Maximum Wage Law - Corbyn

geoff clipp said:
Defo more to come. Sounds like his team have changed tactics recently so it should make for a wildly frustrating ride.
Click to expand...

He's suck a complete arse, it's having adverse consequences all around. For starters, it's made the most useless Tory prime minister in my memory think she can grab labour's middle ground so she's shifted the whole Tory party to the left which is a fucking disaster.
geoff clipp said:
There are plenty of people who could do that kind of job and they'd still be paid a fuck tonne for doing it. Nobody's saying they don't get an increase anyway.
Click to expand...

It's about market rates though isn't it. If CEO's of £10bn companies are paid £2m per year, why would a really great CEO decide to stay in the UK and be paid £350k under Jezzer's rules?

This would be a recipe for driving the top talent off our shores and making sure anyone who takes the job and turns out to be any good, also fucks off. We'd be the natural home for inept executives. Wouldn't that be good.
 
Chippy_boy said:
He's suck a complete arse, it's having adverse consequences all around. For starters, it's made the most useless Tory prime minister in my memory think she can grab labour's middle ground so she's shifted the whole Tory party to the left which is a fucking disaster.


It's about market rates though isn't it. If CEO's of £10bn companies are paid £2m per year, why would a really great CEO decide to stay in the UK and be paid £350k under Jezzer's rules?

This would be a recipe for driving the top talent off our shores and making sure anyone who takes the job and turns out to be any good, also fucks off. We'd be the natural home for inept executives. Wouldn't that be good.
Click to expand...


It really depends on how unique you think these people are in their abilities. I think there are plenty of people who could and would do these jobs for less given the opportunity, exposure and experience.

John Lewis has a wage ratio in place and until recently were ticking along quite nicely. Think they had a bit of blip last year but I wouldn't put it down to what they're paying their CEO.
 
smudgedj said:
Infuriating for you I guess. Comedy gold for me.
Click to expand...

How do you see it panning out mate? Do you think the labour party will watch him nose dive the party into the ground at a future general election, giving Theresa May a majority of 400? Or do you think someone will kill him?
 
geoff clipp said:
It really depends on how unique you think these people are in their abilities. I think there are plenty of people who could and would do these jobs for less given the opportunity, exposure and experience.

John Lewis has a wage ratio in place and until recently were ticking along quite nicely. Think they had a bit of blip last year but I wouldn't put it down to what they're paying their CEO.
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer the question though about why the replacement guy - who shows himself to be quite good - won't bugger off. And his replacement after him?

Unless only philanthropists should be employed as senior execs, then those who are good and who are being paid less than the market rate, will bugger off. It would be a natural race to the bottom where only inferior people will remain. How can that POSSIBLY be good for companies and the economy (And with that, the lives of us ordinary folk).
 
hilts said:
So the cashier has gained nothing because in your system the company would have to decide what they wanted to pay the cashiers first, so they get no more and the CEO goes elsewhere, and the taxpayer gets less dosh from the CEO wages,whatever scenario you come up with it is flawed, just accept it.
Click to expand...

Of course it's flawed; it's a thought off the top of my head rather than a fully detailed policy proposal. However, I also believe the current system where CEOs can be paid hundreds of times what their businesses lowest earners are paid is also flawed.

As I've said, you might do better linking it to average salary, rather than minimum. For example, a businesses mean and median wage must not fall below 3% of the businesses maximum wage.
 
snorky said:
And the donkey still couldn't do the horses job.
Click to expand...

But that's not the donkeys fault. Fucking horses with their silver spoons
Only one thing for it jezza will have to shoot the horse. I believe he has a balaclava and gun fetish anyhow so win win
 
CityStu said:
Of course it's flawed; it's a thought off the top of my head rather than a fully detailed policy proposal. However, I also believe the current system where CEOs can be paid hundreds of times what their businesses lowest earners are paid is also flawed.

As I've said, you might do better linking it to average salary, rather than minimum. For example, a businesses mean and median wage must not fall below 3% of the businesses maximum wage.
Click to expand...


So a ceo of a smaller business with higher paid staff say in technology would get paid more than a ceo of a huge company with lots of warehouse staff. And performance becomes less relevant in this ratio scheme.

I could do this all day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.