Maximum Wage Law - Corbyn

Mike D said:
Unless you are a PLC it is non of my business, but the mistake that you are making is that theses companies are ones which members of the general public have a vested interest either as a shareholder or in a pension scheme that has shares in these companies.
Click to expand...
You mean unless he's a PLC of which you're a stakeholder?
 
geoff clipp said:
As a member of the labour party, this is precisely my problem with Jeremy Corbyn. He's taken quite a sensible idea, i.e. let's tackle inequality in society, and then presented it in a radical and completely unworkable way. He's created a headline that will turn more people off than it will attract and all for the sake of a policy that he wouldn't ever manage to implement even if he were in charge. He could have won people over on this point but he's probably pushed a few people away.

There's an important discussion to be had here and I can't help but feel he completely undermines it by coming out with things like this. I'd be all for some kind of measure that links the pay of CEOs to workers. It's not outrageous to believe that businesses should fairly remunerate their workers from top to bottom rather than be allowed to continually drive wages down and creating a race to the bottom. Headlines like "MAXIMUM WAGE CAP" just make him sound a bit clueless which is hugely frustrating as he's actually correct to raise the issue. It's the same as that ridiculous incident on the train. Companies like Virgin trains ARE taking the piss with prices and other companies aren't even running a satisfactory service. I'd have quite liked a sensible discussion on renationalising the railways but he undermined that by needlessly fibbing about not having a seat on a particular train that DID have seats.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind having a debate, certainly. But I'd be on the "it's not the role of government to interfere in how companies remunerate their employees" camp.

I wonder how many people on here would be in favour of us unilaterally capping the pay of any player who wishes to join us. And would people be happy that we could no longer attract top players? It stikes me there's much hypocrisy on this forum sometimes.
 
CityStu said:
I agree that it has holes, but I don't think it's unfair to suggest that if a top earner wants to increase their wages the other bottom earners should get an increase too.
Click to expand...

Doesn't work that way unfortunately, companies pay what they can get away with, trying to link CEO salaries to a cleaner is folly either by laws or on ethics. What do people want their pension funds to do? Grow as much as possible. I'm not sure your fund manager telling you that you will have to work a few more years because he withdrew your dosh from the Gordon gecko bastard company to the lentil woolly jumper co operative would keep him in a job very long.

On ethics plenty of people still use amazon and to a lot they were morally stealing from us. A CEO having it large wouldn't stop people using whatever company he works for. The figures are so vast that if a guy earns 50 million a year or 100 million the view of him is the same.

Increasing wages of the low paid is desirable but this ain't the answer, even a Legal increase to a living wage will be problematic.
 
Perhaps we should limit the amount of prize money at Wimbledon? I mean, a million quid for a game of tennis is ridiculous isn't it. Just think how many food banks we could get rid of.
 
hilts said:
Doesn't work that way unfortunately, companies pay what they can get away with, trying to link CEO salaries to a cleaner is folly either by laws or on ethics. What do people want their pension funds to do? Grow as much as possible. I'm not sure your fund manager telling you that you will have to work a few more years because he withdrew your dosh from the Gordon gecko bastard company to the lentil woolly jumper co operative would keep him in a job very long.

On ethics plenty of people still use amazon and to a lot they were morally stealing from us. A CEO having it large wouldn't stop people using whatever company he works for. The figures are so vast that if a guy earns 50 million a year or 100 million the view of him is the same.

Increasing wages of the low paid is desirable but this ain't the answer, even a Legal increase to a living wage will be problematic.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
 
I don't know if it's already been stated but Corbyn must earn a lot more than the £140k pa talked about due to already receiving a state pension and a council pension from his previous employer. Can he receive his MP's pension that he has accumulated over the last 33 years now that he is of pensionable age?
Should he actually retire (he can afford to!) to enable someone else to be employed!
 
Chippy_boy said:
I wouldn't mind having a debate, certainly. But I'd be on the "it's not the role of government to interfere in how companies remunerate their employees" camp.

I wonder how many people on here would be in favour of us unilaterally capping the pay of any player who wishes to join us. And would people be happy that we could no longer attract top players? It stikes me there's much hypocrisy on this forum sometimes.
Click to expand...

If I thought for a second that everyone was being offered the same opportunities in life and everyone had the same shot at working their way to the top based on their own hard work and nous, then I maybe i'd see less need for intervention. Like I said though, I think the idea of a salary cap is unworkable and I'm more for seeing fairer pay structures implemented rather than actual limits on what one can earn.

With regards to footballers wages, they're actually one group of people where I care less about what they earn. At least they 've got there on merit!
 
hilts said:
Doesn't work that way unfortunately, companies pay what they can get away with, trying to link CEO salaries to a cleaner is folly either by laws or on ethics. What do people want their pension funds to do? Grow as much as possible. I'm not sure your fund manager telling you that you will have to work a few more years because he withdrew your dosh from the Gordon gecko bastard company to the lentil woolly jumper co operative would keep him in a job very long.

On ethics plenty of people still use amazon and to a lot they were morally stealing from us. A CEO having it large wouldn't stop people using whatever company he works for. The figures are so vast that if a guy earns 50 million a year or 100 million the view of him is the same.

Increasing wages of the low paid is desirable but this ain't the answer, even a Legal increase to a living wage will be problematic.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer my wage to rise than my pension to. I personally believe that those at the top generally succeed with at least some help from the employees beneath them and hence, if they want a pay rise then that should trickle down. I think it would also encourage entrepreneurship as if the CEO didn't want to boost his cleaner's salary, he could bring in agency cleaners, increasing the need for cleaning agencies and new wage hierarchies there.

I agree on the ethics front, but isn't that simply because this isn't the norm? I'd imagine there are plenty who don't shop at Sports Direct because they don't think that's well run. This would just be adding to the list of what constitutes well run.
 
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.