Wage loans for employers who cannot pay a living wage #224
Conversation
|
I was thinking perhaps very small employers (less than 5 employees) should be exempt? |
|
From which part - minimum wage? Pop that in #223 if that's what you mean, this bit builds on that. |
|
What's the rationale behind this one? Is this meant to be a temporary measure for companies that need to restructure in some way to meet an unexpectedly changing wage bill? Or a long term plan to effectively subsidise companies that can't afford to do business? |
|
It's a way to offset the fear that having to pay a living wage will make some businesses unprofitable, by providing a temporary measure to allow them to adapt, yes. Definitely not long term. |
|
👍 |
| @@ -9,11 +9,17 @@ published: true | |||
|
|
|||
| What policies should we propose to maintain a competitive economy that provides [full employment](http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Full_employment.html)? | |||
|
|
|||
| ## Minimum Wage | |||
|
|
|||
| The minimum wage should be set to the same value as the living wage (currently £14,458.50 based on 252 working days of 7.5 hours per day at £7.65), and automatically adjusted in line with that figure. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suggest we change this to:
The minimum wage should be set to the same value as the [living wage](http://www.livingwage.org.uk), and automatically adjusted in line with that figure.
It's only going to get out of date and look bad otherwise :) Plus, I think the annual calculation (mine, originally IIRC) is wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This change seems to be introducing a new regionalised aspect that wasn't in the original, in that the URL makes a distinction between a London Living Wage, and the rest of the country. Is that intended?
|
Brilliant 👍 |
|
I'm going to 👎 my own proposal, as I want to refine it slightly before it goes in. |
|
Of course, my vote gets ignored, so I'd better just make the change. |
|
Still a 👍 from me |
|
@PaulJRobinson Happy with @Floppy's amends to this one? |
|
This one has been adjusted from the original wording, and is just waiting for votes to approve it, so I'd rather not close it as dead. @PaulJRobinson, are you still a 👍 on here? |
|
Good idea 👍 |
|
This proposal is open for discussion and voting. If you are a contributor to this repository (and not the proposer), you may vote on whether or not it is accepted. How to voteVote by entering one of the following symbols in a comment on this pull request. Only your last vote will be counted, and you may change your vote at any time until the change is accepted or closed.
Proposals will be accepted and merged once they have a total of 2 points when all votes are counted. Votes will be open for a minimum of 7 days, but will be closed if the proposal is not accepted after 90. Votes are counted automatically here, and results are set in the merge status checks below. ChangesIf the proposer makes a change to the proposal, no votes cast before that change will be counted. |
This is phrased as a loan, as a benefit would violate state aid rules, probably. This might do as well, of course, need an expert opinion there. Also includes change from #223, as they are a prerequisite for this.