I have published this video this morning. In it I argue that vast numbers of people are paid the minimum wage, but it makes no allowance for out-of-hours working or weekend and night working. It really should, and Labour could deliver that change to improve the well-being of all who work in this way at very little cost to the government.
The audio version of this video is here:
The transcript is:
This is another in the series of videos that I am making on the changes that Labour could make now that they are in office which would have very little cost to introduce, but could change the wellbeing of millions of people in the UK.
In this video, I suggest something that is very simple, very straightforward, but which would have a profound effect on a lot of people.
I think that the minimum wage should increase for everybody who works antisocial hours.
We all know that there's a minimum wage. Up to 20 per cent of all people in the country are paid that minimum wage for the work that they do. But it's the same minimum wage whether a person works from nine to five, or from four in the afternoon until midnight, or even right through the night.
There's no allowance for the fact that people do work antisocial hours, nor is there an allowance for the fact that some people work at weekends, which is generally considered to carry a premium in many situations. So why is that? Why is the minimum wage the same whatever work you do, whenever you do it?
I don't think that's fair. I think that the minimum wage should be higher if you work antisocial hours, and if you work at the weekend. Even if it's only by a pound an hour, that differential is important, and would compensate those who have to work in this way, particularly in sectors like retail and the hospitality industry.
But there are also plenty of others working shifts in factories, or who work in hospitals around the clock. Many of whom will still be on that minimum wage because they're working for outsource contractors.
Labour could make this change. It could make that big difference to the lives of all the people who are involved.
Come on Labour, let's do it. The cost will be tiny to you, but it will be of enormous benefit to the people who need that extra income.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The cost to LINO would be in the form of lost corporate donations. Or am I being too cynical?
How many big companies just pay the Minimum Wage? I suggest not many.
I would suggest many. Much of retail, all of hospitality, a lot of manufacturing, cleaning companies, hairdressing/beauty, security. Not everyone is paid minimum wage in those organisations, obviously, but many are. As Richard says, up to 20% of all people in the country are paid the minimum wage. If that terminology is correct – people rather than workers – that is a huge number of employees.
Richard,
Firstly I agree.
Secondly if there was to be a higher rate of the Minimum Wage of out of hours working, and in particular for ‘out of normal waking hours’ say 10pm to 6am it might tend to reduce the amount of work done at those times. Given that night work has health implications and of course there may be noise, vehicle movements etc as a result of those activities so there would be some other benefits to this.
There is a distinct ‘lack of ambition’ around the Minimum Wage. Clearly if the rate for ‘non contractual hours’ ie overtime and zero hours was increased that might pressure employers to reduce reliance on overtime and zero hours staff.
It would also be possible to set rates for some defined business’s/occupations eg food service, anywhere with an alcohol licence, care work and drivers. I suggest that increasing care workers pay would be very beneficial and if you earnt and extra two pounds a week or so because your job required you to drive there might just be a bit of an incentive not to drive like a complete idiot.
Agreed – if people work unsocial hours they should get a premium on top of the normal wage.
I don’t object to the suggestion, but the idea of ‘anti-social hours’ and special treatment for those workers was lost donkeys’ yers ago. I remember when pubs and restaurants (when the licensing laws required they close by 11pm) had to provide taxis for staff to get home after a certain time; when bank holiday and Sunday working was all at double time; when all overtime was time and a half. The whole concept now is foreign, both to employers and employees. Bar a few unionised workplaces.
A friend of mine some 15 years ago was unemployed and offered a part time job by Tesco in its out of town superstore. He did the training and was then allocated a shift of 10pm to 2am. He didn’t drive (or have a car). He could just about get there on the bus, leaving home at 9pm, but the only way he could get home was by taxi. It would have cost more in travel costs than he was earning for 4 hours @ minimum wage. Tesco would not offer him different shifts so he had to leave. And lost his state benefits for making himself unemployed.