Next we want a living wage, say protesters

Swindon Advertiser: Members of the GMB Union protesting outside the Next store in Swindon over low pay for its staff Members of the GMB Union protesting outside the Next store in Swindon over low pay for its staff

FLAGS and banners were raised in the town centre yesterday as demonstrators took to the streets to protest about wages at Next.

Members of GMB union were outside the Regent Street store claiming the company needs to increase the wages of staff from the national minimum wage of £6.19 per hour to a living wage of £7.45.

A spokesman for Next, however, denied the claims that they were not paying the living wage.

Carole Vallelly, organiser of GMB in Swindon and Wiltshire, said: “GMB have been carrying out protests outside Next stores up and down the country.

“Next expect their profits to be up to £620m for the year up to January 2013.

“Next recently advertised a job for as low as £4.42 per hour, and are only paying £2.65 to apprentices.

“We think it is only fair they share their profits with their employees.

“By paying staff minimum wage or less, this will put an unnecessary burden on welfare in that employee incomes are subsidised by the taxpayer through working and family tax credits.

“It could be seen as the taxpayer subsiding Next profits.

“If Next raised wages for all staff by £1 per hour, the company would still make profits in excess of £550m per year.

“People I have been talking to are very supportive of the campaign for a living wage. Paying £7.45 an hour isn’t a lot to ask.

“GMB are holding regular demonstrations against Next across the country, until they do the decent thing and pay their staff a minimum living wage.”

About 10 GMB union members were outside the store yesterday.

The living wage is a benchmark and is not a legal minimum level of pay, like the national minimum wage.

The minimum wage for apprentices is currently £2.65, for under 18s it is £3.68, for 18 to 20-year-olds it is £4.98, and £6.19 for people over the age of 21.

A Next spokesman said: “Next does pay a living wage, which is why it has over 30 applications for every store vacancy.

“Next’s warehouse staff receive an average of £9.16, including bonus, for every hour worked.”

Staff inside the town centre store said they were unable to comment.

For more information visit www.gmb-southern.org.uk.

Comments (43)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:17am Tue 11 Dec 12

Bobfm , says...

It's a very good point. Companies making huge profits but paying the lowest possible wages (and often part time hours to avoid employer's NI contributions) can mean the taxpayer (ie you) are paying extra in the form of tax credits. Higher wages mean higher tax income to the Treasury.

Cue: I 2 Could B to slag of unions, accuse anyone who wants fairness of being a "leftie" and that Andy union guy in the photo of being a communist!

Yawn, no need Olive, I've done it for you son x x
It's a very good point. Companies making huge profits but paying the lowest possible wages (and often part time hours to avoid employer's NI contributions) can mean the taxpayer (ie you) are paying extra in the form of tax credits. Higher wages mean higher tax income to the Treasury. Cue: I 2 Could B to slag of unions, accuse anyone who wants fairness of being a "leftie" and that Andy union guy in the photo of being a communist! Yawn, no need Olive, I've done it for you son x x Bobfm ,

8:18am Tue 11 Dec 12

Davey Gravey says...

I'm a bit confused.doesn't look like next workers were involved in the protest. Also the article is about apprentice wages not established staff. If they do only pay minimum wage then I think that is unfair, but shop work is well known to pay poorly.
I'm a bit confused.doesn't look like next workers were involved in the protest. Also the article is about apprentice wages not established staff. If they do only pay minimum wage then I think that is unfair, but shop work is well known to pay poorly. Davey Gravey

8:26am Tue 11 Dec 12

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

I'd be suprised if Next are the only high street name making profits guilty of using the tax payer to subsidise low pay.....
I'd be suprised if Next are the only high street name making profits guilty of using the tax payer to subsidise low pay..... LordAshOfTheBrake

8:30am Tue 11 Dec 12

house on the hill says...

Lord Ash, I think you will find pretty much every business "plays the game" and tries to avoid as much tax as possible and yes shop workers are not very well paid. the other side of course is that if they put wages up then prices will go up to pay for it, so one or the other will end up losing.
Lord Ash, I think you will find pretty much every business "plays the game" and tries to avoid as much tax as possible and yes shop workers are not very well paid. the other side of course is that if they put wages up then prices will go up to pay for it, so one or the other will end up losing. house on the hill

8:35am Tue 11 Dec 12

swindondad says...

The GMB is by definition a left wing organisation. They are one of the biggest contributers to the labour party and have seats on the NEC.
With this in mind it is no supprise that they are campianing for higher wages.
However Next are doing nothing wrong, they are paying wages at or above the minimums for all types of workers. If the wages they offered where not fair people would not be queueing up for them.
The GMB is by definition a left wing organisation. They are one of the biggest contributers to the labour party and have seats on the NEC. With this in mind it is no supprise that they are campianing for higher wages. However Next are doing nothing wrong, they are paying wages at or above the minimums for all types of workers. If the wages they offered where not fair people would not be queueing up for them. swindondad

8:55am Tue 11 Dec 12

baldy01 says...

shocked that thease people dont even work for next infact one of them is claiming hes sick after nearly a year or more and still getting sickpay but hes ok to go out in all weather on pointless picket lines what a hero he is this is why are country is in such a mess letting the likes off andy newman getting away with this
shocked that thease people dont even work for next infact one of them is claiming hes sick after nearly a year or more and still getting sickpay but hes ok to go out in all weather on pointless picket lines what a hero he is this is why are country is in such a mess letting the likes off andy newman getting away with this baldy01

8:59am Tue 11 Dec 12

StillPav says...

There is a lot of talk about "living wage" recently, but isn't that looking at the problem backwards. Employers pay an employee based upon the value they bring to a company, rather than on an arbitrary value.

If people want payrises then they need to prove to their employer that they add more value to the company than their current salary reflects.
There is a lot of talk about "living wage" recently, but isn't that looking at the problem backwards. Employers pay an employee based upon the value they bring to a company, rather than on an arbitrary value. If people want payrises then they need to prove to their employer that they add more value to the company than their current salary reflects. StillPav

9:05am Tue 11 Dec 12

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

@House on the Hill

My comment was tongue in cheek as these people only seem to be targeting Next.


I full accept that business are there to make money and will do what they can to keep costs low.


This is exactly the problem with tax credits; where employers know that workers can get a "top up" from the government by paying low wages whilst maximising profit for shareholders.
@House on the Hill My comment was tongue in cheek as these people only seem to be targeting Next. I full accept that business are there to make money and will do what they can to keep costs low. This is exactly the problem with tax credits; where employers know that workers can get a "top up" from the government by paying low wages whilst maximising profit for shareholders. LordAshOfTheBrake

9:23am Tue 11 Dec 12

Even Angrier Monkey says...

I dont see the problem. High unemployment (particually amongst the young) forces wages down - as in this example, 30 people apply for every job.
.
Welcome to GCSE economics.
.
Good luck getting Next to pay shop workers an extra £2,620 per year when they dont have to - you're going to need it.
I dont see the problem. High unemployment (particually amongst the young) forces wages down - as in this example, 30 people apply for every job. . Welcome to GCSE economics. . Good luck getting Next to pay shop workers an extra £2,620 per year when they dont have to - you're going to need it. Even Angrier Monkey

9:41am Tue 11 Dec 12

Davidsyrett says...

Wish these protester's had something better to do all day, maybe get a JOB!
Wish these protester's had something better to do all day, maybe get a JOB! Davidsyrett

9:42am Tue 11 Dec 12

The Real Librarian says...

Bobfm , wrote:
It's a very good point. Companies making huge profits but paying the lowest possible wages (and often part time hours to avoid employer's NI contributions) can mean the taxpayer (ie you) are paying extra in the form of tax credits. Higher wages mean higher tax income to the Treasury. Cue: I 2 Could B to slag of unions, accuse anyone who wants fairness of being a "leftie" and that Andy union guy in the photo of being a communist! Yawn, no need Olive, I've done it for you son x x
He's more of a a hardcore Marxist anti semite than a "communist."
[quote][p][bold]Bobfm ,[/bold] wrote: It's a very good point. Companies making huge profits but paying the lowest possible wages (and often part time hours to avoid employer's NI contributions) can mean the taxpayer (ie you) are paying extra in the form of tax credits. Higher wages mean higher tax income to the Treasury. Cue: I 2 Could B to slag of unions, accuse anyone who wants fairness of being a "leftie" and that Andy union guy in the photo of being a communist! Yawn, no need Olive, I've done it for you son x x[/p][/quote]He's more of a a hardcore Marxist anti semite than a "communist." The Real Librarian

10:04am Tue 11 Dec 12

I 2 Could B says...

The problem with a 'living wage' is that it's a never-ending moving of the goalposts. If everyone suddenly got paid £2,500 more per year, the costs of goods and services would rise accordingly... meaning the 'living wage' would, in real terms, be right back to square one.

Did the staff at Next actually want, or ask, the GMB to 'protest' on their behalf? It looks like Andy Newman and Chris Watts taking a day off to get their faces in the Advertiser - while at the same time being quite happy to take union subs from people on low wages.

When it comes to election time, the two people mentioned above have stood as potential councillors. These articles serve as a constant reminder of what their agenda is and what they're really all about.
The problem with a 'living wage' is that it's a never-ending moving of the goalposts. If everyone suddenly got paid £2,500 more per year, the costs of goods and services would rise accordingly... meaning the 'living wage' would, in real terms, be right back to square one. [p] Did the staff at Next actually want, or ask, the GMB to 'protest' on their behalf? It looks like Andy Newman and Chris Watts taking a day off to get their faces in the Advertiser - while at the same time being quite happy to take union subs from people on low wages. [p] When it comes to election time, the two people mentioned above have stood as potential councillors. These articles serve as a constant reminder of what their agenda is and what they're really all about. I 2 Could B

10:07am Tue 11 Dec 12

PaulD says...

if people want to earn more, then perhaps they should have paid attention during the 11 years of free education they got at the expense of this country
if people want to earn more, then perhaps they should have paid attention during the 11 years of free education they got at the expense of this country PaulD

10:21am Tue 11 Dec 12

Robh says...

Shop workers are low paid because it is not a 'full time' job. The public are very fickle shoppers they pile in together at odd times and leave the shops empty for long periods. In years gone by shop workers were paid a basic plus commission but many people wanted a set weekly wage.

Admittedly many large stores try to keep costs down to keep prices competitive. They either pay low wages or fiddle the tax man or both.

It is a bit like buses etc. If we want to keep high street shops we must be prepared to use them more.
Shop workers are low paid because it is not a 'full time' job. The public are very fickle shoppers they pile in together at odd times and leave the shops empty for long periods. In years gone by shop workers were paid a basic plus commission but many people wanted a set weekly wage. Admittedly many large stores try to keep costs down to keep prices competitive. They either pay low wages or fiddle the tax man or both. It is a bit like buses etc. If we want to keep high street shops we must be prepared to use them more. Robh

10:26am Tue 11 Dec 12

Cyanide says...

PaulD wrote:
if people want to earn more, then perhaps they should have paid attention during the 11 years of free education they got at the expense of this country
Very ignorant comment. I'm earning more than all my friends who have degrees and I don't have an A-level to my name.
On the opposite end, there are a lot of people who have degrees etc who simply can't get work in their fields and are working in such jobs.
[quote][p][bold]PaulD[/bold] wrote: if people want to earn more, then perhaps they should have paid attention during the 11 years of free education they got at the expense of this country[/p][/quote]Very ignorant comment. I'm earning more than all my friends who have degrees and I don't have an A-level to my name. On the opposite end, there are a lot of people who have degrees etc who simply can't get work in their fields and are working in such jobs. Cyanide

10:30am Tue 11 Dec 12

Morsey says...

Poor pay for workers ... or massive net company profit = more cash for shareholders to spend on their yachts at the increasing number of worldwide marinas.

Same goes for those greedy utility companies that the b***h Thatcher and her gang flogged off from the nation ... the eventual owners of your gas and electricity are forcing ordinary people to seek a little bit more, if they can get anyone to listen?

The world's gone mad, there are so many millionaires out there now, and some probably at the expense of this country paying top-up benefits to underpaid employees on part time hours!
Poor pay for workers ... or massive net company profit = more cash for shareholders to spend on their yachts at the increasing number of worldwide marinas. Same goes for those greedy utility companies that the b***h Thatcher and her gang flogged off from the nation ... the eventual owners of your gas and electricity are forcing ordinary people to seek a little bit more, if they can get anyone to listen? The world's gone mad, there are so many millionaires out there now, and some probably at the expense of this country paying top-up benefits to underpaid employees on part time hours! Morsey

10:38am Tue 11 Dec 12

A.Baron-Cohen says...

In 1960s a CEO was earning as much as 20 of employees (average), nowadays a CEO earns as much as 200 employees!
The great majority of the readers will accept the fact that Wealth is concentrating more and more into the hands of fewer and richer people whilst we common people have had our Labour and Union rights destroyed.
In the 1980's we were sold the dream that we would all be better off without the Unions, well as it happened it is the rich and powerful that mostly profited and now we are in the street having to beg for a £1.26 raise.
Good luck to the GMB and the Next employees
In 1960s a CEO was earning as much as 20 of employees (average), nowadays a CEO earns as much as 200 employees! The great majority of the readers will accept the fact that Wealth is concentrating more and more into the hands of fewer and richer people whilst we common people have had our Labour and Union rights destroyed. In the 1980's we were sold the dream that we would all be better off without the Unions, well as it happened it is the rich and powerful that mostly profited and now we are in the street having to beg for a £1.26 raise. Good luck to the GMB and the Next employees A.Baron-Cohen

11:38am Tue 11 Dec 12

StillPav says...

Morsey wrote:
Poor pay for workers ... or massive net company profit = more cash for shareholders to spend on their yachts at the increasing number of worldwide marinas. Same goes for those greedy utility companies that the b***h Thatcher and her gang flogged off from the nation ... the eventual owners of your gas and electricity are forcing ordinary people to seek a little bit more, if they can get anyone to listen? The world's gone mad, there are so many millionaires out there now, and some probably at the expense of this country paying top-up benefits to underpaid employees on part time hours!
Interesting comments re: utility companies. It's a shame (for you) that in reality Britain has some of the cheapest retail gas and electricity prices in Europe.

http://www.energy.eu
/

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good ol' anti-Thatcher rant though.
[quote][p][bold]Morsey[/bold] wrote: Poor pay for workers ... or massive net company profit = more cash for shareholders to spend on their yachts at the increasing number of worldwide marinas. Same goes for those greedy utility companies that the b***h Thatcher and her gang flogged off from the nation ... the eventual owners of your gas and electricity are forcing ordinary people to seek a little bit more, if they can get anyone to listen? The world's gone mad, there are so many millionaires out there now, and some probably at the expense of this country paying top-up benefits to underpaid employees on part time hours![/p][/quote]Interesting comments re: utility companies. It's a shame (for you) that in reality Britain has some of the cheapest retail gas and electricity prices in Europe. http://www.energy.eu / Don't let the facts get in the way of a good ol' anti-Thatcher rant though. StillPav

12:27pm Tue 11 Dec 12

SpeakUp says...

This was not a protest, it was a photocall. They were there for literally a few minutes - I saw them arrive, be photographed and leave again. Bizarre.
This was not a protest, it was a photocall. They were there for literally a few minutes - I saw them arrive, be photographed and leave again. Bizarre. SpeakUp

12:59pm Tue 11 Dec 12

PaulD says...

SpeakUp wrote:
This was not a protest, it was a photocall. They were there for literally a few minutes - I saw them arrive, be photographed and leave again. Bizarre.
I don't doubt it, it's the modern way as they will get more publicty in the media than from passers-by
[quote][p][bold]SpeakUp[/bold] wrote: This was not a protest, it was a photocall. They were there for literally a few minutes - I saw them arrive, be photographed and leave again. Bizarre.[/p][/quote]I don't doubt it, it's the modern way as they will get more publicty in the media than from passers-by PaulD

1:39pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Old Town says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
In 1960s a CEO was earning as much as 20 of employees (average), nowadays a CEO earns as much as 200 employees!
The great majority of the readers will accept the fact that Wealth is concentrating more and more into the hands of fewer and richer people whilst we common people have had our Labour and Union rights destroyed.
In the 1980's we were sold the dream that we would all be better off without the Unions, well as it happened it is the rich and powerful that mostly profited and now we are in the street having to beg for a £1.26 raise.
Good luck to the GMB and the Next employees
Hmmm - Next employees ? Couldn't see any of them around !

WE ARE better off without the unions - the sooner they are made illegal the better ! The amount of money they cost companies and the country with their petty nonsense is criminal !

As for the looney leftie spouting utter and total nonsense about Thatcher - at least TRY to come up with some FACTS rather than the usual boring rhetoric which doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny .........
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: In 1960s a CEO was earning as much as 20 of employees (average), nowadays a CEO earns as much as 200 employees! The great majority of the readers will accept the fact that Wealth is concentrating more and more into the hands of fewer and richer people whilst we common people have had our Labour and Union rights destroyed. In the 1980's we were sold the dream that we would all be better off without the Unions, well as it happened it is the rich and powerful that mostly profited and now we are in the street having to beg for a £1.26 raise. Good luck to the GMB and the Next employees[/p][/quote]Hmmm - Next employees ? Couldn't see any of them around ! WE ARE better off without the unions - the sooner they are made illegal the better ! The amount of money they cost companies and the country with their petty nonsense is criminal ! As for the looney leftie spouting utter and total nonsense about Thatcher - at least TRY to come up with some FACTS rather than the usual boring rhetoric which doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny ......... Old Town

2:00pm Tue 11 Dec 12

house on the hill says...

Next is part of the Philip Green empire the Arcadia group which makes hundreds of millions ever year.
Next is part of the Philip Green empire the Arcadia group which makes hundreds of millions ever year. house on the hill

2:06pm Tue 11 Dec 12

I 2 Could B says...

SpeakUp wrote:
This was not a protest, it was a photocall. They were there for literally a few minutes - I saw them arrive, be photographed and leave again. Bizarre.
It's not bizarre at all.

The likes of Andy Newman and Chris Watts have to justify the money they take from low paid workers, in the form of union subscriptions, some how.

These kinds of photo opps are ideal for them. If you look at the photo above, it's GMB 'officials' and the same 4 or 5 'members' they're photographed with wherever they're 'protesting'.

I wonder, did any of the Next staff either want or request this 'protest' outside their premises? I very much doubt it.
[quote][p][bold]SpeakUp[/bold] wrote: This was not a protest, it was a photocall. They were there for literally a few minutes - I saw them arrive, be photographed and leave again. Bizarre.[/p][/quote]It's not bizarre at all. [p] The likes of Andy Newman and Chris Watts have to justify the money they take from low paid workers, in the form of union subscriptions, some how. [p] These kinds of photo opps are ideal for them. If you look at the photo above, it's GMB 'officials' and the same 4 or 5 'members' they're photographed with wherever they're 'protesting'. [p] I wonder, did any of the Next staff either want or request this 'protest' outside their premises? I very much doubt it. I 2 Could B

2:29pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Bobfm , says...

I 2 Could B wrote:
The problem with a 'living wage' is that it's a never-ending moving of the goalposts. If everyone suddenly got paid £2,500 more per year, the costs of goods and services would rise accordingly... meaning the 'living wage' would, in real terms, be right back to square one.

Did the staff at Next actually want, or ask, the GMB to 'protest' on their behalf? It looks like Andy Newman and Chris Watts taking a day off to get their faces in the Advertiser - while at the same time being quite happy to take union subs from people on low wages.

When it comes to election time, the two people mentioned above have stood as potential councillors. These articles serve as a constant reminder of what their agenda is and what they're really all about.
I hope the electorate remember their agenda too - ie fairness, a living wage and companies not sharing their excessive profits with those who helped them earn it.

And I also hope they rememer you Oliver. That way you'll never get elected.
[quote][p][bold]I 2 Could B[/bold] wrote: The problem with a 'living wage' is that it's a never-ending moving of the goalposts. If everyone suddenly got paid £2,500 more per year, the costs of goods and services would rise accordingly... meaning the 'living wage' would, in real terms, be right back to square one. [p] Did the staff at Next actually want, or ask, the GMB to 'protest' on their behalf? It looks like Andy Newman and Chris Watts taking a day off to get their faces in the Advertiser - while at the same time being quite happy to take union subs from people on low wages. [p] When it comes to election time, the two people mentioned above have stood as potential councillors. These articles serve as a constant reminder of what their agenda is and what they're really all about.[/p][/quote]I hope the electorate remember their agenda too - ie fairness, a living wage and companies not sharing their excessive profits with those who helped them earn it. And I also hope they rememer you Oliver. That way you'll never get elected. Bobfm ,

3:14pm Tue 11 Dec 12

The Real Librarian says...

Bobfm , wrote:
I 2 Could B wrote: The problem with a 'living wage' is that it's a never-ending moving of the goalposts. If everyone suddenly got paid £2,500 more per year, the costs of goods and services would rise accordingly... meaning the 'living wage' would, in real terms, be right back to square one. Did the staff at Next actually want, or ask, the GMB to 'protest' on their behalf? It looks like Andy Newman and Chris Watts taking a day off to get their faces in the Advertiser - while at the same time being quite happy to take union subs from people on low wages. When it comes to election time, the two people mentioned above have stood as potential councillors. These articles serve as a constant reminder of what their agenda is and what they're really all about.
I hope the electorate remember their agenda too - ie fairness, a living wage and companies not sharing their excessive profits with those who helped them earn it. And I also hope they rememer you Oliver. That way you'll never get elected.
Andy Newman has an agenda.
Item one, and only, is the furtherence of Andy Newman's interests and the benefit of Andy Newman.

There is no item two.
[quote][p][bold]Bobfm ,[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I 2 Could B[/bold] wrote: The problem with a 'living wage' is that it's a never-ending moving of the goalposts. If everyone suddenly got paid £2,500 more per year, the costs of goods and services would rise accordingly... meaning the 'living wage' would, in real terms, be right back to square one. [p] Did the staff at Next actually want, or ask, the GMB to 'protest' on their behalf? It looks like Andy Newman and Chris Watts taking a day off to get their faces in the Advertiser - while at the same time being quite happy to take union subs from people on low wages. [p] When it comes to election time, the two people mentioned above have stood as potential councillors. These articles serve as a constant reminder of what their agenda is and what they're really all about.[/p][/quote]I hope the electorate remember their agenda too - ie fairness, a living wage and companies not sharing their excessive profits with those who helped them earn it. And I also hope they rememer you Oliver. That way you'll never get elected.[/p][/quote]Andy Newman has an agenda. Item one, and only, is the furtherence of Andy Newman's interests and the benefit of Andy Newman. There is no item two. The Real Librarian

3:56pm Tue 11 Dec 12

StillPav says...

house on the hill wrote:
Next is part of the Philip Green empire the Arcadia group which makes hundreds of millions ever year.
No it isn't.

Next is a plc in its own right and nothing to do with Arcadia Group.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Next is part of the Philip Green empire the Arcadia group which makes hundreds of millions ever year.[/p][/quote]No it isn't. Next is a plc in its own right and nothing to do with Arcadia Group. StillPav

4:18pm Tue 11 Dec 12

I 2 Could B says...

Bobfm , wrote:
I 2 Could B wrote:
The problem with a 'living wage' is that it's a never-ending moving of the goalposts. If everyone suddenly got paid £2,500 more per year, the costs of goods and services would rise accordingly... meaning the 'living wage' would, in real terms, be right back to square one.

Did the staff at Next actually want, or ask, the GMB to 'protest' on their behalf? It looks like Andy Newman and Chris Watts taking a day off to get their faces in the Advertiser - while at the same time being quite happy to take union subs from people on low wages.

When it comes to election time, the two people mentioned above have stood as potential councillors. These articles serve as a constant reminder of what their agenda is and what they're really all about.
I hope the electorate remember their agenda too - ie fairness, a living wage and companies not sharing their excessive profits with those who helped them earn it.

And I also hope they rememer you Oliver. That way you'll never get elected.
Fairness? Ask Andy Newman what his salary is and what his union fees are... then compare that to the average wage of one of his union's members.

Also, it appears that unskilled Next warehouse staff earn c.£10 per hour. How, exactly, is that 'unfair'?
[quote][p][bold]Bobfm ,[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I 2 Could B[/bold] wrote: The problem with a 'living wage' is that it's a never-ending moving of the goalposts. If everyone suddenly got paid £2,500 more per year, the costs of goods and services would rise accordingly... meaning the 'living wage' would, in real terms, be right back to square one. [p] Did the staff at Next actually want, or ask, the GMB to 'protest' on their behalf? It looks like Andy Newman and Chris Watts taking a day off to get their faces in the Advertiser - while at the same time being quite happy to take union subs from people on low wages. [p] When it comes to election time, the two people mentioned above have stood as potential councillors. These articles serve as a constant reminder of what their agenda is and what they're really all about.[/p][/quote]I hope the electorate remember their agenda too - ie fairness, a living wage and companies not sharing their excessive profits with those who helped them earn it. And I also hope they rememer you Oliver. That way you'll never get elected.[/p][/quote]Fairness? Ask Andy Newman what his salary is and what his union fees are... then compare that to the average wage of one of his union's members. [p] Also, it appears that unskilled Next warehouse staff earn c.£10 per hour. How, exactly, is that 'unfair'? I 2 Could B

5:55pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Morsey says...

StillPav wrote:
Morsey wrote:
Poor pay for workers ... or massive net company profit = more cash for shareholders to spend on their yachts at the increasing number of worldwide marinas. Same goes for those greedy utility companies that the b***h Thatcher and her gang flogged off from the nation ... the eventual owners of your gas and electricity are forcing ordinary people to seek a little bit more, if they can get anyone to listen? The world's gone mad, there are so many millionaires out there now, and some probably at the expense of this country paying top-up benefits to underpaid employees on part time hours!
Interesting comments re: utility companies. It's a shame (for you) that in reality Britain has some of the cheapest retail gas and electricity prices in Europe.

http://www.energy.eu

/

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good ol' anti-Thatcher rant though.
Only because the Labour party, in Government, quashed the Tories attempts to raise VAT on fuel to the 20% level they are trying to base everything taxable on ... of course, their maths is pretty diabolical as we can see only too well? They can only add up in fifths!
[quote][p][bold]StillPav[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morsey[/bold] wrote: Poor pay for workers ... or massive net company profit = more cash for shareholders to spend on their yachts at the increasing number of worldwide marinas. Same goes for those greedy utility companies that the b***h Thatcher and her gang flogged off from the nation ... the eventual owners of your gas and electricity are forcing ordinary people to seek a little bit more, if they can get anyone to listen? The world's gone mad, there are so many millionaires out there now, and some probably at the expense of this country paying top-up benefits to underpaid employees on part time hours![/p][/quote]Interesting comments re: utility companies. It's a shame (for you) that in reality Britain has some of the cheapest retail gas and electricity prices in Europe. http://www.energy.eu / Don't let the facts get in the way of a good ol' anti-Thatcher rant though.[/p][/quote]Only because the Labour party, in Government, quashed the Tories attempts to raise VAT on fuel to the 20% level they are trying to base everything taxable on ... of course, their maths is pretty diabolical as we can see only too well? They can only add up in fifths! Morsey

5:58pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Bobfm , says...

No, the warehouse staff get £9.16 (INCLUDING BONUS) - which isnt guaranteed. Their actual wage is just over £7 per hour.

And they aren't unskilled. Forklift truck drivers need a qualification.

But don't let the truth get in the way of your ususal OCD-afflicted rant against the working class.
No, the warehouse staff get £9.16 (INCLUDING BONUS) - which isnt guaranteed. Their actual wage is just over £7 per hour. And they aren't unskilled. Forklift truck drivers need a qualification. But don't let the truth get in the way of your ususal OCD-afflicted rant against the working class. Bobfm ,

6:09pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Make progress says...

Don't really see how you can offer an apprenticeship in shop work, but as for the rest if you don't like the wage don't take the job.

As for apprenticeships in general minium wage is more than enough as most 16/17 year olds are work shy, cocky little kids who cost you money to employ & most can't even be bothered to apply never mind turn up each day.
Don't really see how you can offer an apprenticeship in shop work, but as for the rest if you don't like the wage don't take the job. As for apprenticeships in general minium wage is more than enough as most 16/17 year olds are work shy, cocky little kids who cost you money to employ & most can't even be bothered to apply never mind turn up each day. Make progress

6:32pm Tue 11 Dec 12

I 2 Could B says...

Bobfm , wrote:
No, the warehouse staff get £9.16 (INCLUDING BONUS) - which isnt guaranteed. Their actual wage is just over £7 per hour.

And they aren't unskilled. Forklift truck drivers need a qualification.

But don't let the truth get in the way of your ususal OCD-afflicted rant against the working class.
Yes, that's right, Next warehouse staff get paid £9.16p/h including their bonus.

Nobody mentioned forklift truck drivers, who, for all you know, might get an additional allowance for holding that qualification. And, rather obviously, not all warehouse staff are forklift drivers.

However you might try and portray things from your Marxist angle, £9.16p/h is 23% MORE than the 'living wage' that Andy Newman and Chris Watts - both of whom are not employees of Next - were calling for.

Working in a shop and moaning that the shop owner makes all the money is a bit like the person who sells a winning lottery ticket moaning that it's unfair the ticket holder has more money than them.

Still, people like you can carry on dreaming and protesting all you like. It's actually quite amusing to watch... and notice when absolutely nothing comes of it.
[quote][p][bold]Bobfm ,[/bold] wrote: No, the warehouse staff get £9.16 (INCLUDING BONUS) - which isnt guaranteed. Their actual wage is just over £7 per hour. And they aren't unskilled. Forklift truck drivers need a qualification. But don't let the truth get in the way of your ususal OCD-afflicted rant against the working class.[/p][/quote]Yes, that's right, Next warehouse staff get paid £9.16p/h including their bonus. [p] Nobody mentioned forklift truck drivers, who, for all you know, might get an additional allowance for holding that qualification. And, rather obviously, not all warehouse staff are forklift drivers. [p] However you might try and portray things from your Marxist angle, £9.16p/h is 23% MORE than the 'living wage' that Andy Newman and Chris Watts - both of whom are not employees of Next - were calling for. [p] Working in a shop and moaning that the shop owner makes all the money is a bit like the person who sells a winning lottery ticket moaning that it's unfair the ticket holder has more money than them. [p] Still, people like you can carry on dreaming and protesting all you like. It's actually quite amusing to watch... and notice when absolutely nothing comes of it. I 2 Could B

10:44pm Tue 11 Dec 12

MrAngry says...

I keep ready about large companies making excessive profits but I am not sure that it is the case. If it were, my pension fund manager might have invested in one of them.

Most shareholders are ordinary people investing via their private pensions. Judging by the poor performance of my pension fund, I don't think many companies are making huge profits.

Higher wages now might mean no job later.
I keep ready about large companies making excessive profits but I am not sure that it is the case. If it were, my pension fund manager might have invested in one of them. Most shareholders are ordinary people investing via their private pensions. Judging by the poor performance of my pension fund, I don't think many companies are making huge profits. Higher wages now might mean no job later. MrAngry

1:15am Wed 12 Dec 12

SpeakUp says...

I 2 Could B wrote:
SpeakUp wrote:
This was not a protest, it was a photocall. They were there for literally a few minutes - I saw them arrive, be photographed and leave again. Bizarre.
It's not bizarre at all.

The likes of Andy Newman and Chris Watts have to justify the money they take from low paid workers, in the form of union subscriptions, some how.

These kinds of photo opps are ideal for them. If you look at the photo above, it's GMB 'officials' and the same 4 or 5 'members' they're photographed with wherever they're 'protesting'.

I wonder, did any of the Next staff either want or request this 'protest' outside their premises? I very much doubt it.
I thought it was disgraceful - they waited for 'Karen' to come out of the store, grabbed a photo, disappeared and duped the Adver into believing this was a genuine protest. Their placards harped on about £4.42 ph when the story makes it clear this in not true for most workers. Anyway, 30 people apply for each vacancy so what's to complain about? If Next pay less than you think you are worth, don't work there - simples. If enough people refuse to apply, they'll up the anti. As it is, they will pay what they can get away with - don't see the problem, but then I would never join the comrades at GMB who can't even give up a lunch hour to support a cause they claim to support. Pathetic and just out to promote their own name rather than support their members, in my opinion. Perhaps someone from GMB would like to reply with how many current GMB members work at Next and have actually complained about their wages? I won't hold my breath.
[quote][p][bold]I 2 Could B[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SpeakUp[/bold] wrote: This was not a protest, it was a photocall. They were there for literally a few minutes - I saw them arrive, be photographed and leave again. Bizarre.[/p][/quote]It's not bizarre at all. [p] The likes of Andy Newman and Chris Watts have to justify the money they take from low paid workers, in the form of union subscriptions, some how. [p] These kinds of photo opps are ideal for them. If you look at the photo above, it's GMB 'officials' and the same 4 or 5 'members' they're photographed with wherever they're 'protesting'. [p] I wonder, did any of the Next staff either want or request this 'protest' outside their premises? I very much doubt it.[/p][/quote]I thought it was disgraceful - they waited for 'Karen' to come out of the store, grabbed a photo, disappeared and duped the Adver into believing this was a genuine protest. Their placards harped on about £4.42 ph when the story makes it clear this in not true for most workers. Anyway, 30 people apply for each vacancy so what's to complain about? If Next pay less than you think you are worth, don't work there - simples. If enough people refuse to apply, they'll up the anti. As it is, they will pay what they can get away with - don't see the problem, but then I would never join the comrades at GMB who can't even give up a lunch hour to support a cause they claim to support. Pathetic and just out to promote their own name rather than support their members, in my opinion. Perhaps someone from GMB would like to reply with how many current GMB members work at Next and have actually complained about their wages? I won't hold my breath. SpeakUp

10:23am Wed 12 Dec 12

Bobfm , says...

I 2 Could B wrote:
Bobfm , wrote:
No, the warehouse staff get £9.16 (INCLUDING BONUS) - which isnt guaranteed. Their actual wage is just over £7 per hour.

And they aren't unskilled. Forklift truck drivers need a qualification.

But don't let the truth get in the way of your ususal OCD-afflicted rant against the working class.
Yes, that's right, Next warehouse staff get paid £9.16p/h including their bonus.

Nobody mentioned forklift truck drivers, who, for all you know, might get an additional allowance for holding that qualification. And, rather obviously, not all warehouse staff are forklift drivers.

However you might try and portray things from your Marxist angle, £9.16p/h is 23% MORE than the 'living wage' that Andy Newman and Chris Watts - both of whom are not employees of Next - were calling for.

Working in a shop and moaning that the shop owner makes all the money is a bit like the person who sells a winning lottery ticket moaning that it's unfair the ticket holder has more money than them.

Still, people like you can carry on dreaming and protesting all you like. It's actually quite amusing to watch... and notice when absolutely nothing comes of it.
Are you a bit thick? The bonus isn't guaranteed so they don't earn that amount.

Why do you loath the working class so much? The irony being it must be borne from self-loathing as, having met you, it's clear you are working class yourself.
[quote][p][bold]I 2 Could B[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobfm ,[/bold] wrote: No, the warehouse staff get £9.16 (INCLUDING BONUS) - which isnt guaranteed. Their actual wage is just over £7 per hour. And they aren't unskilled. Forklift truck drivers need a qualification. But don't let the truth get in the way of your ususal OCD-afflicted rant against the working class.[/p][/quote]Yes, that's right, Next warehouse staff get paid £9.16p/h including their bonus. [p] Nobody mentioned forklift truck drivers, who, for all you know, might get an additional allowance for holding that qualification. And, rather obviously, not all warehouse staff are forklift drivers. [p] However you might try and portray things from your Marxist angle, £9.16p/h is 23% MORE than the 'living wage' that Andy Newman and Chris Watts - both of whom are not employees of Next - were calling for. [p] Working in a shop and moaning that the shop owner makes all the money is a bit like the person who sells a winning lottery ticket moaning that it's unfair the ticket holder has more money than them. [p] Still, people like you can carry on dreaming and protesting all you like. It's actually quite amusing to watch... and notice when absolutely nothing comes of it.[/p][/quote]Are you a bit thick? The bonus isn't guaranteed so they don't earn that amount. Why do you loath the working class so much? The irony being it must be borne from self-loathing as, having met you, it's clear you are working class yourself. Bobfm ,

10:52am Wed 12 Dec 12

I 2 Could B says...

Bobfm says...
Are you a bit thick? The bonus isn't guaranteed so they don't earn that amount.


But, sadly for your little rant, they very much DO earn that amount. The bonus may not be 'guaranteed' (do you actually have evidence that it isn't?) but it's available and will be paid if targets are met. So, yes, they do get paid it. Not much point having a bonus if nobody ever gets paid it as nobody would bother trying to reach targets. Therefore, I would suggest it's you that's a little hard of thinking.

And, for what it's worth, you haven't met me at all. Like another somewhat 'challenged' contributor here, you're very much confused about certain things.
[quote]Bobfm says...[p] Are you a bit thick? The bonus isn't guaranteed so they don't earn that amount.[/quote] [p] But, sadly for your little rant, they very much DO earn that amount. The bonus may not be 'guaranteed' (do you actually have evidence that it isn't?) but it's available and will be paid if targets are met. So, yes, they do get paid it. Not much point having a bonus if nobody ever gets paid it as nobody would bother trying to reach targets. Therefore, I would suggest it's you that's a little hard of thinking. [p] And, for what it's worth, you haven't met me at all. Like another somewhat 'challenged' contributor here, you're very much confused about certain things. I 2 Could B

11:08am Wed 12 Dec 12

Bobfm , says...

Oh I most certainly have. You're even less impressive in person
Oh I most certainly have. You're even less impressive in person Bobfm ,

12:37pm Wed 12 Dec 12

I 2 Could B says...

As I said before, you're somewhat confused. It's actually very funny.
As I said before, you're somewhat confused. It's actually very funny. I 2 Could B

6:27pm Wed 12 Dec 12

itsamess3 says...

Why argue boys-the facts are clear-union activists are simply interfering in something that has nothing whatsoever to do with them.
Clearly Next are paying a fair wage in an increasingly difficult economic climate-unions are still living in a world of make believe and trying to agitate a non existent situation.
Why argue boys-the facts are clear-union activists are simply interfering in something that has nothing whatsoever to do with them. Clearly Next are paying a fair wage in an increasingly difficult economic climate-unions are still living in a world of make believe and trying to agitate a non existent situation. itsamess3

7:55pm Wed 12 Dec 12

Bobfm , says...

I 2 Could B wrote:
As I said before, you're somewhat confused. It's actually very funny.
Actually I'm very clearly not confused. You're a typical keyboard warrior - a really rather sad and pathetic individual in real life. A rather nerdy IT geek who will never get elected.
[quote][p][bold]I 2 Could B[/bold] wrote: As I said before, you're somewhat confused. It's actually very funny.[/p][/quote]Actually I'm very clearly not confused. You're a typical keyboard warrior - a really rather sad and pathetic individual in real life. A rather nerdy IT geek who will never get elected. Bobfm ,

10:57pm Wed 12 Dec 12

Oliver_Donachie says...

As per previous posts:

I am Oliver Donachie, I have one log on account called Oliver Donachie.

I am not 1 2 Could B and in fact any cursory glance over historical stories will show you a person posting using that name has been attacking me in an almost psychotic manner many times.

But the fact that BobFm and others have come full circle and are now accusing each other of being me is endlessly amusing, it seems that the web of trolling is so confusing even the king trolls have given up.

I am Oliver Donachie, I dont hide behind pseudonyms nor do I post in under any other name.

Carry on.
As per previous posts: I am Oliver Donachie, I have one log on account called Oliver Donachie. I am not 1 2 Could B and in fact any cursory glance over historical stories will show you a person posting using that name has been attacking me in an almost psychotic manner many times. But the fact that BobFm and others have come full circle and are now accusing each other of being me is endlessly amusing, it seems that the web of trolling is so confusing even the king trolls have given up. I am Oliver Donachie, I dont hide behind pseudonyms nor do I post in under any other name. Carry on. Oliver_Donachie

11:40pm Wed 12 Dec 12

Empty Car Park says...

Very handy that you've popped up now
Very handy that you've popped up now Empty Car Park

9:19am Thu 13 Dec 12

I 2 Could B says...

Bobfm , wrote:
I 2 Could B wrote:
As I said before, you're somewhat confused. It's actually very funny.
Actually I'm very clearly not confused. You're a typical keyboard warrior - a really rather sad and pathetic individual in real life. A rather nerdy IT geek who will never get elected.
Oh, the irony.
[quote][p][bold]Bobfm ,[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I 2 Could B[/bold] wrote: As I said before, you're somewhat confused. It's actually very funny.[/p][/quote]Actually I'm very clearly not confused. You're a typical keyboard warrior - a really rather sad and pathetic individual in real life. A rather nerdy IT geek who will never get elected.[/p][/quote]Oh, the irony. I 2 Could B

8:51pm Sun 16 Dec 12

faatmaan says...

zas i see it, if you increase the wages of the lowest rung of the ladder, there are then cries from those just above that level to be similarly adjusted upwards and so on , that means a conscintious employer will up the wages of its few people on minimum wage up to the living wage level, then be obligated to maintain differentials to increase everybody else, so in effect the employer could be landed with a massive increase in wages for everybody they employ to stay onside, a definate recipe for economic disaster, that said, many jobs nowadays are of equal worth, but are remunnerated in massively different ways, anybody for communism ? I JEST !
zas i see it, if you increase the wages of the lowest rung of the ladder, there are then cries from those just above that level to be similarly adjusted upwards and so on , that means a conscintious employer will up the wages of its few people on minimum wage up to the living wage level, then be obligated to maintain differentials to increase everybody else, so in effect the employer could be landed with a massive increase in wages for everybody they employ to stay onside, a definate recipe for economic disaster, that said, many jobs nowadays are of equal worth, but are remunnerated in massively different ways, anybody for communism ? I JEST ! faatmaan

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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