The McStrike

[JohnD]

...Since Green has been singled out, that implied...

He has been singled out because he enriched himself enormously while driving the company into the ground and busily dodging UK tax.

Not only did the taxpayer subsidise the business by making up the employees pay, the rest of us will end up paying to make up the gaping hole in the pension fund, and to alleviate the poverty of former employees.

So the profits belong to the rapacious Greens, and the costs are borne by the citizens of this country.

Most of whom, unlike the Greens, are not tax-dodgers.

No doubt you will also be singled out, when you are a yacht-owning billionaire tax dodger who scuttles off leaving your former employees without the pensions they were promised.

The government policies which enable multinational billionaires to enrich themselves at the expense of the common citizen have also been criticised.

 

[Notch7]

He has been singled out because he enriched himself enormously while driving the company into the ground and busily dodging UK tax.

Not only did the taxpayer subsidise the business by making up the employees pay, the rest of us will end up paying to make up the gaping hole in the pension fund, and to alleviate the poverty of former employees.

So the profits belong to the rapacious Greens, and the costs are borne by the citizens of this country.

Most of whom, unlike the Greens, are not tax-dodgers.

No doubt you will also be singled out, when you are a yacht-owning billionaire tax dodger who scuttles off leaving your former employees without the pensions they were promised.

The government policies which enable multinational billionaires to enrich themselves at the expense of the common citizen have also been criticised.

So in other words, what the Mirror posted wasnt true, Green wasnt paying his workers less than the going rate.

 

[JohnD]

I don't know what you read in your Mirror. Did it use the term "going rate?"

 

[Notch7]

I don't know what you read in your Mirror. Did it use the term "going rate?"

Did it specify exactly what the rate of pay was?

It didnt.

So the claim 'workers dont earn enough to live on' is: unfounded, unqualified and therefore utter rubbish.

Since this country has low unemployment its reasonable to assume the workers were paid the going rate. If their rate of pay was much lower, then the shop would have had no employees.

 

[JohnD]

strangely (?) notch has no reply.

I don't know what you read in your Mirror. Did it use the term "going rate?"

 

[Bodd]

Did it specify exactly what the rate of pay was?

It didnt.

So the claim 'workers dont earn enough to live on' is: unfounded, unqualified and therefore utter rubbish.

Since this country has low unemployment its reasonable to assume the workers were paid the going rate. If their rate of pay was much lower, then the shop would have had no employees.

I must be missing something here. I think i agree with John...

Everybody should be able to earn a wage that allows them to have a life to a half decent standard at worse....

Most people in low paid jobs enhance the life quality of us in higher paid jobs.

 

[Notch7]

I must be missing something here. I think i agree with John...

Everybody should be able to earn a wage that allows them to have a life to a half decent standard at worse....

Most people in low paid jobs enhance the life quality of us in higher paid jobs.

Oh, I agree, but that has nothing to do with the Mirrors claim.....which is obvioudly a complete lie.

 

[Notch7]

strangely (?) notch has no reply.

No, JohnD has no reply.

Perhaps I didnt make it clear enough.

Does he think Green paid his employees 'the going rate'

Or if he thinks they were paid much less, how did he manage to attract staff?

Perhaps the Mirrors claim 'Greens staff were paid so badly they couldnt afford to live' is a complete lie.

Perhaps by some miracle, JohnD will be able to enlighten us as to the pay levels and how it compares to the national average for the retail sector.

Without a valid response we can all assume Green paid 'the going rate'

 

[EFLImpudence]

This does seem rather obvious.

Look at it in the extreme - if an employer pays a pound an hour and the employee earns forty pounds a week and then the state 'tops it up' with two or three hundred a week in benefits so that he can afford food and rent etc., who is benefitting from the benefits - the employer or the employee?
I'll help you decide - it is the employer.

Should not the employer pay the employee £240 or £340 per week if that is what the state thinks is the minimum needed to 'live'?

 

[noseall]

Should not the employer pay the employee £240 or £340 per week if that is what the state thinks is the minimum needed to 'live'?

Notch obviously does not. He's happy that the plebs get the going rate and that Fat Rich gets another new yacht.

 

[Bodd]

Notch obviously does not. He's happy that the plebs get the going rate and that Fat Rich gets another new yacht.

Nosey's happy that the plebs get the going rate and that Fat Rich gets another new yacht.
Because if the plebs don't like it the Fat Rich git with the Yacht can pick from an endless supply of Eastern European plebs to do the job 10 x over.
Maybe the Fat rich git can buy a bigger yacht next year....



Read more: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/the-mcstrike.510099/page-4#ixzz5TBFLo5O4

 

[noseall]

Nosey's happy that the plebs get the going rate and that Fat Rich gets another new yacht.

Drunk glue sniffing Bodd is hallucinating again.

 

[Bodd]

Drunk glue sniffing Bodd is hallucinating again.

OK picture this

Candidate = pleb

Fat rich git has 1 job going..... He"s prepared to pay minimum wage
Candidate 1 has a good interview but wants the living wage....

What's fat Rich gits answer to that?

A), Is Fat rich git going to agree to candidate 1's demands as he needs a cleaner to clean his sh!t

Or

B) Show candidate 1 the door explaining that he has millions of candidate 2's 3"s 4's and so so and so on to pick from a vast open border-less state called Europe. Who'll be more than happy to take the minimum wage

A or B

 

[Notch7]

This does seem rather obvious.

Look at it in the extreme - if an employer pays a pound an hour and the employee earns forty pounds a week and then the state 'tops it up' with two or three hundred a week in benefits so that he can afford food and rent etc., who is benefitting from the benefits - the employer or the employee?
I'll help you decide - it is the employer.

Should not the employer pay the employee £240 or £340 per week if that is what the state thinks is the minimum needed to 'live'?

That is missing the point.

The whole argument is that the Mirror are saying Green is super rich, his employees arent paid enough and get tax credits.

What I am saying how much did they get paid? If they were paid the going rate, then all employers in that sector are under paying, therefore the problem is the system not Green.

Do you know why the employees got tax credits? Maybe they were parents, working part time.

Im sticking to my argument: the Mirror are using a blatant sensationalist interpretation for exaggeration, with facts conveniently omitted.

 

[Notch7]

Notch obviously does not. He's happy that the plebs get the going rate and that Fat Rich gets another new yacht.

I see Noseall thinks people that work in shops are merely 'plebs'...how charming