They don't pay income tax. It's £221 a week before you do, and that's assuming you work 52 weeks a year. The tax threshold is set at £11,500 a year precisely to take low paid people out of the tax system.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Shouldn't City be paying staff real living wage?
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
They don't pay income tax. It's £221 a week before you do, and that's assuming you work 52 weeks a year. The tax threshold is set at £11,500 a year precisely to take low paid people out of the tax system.
Sorry but welcome to the world. They know what they are signing up to. If they don't like it don't work there.Should t be about an hourly rate when working at the game as they aren’t not getting a long shift. Let’s say a lad working behind a bar is paid from 1 until 6? 5 hours pay at 7.50 - 37.50 and for that he has to travel half an hour each way and the costs involved. They should be paid 50 quid minimum a game.
There are millions of workers on effectively zero hour contracts, getting sent home early when business is slack (pub and restaurant trades for example).
If we expect city to pay the real wage can we extend the campaign so that all fans who pay their money every week are also paid a proper wage, myself included.
I do agree with your sentiments about all workers at the end. I suspect your heart is in the right place, so please don't take the following as an attack but rather friendly advice...Sorry but welcome to the world. They know what they are signing up to. If they don't like it don't work there.
There are millions of workers on effectively zero hour contracts, getting sent home early when business is slack (pub and restaurant trades for example).
If we expect city to pay the real wage can we extend the campaign so that all fans who pay their money every week are also paid a proper wage, myself included.
Justifying the low wages of one worker by pointing out the even worse conditions of another isn't an argument that arrives at the conclusion that all workers should be properly paid. Effectively, it comes across as if you're saying 'fuck them, what about me?'. That's exactly the mentality that allows employers to exploit workers.
To suggest that another worker simply walks out on a job for another is (sorry) stupid, too. Firstly, not everyone has the luxury of such choices. Secondly, the position is only going to be filled by someone else and the exploitation will continue. Thirdly, as long as there are fellow workers with your mindset, even if they both leave, they are far more likely to find themselves working under similar or (as you say yourself) worse contracts.
Zero hour contracts are the modern day equivalent of the charge-hand at the factory gate hand-picking who does or doesn't work today. That practice was abandoned between the wars. It is a ridiculous notion that any worker in 2017 is operating under a worse contract than a worker in 1947. Zero hour contracts are an abomination against workers rights (they've already been outlawed in Ireland (where incidentally the minimum wage is also higher than in a country 20 times its size, next door)). Please don't use them as benchmark for anything other than exploitation.
In anwer to the OP's question, as you may have guessed: yes, yes, fucking hell yes with a cherry on top.
Last edited:
Without question we should be paying the rwl,we are a club that prides itself on being a centre of excellence and that should be reflected in the wages we pay all our staff.
Whether this would help the campaign for it to be more widespread I don't know but it would be the correct thing to do.
Whether this would help the campaign for it to be more widespread I don't know but it would be the correct thing to do.
Zero hours are a curse to all workers should not be allowedSorry but welcome to the world. They know what they are signing up to. If they don't like it don't work there.
There are millions of workers on effectively zero hour contracts, getting sent home early when business is slack (pub and restaurant trades for example).
If we expect city to pay the real wage can we extend the campaign so that all fans who pay their money every week are also paid a proper wage, myself included.
jayblue
Well-Known Member
Not read the full thread but if the bar staff on Colin bell level 3 are paid 7.50 an hour then they are being over paid.
Gorton_Tubster
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 14,808
- Location
- Riding the blue tidal wave.
- Team supported
- Manchester City
The media will highlight it to fuck so yes deffo.
It will be interesting to see if the press start to highlight it now. Nothing like a story about oil rich mid east countries and slavery
It will be interesting to see if the press start to highlight it now. Nothing like a story about oil rich mid east countries and slavery
sir baconface
Well-Known Member
We’re skint.
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader
Well-Known Member
no ,we still need a left back
Yeah, no point squandering the hard earned on wastrels who'll ne'er be out of the nearest pub or tobacconist's when we have players on the treatment table and only a five point advantage!
I take your points and no offence taken, but it's a case of supply and demand, like anything in a capitalist county.I do agree with your sentiments about all workers at the end. I suspect your heart is in the right place, so please don't take the following as an attack but rather friendly advice...
Justifying the low wages of one worker by pointing out the even worse conditions of another isn't an argument that arrives at the conclusion that all workers should be properly paid. Effectively, it comes across as if you're saying 'fuck them, what about me?'. That's exactly the mentality that allows employers to exploit workers.
To suggest that another worker simply walks out on a job for another is (sorry) stupid, too. Firstly, not everyone has the luxury of such choices. Secondly, the position is only going to be filled by someone else and the exploitation will continue. Thirdly, as long as there are fellow workers with your mindset, even if they both leave, they are far more likely to find themselves working under similar or (as you say yourself) worse contracts.
Zero hour contracts are the modern day equivalent of the charge-hand at the factory gate hand-picking who does or doesn't work today. That practice was abandoned between the wars. It is a ridiculous notion that any worker in 2017 is operating under a worse contract than a worker in 1947. Zero hour contracts are an abomination against workers rights (they've already been outlawed in Ireland (where incidentally the minimum wage is also higher than in a country 20 times its size, next door)). Please don't use them as benchmark for anything other than exploitation.
In anwer to the OP's question, as you may have guessed: yes, yes, fucking hell yes with a cherry on top.
If a car costs 20k and nobody will buy it at that price, the price drops. If workers won't work for X amount per hour the rate would have to go up for employers to attract people.
Equally, if everyone earns more, the cost of everything goes up. So being skint on 7.50 an hour if the same as being skint on 10 quid an hour.
I sympathise with all low paid staff. I used to earn a decent wage but due to circumstances now find myself around the minimum wage. How does my employer get around a zero hour contact, simple, they put the word anticipated before the words 'hours of work each week'. This effectively gives them the right to give me whatever hours the business dictates.
Sorry for the waffle, but a rather emotive subject for me.