the cleaner contributes to the success or otherwise of a business.

While a company the size of KPMG may not have many staff (including contracted staff) on less than the living wage, it's that attitude again of short-termism that exists on a wide scale in business (certainly in the UK) whereby any cost cutting is good, even if it's slashing wages (apart from management wages) or keeping people on poverty pay and allowing/expecting the taxpayer to make up the difference so that said employee is fit, fed and healthy enough to attend work, let alone actually be productive.

So even if it affects a small percentage of KPMG staff, what is particularly heartening is just a slight move away from thinking in such a short-term manner.

Maybe it's time those companies who do pay at least the Living Wage were encouraged to announce it on their letterheads? After all, plenty are eager to announce they are ISO 9001/2 or are "Investors in People" (biggest fooking joke accolade ever), or have won some other industry accreditation. Perhaps it is time for those who do pay the Living Wage to show up their competitors for the money-grabbing charlatons they are

Nobody more selective than you - so please climb down from 'holier than thou' horse.

Just because I say I haven't had a pay rise in many years doesn't mean I am bleating and don't not use that to suit your argument - I have a choice I can stay or I can find another job, nobody forces me to stay.

You have yet to prove the various taxes paid by say Morrisons is less than the total benefits paid to its staff due to the wages the company pays them - this is the point I am trying to make - the idea that the profits large companies make are underpinned by governments subsidises is a fallacy - and something you have yet to show any tangible proof of.

Why pander to profitable companies - without them the country would be in a very sorry state - and if you don't create an environment whereby they want to operate here some will take they business elsewhere. Take BP the biggest company in Britain by quite a way - operationally what is stopping them moving their HO to Ireland?

On Socialist and pay - my stance is this - they can earn what they want but don't pontificate about equality and fairness from on high its hypocritical and that is my point not how much they earn.

This idea that companies who look to make process/cost improvements are shafting the staff is typical left wing mumbo jumbo. Businesses cannot stand still if they do their dead in the water. Morrisons and wife are but one example - that is what happens out there. Perhaps from your vast experience of running large companies you have a blueprint whereby staff can get annual pay rises but the business stays the same and have the funds to repay investors and have money to invest? That is the answer to your why increased profits matter - without profits business cannot invest - without investment it will stagnate or die.

I never said there were more jobs than people out of work - so again please don't misquote me, seems you do a lot of that!! what I said was the idea that there are no jobs out their is a fallacy.

Now how about you answering a few questions?

What is a reasonable amount for a company to make
Why not replace employers NI with increases to the minimum wage?
Do you think it is acceptable for Unite employees to have a final salary scheme when the members funding it don't have the luxury of such a term of employment?

Of course not. Just posting that nobody else deserves one if you can't have one ... in "The Real World". That was a specific reference about those working in the public services. I remember that, when asked if you really didn't think that the police, nurses and teachers work in "The Real World", you didn't bother answering.

Mind, it's good to see you acknowledging that you have talked about your not having a pay rise, given that earlier you were claiming that you had not.



Because there are zillions of jobs out there really and you could get one easily and your wife got one. The suggestion being that there isn't really a shortfall of jobs, if only people were like you.



WTF?

So companies pay their taxes in order for the government to subsidise them paying wages that are too low for an employee to live on?

JesusFuckingHChrist.



It is.

We have rising numbers of foodbanks, the Red Cross are handing out food parcels, Save the Children is providing aid in the UK, disabled people are dying when their benefits are withdrawn because a profiteering bunch of wipes declares them fit for work, increasing numbers of people are finding themselves in debt just to live – and you don't think it's a "sorry state"?



Ah. So give in to corporate blackmail, in other words? Nice.



So, only a slave should have fought slavery? Only a black South African should have opposed apartheid?

How the fück do you reach a conclusion that someone is a hypocrite if they "pontificate about equality and fairness", from "on high", whateverthe that means.

Imagine: how dare someone have and voice empathy for anyone not doing as well as them themselves – it takes something pretty bloody imbecilic to turn that into something bad.

And since you were talking about what a "supposed socialist" earned – not about them being "on high", you're now trying to shift the goalposts. So stop it.

So, let's go back to what your "supposed socialist" should earn, now that your utterly stupid argument has been shown up for what it is: utterly stupid and devoid of an iota of intellectual credibility.



Well, to star with, get the effing City out of things, so that profitable companies are not punished, even when profitable, and chased into unsustainable, continual growth.



Ah, you just pretended it's easy to find work, 'if one really wants to'?



Why? You don't answer questions. Well, not coherently. And you've ignored all the stuff about sustainability, the national economy etc.



Well that will really depend on the company, now won't it? Y'know: how long is a piece of string, 'n' all.





That's right – bribe bad employers with more tax breaks. Do you have a moral or ethical bone in your body? Do you remember all the threats of job losses when the minimum wage came in? Do you remember how they didn't happen? Have you paid any attention to how the living wage actually increases productivity etc?



I've answered the final one already. You appear to 'think' that an organisation should not treat it's own staff as it says other companies should treat them, but that instead, it should be hypocritical. As I've suggested elsewhere, you don't actually know what hypocrisy means.

Now, you were going to tell us what a "supposed socialist" should earn.

Oh look. He's gone again.

This is what really annoys me: people who do not or cannot defend their opinions (which they are, of course, entirely free to hold): people who then run away and only rematerialise to try to shift the goalposts or simply to come out with the same old soundbites, that they never back up, in another discussion.

They may be entirely genuine, but you have to ask what sort of mind refuses to even think about what they spout. I suppose that's how they manage to cope with such inconsistencies and problems such as not understanding what 'hypocrisy' actually means.

What absolute nonsense.

Standing still is exactly what they [iare[/i doing.

Cost cutting to increase profit in this way (sending jobs abroad to low wage countries) is proof if ever there was that management has failed. They have to seek higher profits to keep the City happy and the only rouse they can think if is to sack UK staff and send their jobs elsewhere.

What they aren't doing is in producing more or charging less, it is simply about increasing profit. Their company also isn't growing its market to increase the profit. Most certainly stood still.

It is simply shafting its UK workforce to improve its bottom line. When profitable companies do this it is IMO unjustified and immoral.

The fact the City approves of this practice despite the short-termism of it just shows how broken and in need of regulation modern-day capitalism is.

Companies like Richer Sounds and Phones4u also show why you are talking tripe again with this "typical left wing mumbo jumbo" nonsense.



Shoring up profit by sending jobs abroad is a one off cost saving exercise. If the companies don't produce more having done that then they are going to be unpopular soon enough with the City.