Maximum Wage Law - Corbyn

[Mike D]

You mean unless he's a PLC of which you're a stakeholder?

Correct

 

[geoff clipp]

You don't think CEO's get there on merit?

Compared against people with their same level of privilege, sure. It's hardly a level playing field though is it. I don't want to get too drawn into an argument about what footballers earn anyway. Firstly, I don't care what footballers earn and I don't especially care what any changes in the law would do to their wages. Secondly, I don't agree with what Corbyn has said either.

 

[Chippy_boy]

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.

All very good, and many CEO's share your view. But what's that got to do with governments and laws? It's all well and good jf some people don't shop at Sports Direct for these reasons and doubtless if enough people did that, Mike Ashley would have a think about it.

 

[SWP's back]

Compared against people with their same level of privilege, sure. It's hardly a level playing field though is it. I don't want to get too drawn into an argument about what footballers earn anyway. Firstly, I don't care what footballers earn and I don't especially care what any changes in the law would do to their wages. Secondly, I don't agree with what Corbyn has said either.

Depends on your definition of privilege I suppose.

 

[hilts]

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.

I was talking about the post where the poster said ethically people could take their shares out of companies that were paying low wages, that has nothing to do with your wages unless you earn very little but are somehow stashing it away in shares in such a company. If you are tell me your secret.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Compared against people with their same level of privilege, sure. It's hardly a level playing field though is it. I don't want to get too drawn into an argument about what footballers earn anyway. Firstly, I don't care what footballers earn and I don't especially care what any changes in the law would do to their wages. Secondly, I don't agree with what Corbyn has said either.

You might not care what footballers earn mate, but if anyone wants to have a debate about the rights and wrongs of salary caps, then what footballers earn necessarily is within the scope for discussion. Unless someone wants to say they are in favour of salary caps only for soap manufacturers, but not for steel companies?

And as to "same level of privilege", how is it fair that I can't kick a football for toffee? I was born with footballing ineptitude and it's absolutely unfair on me as an individual that my earning as a footballer should be so much lower than Sergio's.

This "same level of privilege" rubbish is just that. Life is inherently unfair, be that in terms of your god-given IQ, how rich your parents are, or how good you are at table-tennis. You can't go around penalising the gifted ones because the rest of us are shite.

 

[Mike D]

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.

First and foremost you need a strong government which is prepared to implement something properly. As we say at the last pathetic attempt to introduce a living wage the big companies saw this as an opportunity to flatten basis salaries and normalise what was previously classed as overtime as normal time. Your right these companies are just laughing in our faces and will do what ever they want and governments will just roll over hand out another tax cuts so they can earn even more dough.

 

[CityStu]

I was talking about the post where the poster said ethically people could take their shares out of companies that were paying low wages, that has nothing to do with your wages unless you earn very little but are somehow stashing it away in shares in such a company. If you are tell me your secret.

My point on wages is that if I were a Tesco cashier on £16kpa, I wouldn't give a hoot about anybody's pension if I saw my CEO awarding himself a salary increase that's twice my annual wage. Meanwhile I've got no hope of a raise until minimum wage changes and I have real worries hoping my hours don't get cut.

All very good, and many CEO's share your view. But what's that got to do with governments and laws? It's all well and good jf some people don't shop at Sports Direct for these reasons and doubtless if enough people did that, Mike Ashley would have a think about it.

It's a fair point but no doubt they said the same about minimum wage at one point.

 

[Tricky Dickys Right Foot Shot]

He's an Arsenal fan, need I say more?

 

[hilts]

You might not care what footballers earn mate, but if anyone wants to have a debate about the rights and wrongs of salary caps, then what footballers earn necessarily is within the scope for discussion. Unless someone wants to say they are in favour of salary caps only for soap manufacturers, but not for steel companies?

And as to "same level of privilege", how is it fair that I can't kick a football for toffee? I was born with footballing ineptitude and it's absolutely unfair on me as an individual that my earning as a footballer should be so much lower than Sergio's.

This "same level of privilege" rubbish is just that. Life is inherently unfair, be that in terms of your god-given IQ, how rich your parents are, or how good you are at table-tennis. You can't go around penalising the gifted ones because the rest of us are shite.

It's coming with the envy crew, we all know they currently would love to go marauding through mansions stealing of the greedy rich to give to the poor, the next logical step is free cosmetic surgery to the ugly(have to be poor though) and take a baseball bat to the pretty. Supermodel or actor raking it in because of their looks, we can't have that. Out with their teeth.