Poorer people are the real losers with the ‘national living wage’
|
Version 0 of 1. The new “national living wage” (Report, 1 April) will increase the pull factor of the UK for migrants from poorer EU countries. Already the national minimum wage, equivalent to £1,200pcm, is double the average wage of £500pcm in Poland. The unrestricted supply of cheap labour will mean less job security and poorer terms and conditions for low-paid workers. Any reduction in inward migration likely to be achieved by restrictions on tax credits – even if introduced – is likely to be cancelled out, placing ever more unmanageable strain on public services, especially the NHS, given that it is one of the few healthcare systems in Europe where anyone with a right to be here can get all treatment free (another reason why the UK is such a draw for EU and other migrants). Unrestricted freedom of movement benefits mainly our better-off pensioners who want to retire to sunnier climes. It’s not beneficial if you are a low-paid worker vying for a job in a low-wage economy. The working conditions of the low-paid, our NHS, public services, affordability and access to housing are all the things most adversely affected by continued membership of the EU and yet Labour, the Lib Dems and the centre left are its most enthusiastic supporters. The myopia is staggering.L LangrickMansfield, Nottinghamshire • The introduction of the national living wage on 1 April was welcome, even though the £7.20 hourly rate it offers workers aged 25 and above is well below the Living Wage Foundation’s rates of £9.40 in London and £8.25 elsewhere. Yet over-25s in thousands of companies will see no increases and many will see their pay cut because tight-fisted employers have found ways to get around the new regulations. In B&Q, for example, new contracts are being introduced which will get rid of a long-standing bonus worth 6% of salary, reduce hourly rates for working on Sundays and bank holidays and cut back on territorial allowances for some workers in the most expensive parts of the country. The effect of this is that many workers will end up losing hundreds and in some cases thousands of pounds a year, rather than getting the increase in remuneration that the new national living wage offers. And if workers don’t sign up to these new terms, their contracts will be terminated and they will lose any annual bonus they have accrued to date. B&Q was already a low-paying employer but using the new minimum rates for over 25s as an excuse to cut remuneration for their workers is an outrage.Richard LynchGMB union representative • Methinks Prof Sked (Letters, 31 March) adds to the lack of genuine information and argument in the current EU debate by asserting that an increase in EU immigration into the UK suppresses the wages of British workers. It isn’t the migrant workforce that is suppressing wages, it is exploitation by employers of this newly arriving workforce. And if labour migration from the EU – and elsewhere – stopped, unscrupulous employers would return to their exploitation and underpayment of British workers. Why else would the UK need tax credits? Sked correctly identifies the scandal but is way off target in his attempt to find the cause.Blaine StothardLondon • You claim that employers will have to pay for the new national living wage by raising prices, cutting jobs or by improving their productivity (Cash-in-hand workers unlikely to get rise, 1 April). But this is to miss entirely the fundamental option: that employers should either make lower profits or pay themselves less – or both. The aim of the increase is, supposedly, to make workers better off, but it is essential that this is done fairly; to set workers against each other in the way you imply is quite wrong, though sadly it is all too typical of the way the government sees how things should be run, and you only reinforce this view by reporting as you do.Dr Richard CarterLondon • Not all middle class cash-in-hand employers exploit their workers. We pay our weekly cleaner £10 an hour. If she is ill or on holiday we give her half pay. We regard her as an employee with rights and ourselves as employers with responsibilities. We pay irregular workers, eg odd-jobbing, gardening etc the same rate. I wouldn’t work for less, why should they?Hilary BrooksStockport • I hope your headline (Big rise in City bankers earning more than €1m, 31 March) is at odds with your style guide, which really ought to discriminate between “pay” and “earnings”. It is surely obscene that nearly 3,000 London bankers receive more in one bonus payment than anyone can earn in a life-time’s graft at the new living wage.Phil HuntRichmond, North Yorkshire • Izzi Seccombe of the Local Government Association says that “services caring for the elderly and disabled are already at breaking point” (Living wage ‘threat to care sector’, 29 March). Would it not therefore be sensible for us to use precious taxpayers’ money to provide such services directly, rather than continuing to subsidise the shareholders of unaccountable cherry-picking contractors?Francis PrideauxLondon • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |