Author
|
Topic: Québec minimum wage to reach $8.50 in May
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 13 December 2007 10:34 AM
Quebec to hike minimum wage quote: Quebec's minimum wage is going up by 50 cents an hour next May — the biggest increase in the rate since 1975.Labour Minister David Whissell announced in Quebec City Thursday that more than 250,000 workers will get $8.50 an hour as of May 1, 2008. For a person who works 40 hours a week at the minimum wage it will mean an extra $1,000 a year in gross income.
Barring other hikes elsewhere, this increase will put Québec above all other provinces and tied with Nunavut (source). The Atlantic provinces and Saskatchewan are the only ones still paying less than $8.00. There's still a long way to go to $10.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 13 December 2007 07:26 PM
quote: Originally posted by 500_Apples: A high minimum wage but not too high is a limit on exploitation by mandating a minimal wealth transfer to those at the bottom.
I think that's basically right. ETA: Well, there's actually much more to the minimum wage than that, but I've posted it so often I'm getting finger fatigue. quote: Is there any reason to support a $10 minimum wage other than the fact we have ten fingers and use a base-ten number system?
We have 20 digits if you count feet. Don't razz me, or I'll raise you to $20! [ 13 December 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
2 ponies
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11096
|
posted 02 January 2008 01:13 PM
I’m not clear on how you arrived at the implication that raising the minimum wage sufficiently is going to cause a decrease of jobs being moved offshore. A higher minimum wage will likely result in more jobs being moved offshore; I’m not stating this to justify keeping the minimum wage low, on the contrary I feel it should be higher. My understanding of offshoring is that it’s an easy way for companies to lower their costs rather than addressing other aspects of the business that can increase productivity. A lot of companies that don’t offshore aren’t doing so because they’ve managed to get some sort of handout from the taxpayer (e.g. hundreds of millions in tax deferrals and/or government investment in a new auto plant) or they’re found a way to increase productivity. Increases in productivity are often achieved by including workers in the process (well duh, the workers know their jobs, so given a chance to improve how the job is done it’s highly likely that they’ll have some valuable input). A lot of productivity changes require investments that companies are too cheap, short-sighted and obtuse to make. Too many North American companies are focused on the short term financial statements for numerous reasons; e.g. stock markets tend to respond to quarterly reports and short-term forecasts, managers who are likely to base business decisions on their bonus are also more likely to make decisions that improve the bottom line in the short-term such as discontinuing an operation, trying to increase cash flow, making financial investment decisions that increase accounting income, but don’t necessarily improve the solvency of the company, etc. My convoluted point is that our companies are too focused on the wrong things. In all my years of studying, reviewing cases, etc I don’t recall coming across any large North American companies that have made a “paradigm-shift” in terms of how they plan – i.e. planning for long-term profitability. Also, it’s difficult to find companies that make large investments in training their employees. How is it that there are only 50 best companies to work for in Canada, for instance? The perks that these companies are offering aren’t terribly innovative or rocket science either; e.g. having onsite daycares, days off for family responsibilities, offering top-ups to parental benefits, adjusting work hours to accommodate personal schedules (such as family responsibilities). Some of these non-direct/non-cash benefits are as important as minimum wage to a lot of people; e.g. health & dental benefits – particularly for families. Having a liveable wage is certainly the most important, if you don’t make enough to pay the rent, you’re out on the street, or cramped in with some kind person if you’re really lucky. Huberman: it almost sounds like you’re talking more about some kind of guaranteed minimum income rather than a minimum wage. They’re not the same thing – they’re actually very different. I like the idea of a ban on sweatshop made goods. My only question is what should the minimum standards be in determining what is not a sweatshop? I’m not being argumentative, I would just like to hear some ideas from people as a basis to start thinking about the principle in more detail.
From: Sask | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
huberman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14076
|
posted 02 January 2008 01:41 PM
A raise in the min. wage is a good thing and must be done. My point is that we are constantly seeing a decrease in full-time jobs, and an increase in precarious, temp and part time jobs with no benefits and inconsistent hours worked per week. A raise in the min. wage does not have the same effect it did 20 or 30 years ago when jobs were more likely full time, unionized and included benefits. Therefore, in this new age of offshoring and precarious work (8 hours this week, 14 hours next week, 0 the next week etc.) what we need is a guaranteed monthly/annual income. You cannot live on $10/hour if you can only get part time work or other precarious work (3 month contracts) as is the norm now. And the door needs to be closed to offshoring to sweatshop economies because a raise in the min. wage may also push a company offshore to reduce costs.
From: NAFTA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
bruce_the_vii
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13710
|
posted 02 January 2008 03:51 PM
One of the things that is helping out with the bad employment prospects is people drop out of the labour force. I took a close look at the labour force statistics for cities in Canada and in the last deep recession all 27 surveyed cities had more people drop out of the work force than say they were unemployed. The point is the people that need work, even a minimum wage job, can find a job because so many people just stay home. So while some people are working at jobs with these variable part time hours the most needy can do better. It's a work out. Also be reminded Quebec is an immigration province and considers that the problem is finding enough people to fill the jobs available. They import about 50,000 people a year. Exporting jobs is actually a solution, sending the sweat shop work to more needy economies. [ 02 January 2008: Message edited by: bruce_the_vii ] [ 02 January 2008: Message edited by: bruce_the_vii ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|