Failure to address issues at hand

Joseph Rowntree Foundation chief executive Julia Unwin announcing the Living Wage at the Hospitium in York

Joseph Rowntree Foundation chief executive Julia Unwin announcing the Living Wage at the Hospitium in York

First published in Letters by

MATTHEW Laverack’s response to our debate on the Living Wage once again fails to address the issues at hand, and in particular: Despite protracted requests, he has not provided any supporting evidence or research that the introduction of a minimum wage (and thereby a living wage) is linked to increases in youth or other unemployment– and similarly fails to acknowledge the established benefits to employers of a happier and more settled workforce.

Secondly, for someone that often requests direct responses in his correspondence, he fails to clarify whether he thinks large multinational supermarkets should pay a living wage (although his latest letter of August 13 suggests not, despite paradoxically being understandably proud of being a Living Wage employer himself).

For the record, I reiterate that I have respect for any entrepreneurial spirit and that risk and hard work should be fairly rewarded.

That said, I also do believe in social justice and that a living wage is an intrinsic part of any equitable system. If that opens me up to ridicule, so be it but Mr Laverack will not persuade me (or many other businesses) that the rewards of entrepreneurship are necessarily mutually exclusive with fair pay.

Richard Bridge, Holgate Road, York.

Comments (6)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:33am Mon 18 Aug 14

julia brica says...

Like happier they no longer have a job and settled into a life on benefits.
Price yourself out of a job and that's what happens.
Price up anything too far and it doesn't sell.
Simplistic Yes but Mr Micawber had it right.
Like happier they no longer have a job and settled into a life on benefits. Price yourself out of a job and that's what happens. Price up anything too far and it doesn't sell. Simplistic Yes but Mr Micawber had it right. julia brica
  • Score: -53

12:04pm Mon 18 Aug 14

Badgers Drift says...

Labour's open door policy and lax controls on immigration resulted in 3m net immigrants plus illegals, which pushed down average wage rates. All very convenient for the living wage agenda.

Labour's over-regulation of housebuilding has structurally damaged the private housebuilding sector and caused massive decline in housebuilding. All very convenient for the housing agenda.

There's a trend here.....

Construct a problem to justify an agenda.

Beware of Labour's cynical attack on this country.
Labour's open door policy and lax controls on immigration resulted in 3m net immigrants plus illegals, which pushed down average wage rates. All very convenient for the living wage agenda. Labour's over-regulation of housebuilding has structurally damaged the private housebuilding sector and caused massive decline in housebuilding. All very convenient for the housing agenda. There's a trend here..... Construct a problem to justify an agenda. Beware of Labour's cynical attack on this country. Badgers Drift
  • Score: -38

12:09pm Mon 18 Aug 14

Thecynic says...

julia brica wrote:
Like happier they no longer have a job and settled into a life on benefits.
Price yourself out of a job and that's what happens.
Price up anything too far and it doesn't sell.
Simplistic Yes but Mr Micawber had it right.
Most of those on the minimum wage or working short hours have a job and still have to settle into a life on benefits! Mainly because their jobs don't pay enough! So what point are you making? The Government is 'subsidising' people who have a job, so that they can live at a legally acceptable level. You, me and everyone else is paying through our taxes, to support those on the minimum wage or part-time hours just so that they can manage! A ridiculous situation.

A fair day's pay for a fair day's work is not asking for too much. If a fair standard of living costs a certain amount, then it's only reasonable to expect that a fair day's pay covers that amount.
[quote][p][bold]julia brica[/bold] wrote: Like happier they no longer have a job and settled into a life on benefits. Price yourself out of a job and that's what happens. Price up anything too far and it doesn't sell. Simplistic Yes but Mr Micawber had it right.[/p][/quote]Most of those on the minimum wage or working short hours have a job and still have to settle into a life on benefits! Mainly because their jobs don't pay enough! So what point are you making? The Government is 'subsidising' people who have a job, so that they can live at a legally acceptable level. You, me and everyone else is paying through our taxes, to support those on the minimum wage or part-time hours just so that they can manage! A ridiculous situation. A fair day's pay for a fair day's work is not asking for too much. If a fair standard of living costs a certain amount, then it's only reasonable to expect that a fair day's pay covers that amount. Thecynic
  • Score: 30

7:28pm Mon 18 Aug 14

Philcrowder says...

There is an argument that says even paying a living wage may not be a competative or fair wage. Ression and even self employment drive earnings down. Governments of all types try to control earnings levels, recently failures in capitalism has done it for them.
There is an argument that says even paying a living wage may not be a competative or fair wage. Ression and even self employment drive earnings down. Governments of all types try to control earnings levels, recently failures in capitalism has done it for them. Philcrowder
  • Score: 5

8:03pm Mon 18 Aug 14

Seadog says...

Unfortunately Richard's letter - with its plethora of subtly embedded clauses - is so linguistically complex (and why the capital D after a mere colon?) and Julia Brica's response so grammatically inept (what on earth does "Like happier they no longer" mean?) ... I am at a loss to know what either of them are banging on about!

Or is it just down to a lack of proof reading at the Press?
Unfortunately Richard's letter - with its plethora of subtly embedded clauses - is so linguistically complex (and why the capital D after a mere colon?) and Julia Brica's response so grammatically inept (what on earth does "Like happier they no longer" mean?) ... I am at a loss to know what either of them are banging on about! Or is it just down to a lack of proof reading at the Press? Seadog
  • Score: 34

11:51pm Mon 18 Aug 14

gwen4me says...

Let's face it, seadog's response falls far short of the Queen's English.
Let's face it, seadog's response falls far short of the Queen's English. gwen4me
  • Score: -45

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree