The Morning Star`s editorial rightly asks the pertinent question
about who is putting the "working class first", whilst also, again correctly,
criticising Miliband`s bribe to employers to pay a living wage, rather than
making such payment compulsory. But, as a letter in
today`s Guardian points out, even that may not be enough.Let`s face it, what
would many employers and companies do, if forced by law, to pay the living wage,
currently £7.45, and £8.55 in London? In order to ensure neither their profits
nor bonuses were reduced, many would employ more part-time staff, and place more
workers on zero-hours contracts! If £7.45 an hour was the level of pay, but
only 20 hours worked, for example, many employees could well be worse
off.
One solution, as the letter suggests, is to
have a living income, rather than an hourly figure, as the target, calculated by
the writer, as £298 a week, or £15,596 a year,£342 and £17,784 for London. This
would certainly provide a clearer picture of the treatment of workers in this
country, especially as it would make it easier to compare workers` incomes with
those of the bosses, and also strengthen the argument for any political party,
should there be one, which is contemplating taxing the rich in an effort to
restore an element of fairness into our society; not holding my breath on that
one!
No comments:
Post a Comment