Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Some Lessons to Be Learned from the Brits on a Minimum Wage Law
Posted
10:49 AM
by Michael Fox
Namely — lower rates tied to age. Although the new top British rate is the equivalent of $10.60 an hour, there are separate rates for those aged 18-21 ($8.80) and 16-17 ($6.57). That bright line makes much more sense than the half-hearted attempts to achieve something similar under the FLSA.
One thing the Brits don't do that we should — tie the rate to a reasonable index to avoid these periodic lurches that don't do anyone any good except for politicians who get have a partisan issue to rally around and an opportunity to "look good" in the eyes of their constitutents by "giving them" a raise.
The Brits at least remove it from the political process by a half step, putting it in the hands of the government's "Low Pay Commission," a name that you have to admire regardless of your point of view.
Comments:
why do you say the only reason to raise wages for the lowest paid workers (less than 5% of the workforce) is to "look good" for voters?
there's no idea of justice (or is that now only a political ploy, and simply in contrast to the opposite political ploy of those who oppose raising the minimum -- e.g., the 28 republican senators who voted to void the federal minimum wage by overturning the FLSA)?
why is making the minimum catch up (in part) to its lost earning power a partisian issue, unless one party simply objects to being fair to low-paid workers? and do they?
if you support raising the minimum by index (i.e., raising it ever again at all), why consider it a partisian issue?
perhaps it's only partisian because there's no way (outside a frozen hades) that the republican politicians can give benefits to poor people without also collecting some windfall for their corporate sponsors. sad.
Post a Comment
there's no idea of justice (or is that now only a political ploy, and simply in contrast to the opposite political ploy of those who oppose raising the minimum -- e.g., the 28 republican senators who voted to void the federal minimum wage by overturning the FLSA)?
why is making the minimum catch up (in part) to its lost earning power a partisian issue, unless one party simply objects to being fair to low-paid workers? and do they?
if you support raising the minimum by index (i.e., raising it ever again at all), why consider it a partisian issue?
perhaps it's only partisian because there's no way (outside a frozen hades) that the republican politicians can give benefits to poor people without also collecting some windfall for their corporate sponsors. sad.
 |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
