Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Corbyn wants to ban Co.'s which don't pay living wage from paying dividends Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    I'm not sure whether the media have reported on Corbyn's view on dividends accurately, so I'll have to wait for the actual speech.

    Ensuring that the ratio of CEO pay to worker pay is fixed or prevented from increasing is certainly a policy proposal worth discussing.

    CEOs simply don't deserve the extraordinary pay that they're getting today. The gap between CEO pay and worker pay was much lower a few decades ago (the ratio was usually between 10:1 and 20:1), yet productivity and performance has stayed the same in top corporations, so the massive take-off in CEO pay simply can't be justified (the ratio is as high as 273:1 nowadays).

    The whole low-pay issue is pretty much dealt with in places like Scandinavia. Why? Because they have strong trade unions and workers have bargaining power, power which has been systematically dismantled. Proponents of the free-market should be supporting strengthening trade unions and getting union membership rising (an anarcho-capitalist friend I have supports trade unions, for instance). I expect Jeremy Corbyn and Labour will do so, with the support of the OECD who, in their reports, have identified strong trade unions as a key way to reduce inequality whilst promoting economic growth.

    Unfortunately, in this country and particularly in the United States, big businesses have been allowed to form monopolies, exploit their workers, and meanwhile the government has weakened unions, meaning that workers are stuck in low-paid jobs. As Jeremy Corbyn has said, raising the pay of the poorest in society strengthens the economy. Both the IMF and the OECD have found that higher inequality reduces economic growth.
    Bull.
    Someone with a degree and a brain between their ears is worth far more than some numpty packing a box on the factory shop floor.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Not at all. You were trying to make out those people who complained about rail fares don't want staff to be paid well. Your narrow focus misses the idea that they want a nationalised service where staff are paid more, the service is better and the fares are much cheaper.

    But only radically socialist countries like Germany have such a service.
    Ask anyone old enough to remember what it was like when the railways WERE nationalised, under British Rail. The service was equally dreadful, worse in many ways, albeit cheaper.

    DB have always had an excellent service, streets better than ours, private or public. Why? No idea, because they are German and just much more efficient than us? Far richer and able to pour in lots more money ? Who knows.

    I remember the tinge of envy the first time I went on a TGV. Still more the Japanese bullet train. This country, which once led the world in railways is a joke now, by comparison. Pretty much third world. Sad but true.

    I have no objection to nationalising the railways in principle, actually. But if it were ever to happen I think you would be disappointed if you thought it would be like Germany, I really do.

    Goodness, India (whose railways we built in the first place) is about to overtake us with bullet trains planned. This country is a laughing stock vis a vis infrastructure. We can't even decide to build a third runway at Heathrow.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    Ask anyone old enough to remember what it was like when the railways WERE nationalised, under British Rail. The service was equally dreadful, worse in many ways, albeit cheaper.

    DB have always had an excellent service, streets better than ours, private or public. Why? No idea, because they are German and just much more efficient than us? Far richer and able to pour in lots more money ? Who knows.

    I remember the tinge of envy the first time I went on a TGV. Still more the Japanese bullet train. This country, which once led the world in railways is a joke now, by comparison. Pretty much third world. Sad but true.

    I have no objection to nationalising the railways in principle, actually. But if it were ever to happen I think you would be disappointed if you thought it would be like Germany, I really do.

    Goodness, India (whose railways we built in the first place) is about to overtake us with bullet trains planned. This country is a laughing stock vis a vis infrastructure. We can't even decide to build a third runway at Heathrow.
    With regards to Germany people forget about WWII and about how so much of the country, including much of its rail infrastructure needed rebuilding allowing them to modernise, in the exact same way that eastern Europe has better broadband than us because they only recently put the infrastructure in so were able to go straight to faster means such as fibre whilst were stuck having to dig up and replace old copper lines.

    You also get that story about Hague visiting Hiroshima and it coming up how they have a regular road pattern, unlike much of Europe and when the mayor was asked why he replied "we had a little help from the Americans".

    It's a lot easier to do something efficiently when it is new compared to having to upgrade an older system.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You !want like a nation that invested huge amounts into new railways in the last century because they had basically no railways left compared to a nation where most of the min lines are 200 years old?

    But hey, all I was saying is that that 1.1%, pretty much covers wages.

    I also put to you that if the question of nationalists were to be put in a realistic manner, I.e. the fates are lower but general taxation increases to compensate, support will drop significantly, especially amongst those who don't use the railways, after all, people tend to not like subsidies they do not benefit from, why should those rich people commuting into London have their transport costs paid for by the working poor?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Everyone contributes, everyone gets a far better service, it helps rich and poor alike. If you're concerned with the poor paying taxes then i'm sure you'll have no problem taxing those in higher brackets more.

    It's absolutely pathetic given your standpoint that you're trying to feign an interest in the 'poor'.

    Germany has a far better, far cheaper service than ours and is nationalised. No one makes huge profits from it, all money is reinvested back into the system.

    How crazy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    I think that's a bit of a generalisation.

    I'll happily agree that there are probably many who don't deserve the pay, but you can't ignore the fact that there are numerous who do.

    The CEO where I work has come in after a period of chronic mismanagement where the company almost went bankrupt, it's now the leading performer in the sector after less than 2 years. He has definitely earned his money.
    Point taken, but I'm not saying that they deserve a massive pay cut or anything, just that their pay, particularly relative to their workers, is astronomical. If you look at performance and productivity in the top companies, they've not increased, yet the ratio of CEO to worker pay has increased by more than ten times since the late 1970s.

    (Original post by JC.)
    Bull.
    Someone with a degree and a brain between their ears is worth far more than some numpty packing a box on the factory shop floor.
    Firstly, everyone - whatever the job they do - should have enough to meet their basic living standards and have something to spare. Many of the lowest-paid workers in the country simply don't.

    Secondly, companies aren't simply comprised of CEOs and people packing boxes - many highly educated people are paid ridiculously low amounts of money in some companies. I know accountants, for instance, who are paid £10 an hour whilst the CEOs of the companies they work for get paid astronomical sums of money, and due to the monopolisation of the market and the lack of job creation, there's nowhere else to go.

    Third, pay shouldn't just be about education - it should be about effort, the danger and fatigue that people are exposed to, and so on. Many of the lowest-paid workers are also in the most dangerous and stressful jobs, which highly educated individuals simply would not want to go into. That deserves some consideration, and I'm afraid I can't believe that CEOs are putting in 273 times the effort of their workers (and, again, some of these workers are highly educated individuals).

    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    Ask anyone old enough to remember what it was like when the railways WERE nationalised, under British Rail. The service was equally dreadful, worse in many ways, albeit cheaper.
    Again, the East Coast Mainline was renationalised in 2009, and was in public ownership until 2015. It required the least in public subsidy out of all of the franchises, and delivered £1bn in net revenue to the taxpayer over the course of its operation. In terms of passenger satisfaction with the service, it was ahead of almost all of the private companies, and achieved the highest satisfaction scores ever on the East Coast mainline.

    We're currently using billions of pounds of taxpayers' money to subsidise private rail corporations, whilst they give out hundreds of millions in dividends to their shareholders. And, no, this doesn't encourage investment into the railways - private investment represents around 1% of the total investment into railway infrastructure.

    According to evidence from East Coast as well as simple arithmetic, we'll see fares come down in a system of collective ownership (where, as Corbyn outlined, passengers and rail workers and local government will have control over their railways), as well as less taxpayers' money being wasted. And, there's no indication whatsoever that a system of public ownership would have a worse service; the evidence that we have suggests that it will be just as good, if not better, and that would especially be the case if rail workers have a stake in the railways, and we see the democratisation of the workplace, particularly in the public sector.

    This is why an overwhelming majority of British people support taking the railways back into public ownership.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    You haven't answered my point at all, just resorted to an ad hom. If you do attempt to reply I will respond, otherwise there is nothing further to say.

    There were a few British industrialists who think like you. The Quaker founders of the chocolate and cocoa companies. Very enlightened, very decent, and their companies prospered for many years. But look what happened to them?

    The couldn't survive in the cut throat world of global capitalism. Rowntrees were taken over by Nestle, a huge, brutal, Swiss multinational and Cadburys by Kraft, an American one.
    There was one line of ad hom, the rest was responding to your point.
    If a business can't afford to pay it's water bills or electricity bills, no one goes 'ah but if you make them pay then they'll go out of business'. If they can't afford to pay their utilities they shouldn't be in business. Same logic applied to staff.
    If you want someone to work for you then pay them a wage which they can afford to live on.

    The ONLY reason why people are willing to accept lower is because of the race to the bottom which conservatives promote.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Do we offend you that much?

    Knob head.
    The truth hurts.
    If you want to act the goat in school don't whinge when it bites you in the arse later in life when you're the loser on minimum wage and those that bothered to pay attention make a few quid.
    Typical jealous money grasping loony leftist.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    With regards to Germany people forget about WWII and about how so much of the country, including much of its rail infrastructure needed rebuilding allowing them to modernise, in the exact same way that eastern Europe has better broadband than us because they only recently put the infrastructure in so were able to go straight to faster means such as fibre whilst were stuck having to dig up and replace old copper lines.

    You also get that story about Hague visiting Hiroshima and it coming up how they have a regular road pattern, unlike much of Europe and when the mayor was asked why he replied "we had a little help from the Americans".

    It's a lot easier to do something efficiently when it is new compared to having to upgrade an older system.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Good point, I hadn't thought of that.

    In fact we all tend to forget quite what a disaster winning the war was. The Germans, whom we helped to beat, got their factories, roads and railway rebuilt from scratch. Much of it with American money.

    We didn't get any money from the Marshall Plan, instead we had incurred huge debts to the Yanks. When, really strapped for cash we asked for debt relief facing a sterling crisis, they told the then Labour Government to shove the request where the sun doesn't shine.

    I think we only paid off some of that wartime debt to the Americans only the other year. Plus in 1939 the Empire was at pretty much its largest ever extent, less than two decades after the end of the war it had vanished off the face of the earth.

    Not a good war to win, all in all.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    There was one line of ad hom, the rest was responding to your point.
    If a business can't afford to pay it's water bills or electricity bills, no one goes 'ah but if you make them pay then they'll go out of business'. If they can't afford to pay their utilities they shouldn't be in business. Same logic applied to staff.
    If you want someone to work for you then pay them a wage which they can afford to live on.

    The ONLY reason why people are willing to accept lower is because of the race to the bottom which conservatives promote.
    Race to the bottom? You sound like an Ed M conference speech.

    If there IS a race to the bottom both parties have been in power whilst it has been occurring and neither have been willing or able (or probably have not wanted) to stop it.

    It won't have escaped your notice that we have sucked in three million immigrants from the EU, over the past few years, many of them ridiculously overqualified for the work they do, and often on the minimum wage.

    Great for companies like Starbucks who get motivated, hard working barristas from Latvia or wherever. Not sure it does the rest of us much good, they have to live somewhere, Starbucks don't pay much tax on all the profit they make, and the coffees don't seem much cheaper. In fact £2.65 for a small coffee, what's that all about?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Just shows how clueless and out of touch he is.

    I support the living wage but this is just moronic and will never happen.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    Good point, I hadn't thought of that.

    In fact we all tend to forget quite what a disaster winning the war was. The Germans, whom we helped to beat, got their factories, roads and railway rebuilt from scratch. Much of it with American money.

    We didn't get any money from the Marshall Plan, instead we had incurred huge debts to the Yanks. When, really strapped for cash we asked for debt relief facing a sterling crisis, they told the then Labour Government to shove the request where the sun doesn't shine.

    I think we only paid off some of that wartime debt to the Americans only the other year. Plus in 1939 the Empire was at pretty much its largest ever extent, less than two decades after the end of the war it had vanished off the face of the earth.

    Not a good war to win, all in all.
    We never won. The Americans and Soviets won, both of them expanded their spheres of influence while the British became an American colony. We should have went the way of France, pursued our own independent foreign, defence and economic policy.

    Neville Chamberlain, for all the slack he gets, was the only man who knew the true cost of the war.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    Race to the bottom? You sound like an Ed M conference speech.
    Now who's engaging in ad hom?
    It is indeed. Because people have so few options they are almost willing to accept any money out of desperation even if it is not enough.
    It's not a crazy socialist concept, it's just basic human decency. Treat people who work for you with respect. If you want them to work for you then pay them enough so they can afford not to be on the breadline.

    If a business can't afford to pay it's staff £10 an hour then they should not be in business. You don't think businesses shouldn't have to pay electricity and gas bills. You don't think a business shouldn't have to pay for a venue. Wages are the same, if they can't afford their utility bills they go out of business, if they can't afford to pay their staff a decent wage they should too.
    We don't go 'businesses need to make a profit so we shouldn't charge them for their electricity', by the same token they must pay their workers a respectable wage.

    Big corporations like McDonalds and Starbucks can easily afford to. The idea they'd go out of business is laughable.

    Small businesses should be encouraged to through tax breaks and grants.

    It's not a crazy, far left ideal. It's paying people enough money so that work pays and they can afford to live.

    Many tories, including Boris Johnson support the idea. It's not radical.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Now who's engaging in ad hom?
    It is indeed. Because people have so few options they are almost willing to accept any money out of desperation even if it is not enough.
    It's not a crazy socialist concept, it's just basic human decency. Treat people who work for you with respect. If you want them to work for you then pay them enough so they can afford not to be on the breadline.

    If a business can't afford to pay it's staff £10 an hour then they should not be in business. You don't think businesses shouldn't have to pay electricity and gas bills. You don't think a business shouldn't have to pay for a venue. Wages are the same, if they can't afford their utility bills they go out of business, if they can't afford to pay their staff a decent wage they should too.
    We don't go 'businesses need to make a profit so we shouldn't charge them for their electricity', by the same token they must pay their workers a respectable wage.

    Big corporations like McDonalds and Starbucks can easily afford to. The idea they'd go out of business is laughable.

    Small businesses should be encouraged to through tax breaks and grants.

    It's not a crazy, far left ideal. It's paying people enough money so that work pays and they can afford to live.

    Many tories, including Boris Johnson support the idea. It's not radical.
    I quite admire your idealism, but (and I know this is going to sound patronising) what you are suggesting just won't happen.

    It doesn't work like that. Companies who pay the minimum wage don't care about their workers. They aren't "decent." They provide a job, that is it, and use that labour to make as much profit as they can.

    If they don't like it they can sling your hook because there will always be another Romanian fresh off the bus, desperate to fill their place for the same money and maybe even worse conditions

    Like I said, it is about profit, NOT employing people or being decent. Take their profits away and they will not hire the staff in the first place of will fire them.

    Starbucks isn't on every high street because it gives a damn about either that Latvian barrista it employs, or that coffee you buy. If is in business to make profit for its shareholders.

    No profit, the cafe gets closed. No job for the Latvian, no over priced coffee for you.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    I quite admire your idealism, but (and I know this is going to sound patronising) what you are suggesting just won't happen.

    It doesn't work like that. Companies who pay the minimum wage don't care about their workers. They aren't "decent." They provide a job, that is it, and use that labour to make as much profit as they can.

    If they don't like it they can sling your hook because there will always be another Romanian fresh off the bus, desperate to fill their place for the same money and maybe even worse conditions

    Like I said, it is about profit, NOT employing people or being decent. Take their profits away and they will not hire the staff in the first place of will fire them.

    Starbucks isn't on every high street because it gives a damn about either that Latvian barrista it employs, or that coffee you buy. If is in business to make profit for its shareholders.

    No profit, the cafe gets closed. No job for the Latvian, no over priced coffee for you.
    You're kinda saying 'this is the way things are, so that's how they will always be'.
    I'm not some far left hippy, smoking pot, staring at a tree and dreaming up this ideal vision. It's not some crazy socialist concept. It's not some utopian vision. It's merely asking companies to pay their workers a wage they can live on. Many already do.

    Yes I know businesses are trying to make a profit. But we don't go 'they shouldn't have to pay rent, or pay bills because otherwise they will shut down'. Wages are the same.

    Mcdonalds and Starbucks won't close for having to pay their workers a few pounds more an hour, they make however many hundreds of billions a year. They can afford it.

    Likewise give tax breaks and grants to small businesses so they can afford to pay a higher wage.

    It's all very possible and it happens in the Nordic countries where wages are so high that they don't actually need a mandatory minimum wage. Businesses just pay it. It's not utopia, it's a few hundred miles away.

    I'm not proposing anything radical. I'm proposing that businesses pay their staff a living wage, many already do, including many small businesses.

    If they can't afford it they should not be in business. Conservatives seem to big on the idea of 'living within your means' and 'if you can't afford something then don't get it'. Well the same applies here, if you can't afford to pay your staff a decent wage then you shouldn't be in business. It's that simple.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You're kinda saying 'this is the way things are, so that's how they will always be'.
    I'm not some far left hippy, smoking pot, staring at a tree and dreaming up this ideal vision. It's not some crazy socialist concept. It's not some utopian vision. It's merely asking companies to pay their workers a wage they can live on. Many already do.

    Yes I know businesses are trying to make a profit. But we don't go 'they shouldn't have to pay rent, or pay bills because otherwise they will shut down'. Wages are the same.

    Mcdonalds and Starbucks won't close for having to pay their workers a few pounds more an hour, they make however many hundreds of billions a year. They can afford it.

    Likewise give tax breaks and grants to small businesses so they can afford to pay a higher wage.

    It's all very possible and it happens in the Nordic countries where wages are so high that they don't actually need a mandatory minimum wage. Businesses just pay it. It's not utopia, it's a few hundred miles away.

    I'm not proposing anything radical. I'm proposing that businesses pay their staff a living wage, many already do, including many small businesses.

    If they can't afford it they should not be in business. Conservatives seem to big on the idea of 'living within your means' and 'if you can't afford something then don't get it'. Well the same applies here, if you can't afford to pay your staff a decent wage then you shouldn't be in business. It's that simple.
    The world doesn't owe us a living.

    We don't have much in the way of natural resources (Norway which you quote has a huge amount of oil and a sovereign wealth fund), we are a net importer of oil, produce no coal or minerals, we import most of our food, we don't make much that the world wants to buy any more, our big industries are services.

    Paying our way in the world is key. The economic focus needs to be the encouragement of business. New firms, new companies, new jobs.

    We are not going to do that by becoming a high wage economy (except where those high wages are paid for by large profits) and driving businesses OUT of the country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    With regards to Germany people forget about WWII and about how so much of the country, including much of its rail infrastructure needed rebuilding allowing them to modernise, in the exact same way that eastern Europe has better broadband than us because they only recently put the infrastructure in so were able to go straight to faster means such as fibre whilst were stuck having to dig up and replace old copper lines.

    You also get that story about Hague visiting Hiroshima and it coming up how they have a regular road pattern, unlike much of Europe and when the mayor was asked why he replied "we had a little help from the Americans".

    It's a lot easier to do something efficiently when it is new compared to having to upgrade an older system.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'd like to point out we could of had a equally good broadband speed years ago BT were in the midst of rolling out fiberoptic along with the japanese but after bt had built all of the factories and was getting ready to roll out thatcher privatised the network and so the project was dropped and factories sold and striped.
    majority of the reasons are country's infrastructure sucks is because we keep leaving it too late to the point it costs too much to upgrade
    http://www.techradar.com/news/world-...n-1990-1224784
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    What a pointless and toothless policy. Considering payment below the minimum wage is illegal, the management should be facing criminal charges.. not a restriction on dividend payments.
    He didn't say that companies should be prevented from paying dividends if they pay their staff below the minimum wage, he said they should be banned from paying dividends if they pay their staff below the living wage.

    The living wage is a completely different thing to the minimum wage.

    UK minimum wage for somebody aged 21 or over is £6.70 p/h.

    The living wage is £8.25 p/h, or £9.40 p/h in London.

    Living wage is calculated as the lowest wage that an employee working 40 hours per week must be paid in order to enable the employee to maintain a normal standard of living in the UK.

    Right now companies have no legal obligation to pay their staff the living wage, despite the fact that it is morally the right thing to do, the majority of companies still do not pay it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mackemforever)
    He didn't say that companies should be prevented from paying dividends if they pay their staff below the minimum wage, he said they should be banned from paying dividends if they pay their staff below the living wage.
    The minimum wage is set to become the living wage.

    The article itself references the living wage as the minimum wage several times.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    The world doesn't owe us a living.

    We don't have much in the way of natural resources (Norway which you quote has a huge amount of oil and a sovereign wealth fund), we are a net importer of oil, produce no coal or minerals, we import most of our food, we don't make much that the world wants to buy any more, our big industries are services.

    Paying our way in the world is key. The economic focus needs to be the encouragement of business. New firms, new companies, new jobs.

    We are not going to do that by becoming a high wage economy (except where those high wages are paid for by large profits) and driving businesses OUT of the country.
    The Nordic model will fall apart in future for two reasons. One, their resources will dry up and two, mass migration will causes huge amounts of distrust and ill-feeling. The Nordic model could never work here because culturally British people are too selfish.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    The minimum wage is set to become the living wage.

    The article itself references the living wage as the minimum wage several times.
    After this is put into place, the living wage will probably be reevaluated upwards.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 21, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.