Bin men strikes (1 Viewer)

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Let's not pretend bin men are on their hands and knees scrubbing up the mess of the rich people for a pittance. They don't take it if they deem it to be in the wrong place, too heavy, has something in it that shouldn't be in it etc anyway for health and safety.

They don't set those rules. You keep referencing other jobs but it's a non argument. Two wrongs don't make a right.
 

Nick

Administrator
An example of a shit, underpaid job doesn't disprove another job is shit, and undrpaid.

If being a binman is such a bed of roses, why aren't we all battering down the doors to apply?
I didn't say it wasn't a bed of roses, I said the wages weren't as bad as made out.

You asked what other job, I just gave an example I know more about.

I wouldn't apply now, but if I was 18/19 living at home again or with minimal outgoings it would have been better than the 10k I was getting paid then.
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
I didn't say it wasn't a bed of roses, I said the wages weren't as bad as made out.

You asked what other job, I just gave an example I know more about.

I wouldn't apply now, but if I was 18/19 living at home again or with minimal outgoings it would have been better than the 10k I was getting paid then..
How long ago was that nick?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 

Nick

Administrator
How long ago was that nick?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
I had a job on 12k about 10 years ago I think it was, that was skilled with experience needed in it. Bin men earnt more than me then easily.

10k was about 14 years ago I think.

I was on 17k - 18k 8 years ago when I had a kid and bought a house. It's liveable, a struggle but liveable.

It's not coming at it from a snob point of view, it's from somebody who.has had shit jobs and wages point of view so don't think it's too bad.
 
Last edited:

stupot07

Well-Known Member
I had a job on 12k about 10 years ago I think it was, that was skilled with experience needed in it. Bin men earnt more than me then easily.

10k was about 14 years ago I think.

I was on 17k - 18k 8 years ago when I had a kid and bought a house. It's liveable, a struggle but liveable.

It's not coming at it from a snob point of view, it's from somebody who.has had shit jobs and wages point of view so don't think it's too bad.
Didn't say you were. You need to factor in inflation though, which was the only reason I asked.

12k 10 years ago is the equivalent of £15.7k now

10k 14 years ago is the equivalent of £22.3k now

17k 8 years ago is the equivalent of £21.5k

£12,000 in 2007 → 2017 | UK Inflation Calculator

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 

Nick

Administrator
Didn't say you were. You need to factor in inflation though, which was the only reason I asked.

12k 10 years ago is the equivalent of £15.7k now

10k 14 years ago is the equivalent of £22.3k now

17k 8 years ago is the equivalent of £21.5k

£12,000 in 2007 → 2017 | UK Inflation Calculator

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I know you didn't say that, was just making sure!

Understand that, but then bin men were still on a decent whack back then too :)

What would people say is an acceptable wage for a bin man if £17k is so low?
 

Nick

Administrator
Given that Universal benefit Is set at around £21K so that 'WORK' pays I'd say that should be the base! :$
So if that's the minimum starting wage, how will that impact every other job? Every other job will go up too.

I'd say benefit should go down ;)
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
So if that's the minimum starting wage, how will that impact every other job? Every other job will go up too.

I'd say benefit should go down ;)
No every other job should maintain the differential, although that's probably already shrunk through minimum /living wage legislation.
Anyone over £70K a year has to swallow the pill, sorry Grendel.
Seriously though wages have shrunk through inflation and now Austerity fo a good while, that needs redressing.
As ever I ask where Is all the money going as the need for workers both skilled and unskilled across technologies /services disappeare via automation, robots AI etc, and what is going to happen to all the folk left redundant?
There will be many more to come.
 

Nick

Administrator
No every other job should maintain the differential, although that's probably already shrunk through minimum /living wage legislation.
Anyone over £70K a year has to swallow the pill, sorry Grendel.
Seriously though wages have shrunk through inflation and now Austerity fo a good while, that needs redressing.
As ever I ask where Is all the money going as the need for workers both skilled and unskilled across technologies /services disappeare via automation, robots AI etc, and what is going to happen to all the folk left redundant?
There will be many more to come.
But if every job gets a pay rise, the cost of everything shoots up with it doesn't it?
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
But if every job gets a pay rise, the cost of everything shoots up with it doesn't it?
They have already Nick through the weakness of our currency impacting the people we're talking about the hardest and economists tell us that's all good.
We've had the likes of Boris and Farage championing increases last summer and said Economists begging for some inflation.
These guys depending on their politics usually find there way around it.
What really is true and undeniable as stats show is that the divide is wider than ever between rich and poor.
That imbalance has to stop and be redressed.
 

Nick

Administrator
They have already Nick through the weakness of our currency impacting the people we're talking about the hardest and economists tell us that's all good.
We've had the likes of Boris and Farage championing increases last summer and said Economists begging for some inflation.
These guys depending on their politics usually find there way around it.
What really is true and undeniable as stats show is that the divide is wider than ever between rich and poor.
That imbalance has to stop and be redressed.
I agree between rich and poor but if you give the bin man 21k, the driver wants 50k. Lorry drivers want 50k, things cost more to be delivered etc.

What incentive is there to learn and progress if you can walk into a 20k job with no experience or qualifications.

The same as there's no incentive now to push bins about if you can get more on benefits. I'm sure there used to be waiting lists to be one.

It's all well and good giving everybody a pay rise but we will all be paying it in the end.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
I agree between rich and poor but if you give the bin man 21k, the driver wants 50k. Lorry drivers want 50k, things cost more to be delivered etc.

What incentive is there to learn and progress if you can walk into a 20k job with no experience or qualifications.

The same as there's no incentive now to push bins about if you can get more on benefits. I'm sure there used to be waiting lists to be one.

It's all well and good giving everybody a pay rise but we will all be paying it in the end.
Where's the incentive to work if universal benefit is worth more?
Why do you and I as taxpayers subsidise wages for the low paid through tax credits whilst CEOs and shareholders take all the profits? You really want to start thinking beyond what the tabloids tell you.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
Where's the incentive to work if universal benefit is worth more?
Why do you and I as taxpayers subsidise wages for the low paid through tax credits whilst CEOs and shareholders take all the profits? You really want to start thinking beyond what the tabloids tell you.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

To be fair to the Tories (and Lib Dems when in coalition) the increases in the minimum income tax band and rise of national minimum wage is trying to reduce the requirement for tax credits.

Makes sense, even if it hasnt been straightforward sorting out the convoluted mess that was in place previously.
 

Nick

Administrator
Where's the incentive to work if universal benefit is worth more?
Why do you and I as taxpayers subsidise wages for the low paid through tax credits whilst CEOs and shareholders take all the profits? You really want to start thinking beyond what the tabloids tell you.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

That's why the benefit system is stupid where able bodied people are better off doing nothing than working and should be lowered.

Is a full time bin man on £17k even entitled to tax credits? It's nothing to do with CEO's and Shareholders, it's about whether £17k is that bad of a wage for a job you can walk into like that (hence they have had waiting lists in the past).

It's nothing to do with tabloids telling me anything, it's that a bin man's average wage is a fair bit more than other jobs classed as "skilled" or having a "trade" where people need experience and/or qualifications.

The answer isn't just "give everybody a pay rise" to suit because a bin man gets more, it was nothing more than pointing out £17k isn't that bad.
 

Marty

Well-Known Member
If you can earn more not working then working then I think there's a serious issue with the benefits system. 17k for unskilled labour is enough.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Please explain. I just want to understand your view point.

It is simple. Benefits should be enough to cover the cost of living for somebody who is out of work, that's what they exist for. Whether they do or not is down to personal circumstance, but they probably do just about do for your average person.
If pay is worth less than benefits then there is a serious issue with pay. In the UK, real pay has stagnated for low earners for years and years whilst it has grown for those at the top.

The UK government has known for years that there is an issue with pay, but due to Tory and New Labour obsession with courting the very rich, failed to deal with the route cause of it and instead spend money topping up pay through tax credits and allowed the situation to exacerbate.
 

Nick

Administrator
Why do benefits go up?

You can't just give everybody who works full time a minimum of 20k or whatever just to make sure it's more than benefits.

Not every company has CEOs at the top it can be blamed on because they have a big wage, plenty of small businesses would be up shit creek if they suddenly had to pay their unskilled workers £20k or whatever rather than the £13 - £14k on minimum wage. That's £7k per person they have to pull from somewhere every year, they will have to whack their prices up to make that up.

What if there is a small design agency for example looking to hire a graduate fresh out of uni, usually they would be able to give them £15k - £17k starting out. They don't have much experience but they have qualifications. That suddenly jumps up to £23k - £24k because it has to be more than benefits.

To cover the extra wage everybody had to pay people who worked for them prices and services would go up. It would get to the point when products and services are too expensive for people on benefits, what happens then? Benefits go up to match because then people can't afford to live because everything is too expensive. The multiple people involved in baking, transporting and selling the loaf of bread or pint of milk would all be getting pay rises, who covers it to prevent everything shooting up?

Yes, with big massive companies the CEO's could lose a few grand to cover it. and have 60k instead of 120k. What about small businesses with 5 - 10 employees where they would have to give them all thousands more a year just to make sure it's more than benefits.
 
Last edited:

Marty

Well-Known Member
It is simple. Benefits should be enough to cover the cost of living for somebody who is out of work, that's what they exist for. Whether they do or not is down to personal circumstance, but they probably do just about do for your average person.
If pay is worth less than benefits then there is a serious issue with pay. In the UK, real pay has stagnated for low earners for years and years whilst it has grown for those at the top.

The UK government has known for years that there is an issue with pay, but due to Tory and New Labour obsession with courting the very rich, failed to deal with the route cause of it and instead spend money topping up pay through tax credits and allowed the situation to exacerbate.

I sort of understand your view point, but in alot of cases benefits more then cover basis living expenses, and allows luxuries too (takeaway, gags, booze etc). This shouldn't be the case.
 

Nick

Administrator
More fun than being a bin man. I'd take a lower salary for better conditions.

And we can live without advertising, too...

Yes but if they all had to have a pay rise to overtake benefits who covers it? It's a small business run by a bloke who takes a very modest wage himself. No fatcat CEOs on 150k for doing nothing.

He needs to pull an extra few K a year out of the bag.
 

dancers lance

Well-Known Member
I think this situation could be used to address some of the awful gender inequality that is so plagues our society, sack the lot of them and employ the thousands of women who would be fighting over each other to take this role, a role that has been so monopolised by the patriarchy!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top