Salary bonus for key workers - Petition

94
Posted 3rd MayEdited by:"Iffitts"
petition.parliament.uk/sig…ned

Ok so not exactly a deal as such but thought this warranted some exposure and didn’t know where else to put it.

For all you key workers that are doing a smashing job keeping the country running during this crisis..... you ALL need to be recognized by the government.

A monetary bonus to say thank you for your efforts during lockdown. This is a one off bonus NOT a permanent increase in your salary.

sign the petition to make the government address the question “why are people who are not key workers at home being paid whilst all other key workers put themselves at risk for no additional benefits!?” I’m sure we’d all like to stay home and be paid to do nothing at all!

sure people are furloughed at 80% but it’s still 80% to watch tv and play in your gardens

petition.parliament.uk/sig…ned
Community Updates
Misc

Groups

Top comments
People at home furloughed are on 80% pay, those working are on full pay. Public sector staff is up to the government but asking for a 30% pay increase from the private sector is absurd. Many businesses cannot afford that, and those which can would rather hire less staff and make them do more work. Prices will also increase as a result.

Some companies such as Tesco are giving staff 10% pay bonus but that is up to them. 30% is too high of an increase to implement and will cause more harm than good.

EDIT: Turns out this is for a one time bonus rather than a salary boost as the title would suggest so I do apologise, will not be removing comment as I feel that would be hiding a mistake but hope this clears things up. OP should have been made way more clearer.
Edited by: "jamie15" 3rd May
splender03/05/2020 18:51

Why does it cause more harm than good?Money is relative, goes round and …Why does it cause more harm than good?Money is relative, goes round and round, more money for more work as key workers, less money for less work, the same money is distributed in a different amounts. Then, they spend more money, and more money goes into circulation for others to earn.



Where does an extra 30% come from? Would you be happy paying it through taxation?
94 Comments
Oh Karen!
Wheres the link
In a few months time many of those lounging in Lay Z Spas and bouncing on trampolines may well be out of a job completely.
Signed
I’m classed as a key worker. I’m working from home on full pay, at no risk to my health.

30% would be a significant raise in my salary, more than I would get through promotion.

How do you envision the government will convince my company to give not only me this 30%, but everyone who works for them?
Nice idea but not sure this would work in practise due to the economics.
petition.parliament.uk/pet…845


This has a significantly higher number of signatures, probably better to support the one with bigger numbers
jamie1503/05/2020 18:02

People at home furloughed are on 80% pay, those working are on full pay. …People at home furloughed are on 80% pay, those working are on full pay. Public sector staff is up to the government but asking for a 30% pay increase from the private sector is absurd. Many businesses cannot afford that, and those which can would rather hire less staff and make them do more work. Prices will also increase as a result.Some companies such as Tesco are giving staff 10% pay bonus but that is up to them. 30% is too high of an increase to implement and will cause more harm than good.


Why does it cause more harm than good?

Money is relative, goes round and round, more money for more work as key workers, less money for less work, the same money is distributed in a different amounts. Then, they spend more money, and more money goes into circulation for others to earn.
Sadly there isn't a magic money tree.
splender03/05/2020 18:51

Why does it cause more harm than good?Money is relative, goes round and …Why does it cause more harm than good?Money is relative, goes round and round, more money for more work as key workers, less money for less work, the same money is distributed in a different amounts. Then, they spend more money, and more money goes into circulation for others to earn.



Where does an extra 30% come from? Would you be happy paying it through taxation?
Many of the people furloughed either a) are getting nothing b) getting very little c) would rather be working d) risk losing their jobs at the end of it...

It's a nice idea but can't see it ever happening. Also, there's still a wide variation in what people consider and what are being deemed as key workers.
splender03/05/2020 18:51

Why does it cause more harm than good?Money is relative, goes round and …Why does it cause more harm than good?Money is relative, goes round and round, more money for more work as key workers, less money for less work, the same money is distributed in a different amounts. Then, they spend more money, and more money goes into circulation for others to earn.


More harm than good because it is not sustainable for employers to pay employees 30% wage increase. Small businesses which are struggling may go under due to such a foolish idea. Large businesses that are struggling may undergo the same fate, causing 10000s of job losses. Even large, very profitable businesses will take a hit which investors will not like and they will do anything to please those investors.

Raising pay by 30% will increase unemployment and means staff will be worked even harder than before (if they don't, they'll get replaced).

Where is all the 'relative' money you mention going to come from? Say if this increase is given, and there are no job losses, everyone will have more money. Inflation will increase and prices will be higher, therefore there will be no difference in the end.
Dannyrobbo03/05/2020 18:57

Where does an extra 30% come from? Would you be happy paying it through …Where does an extra 30% come from? Would you be happy paying it through taxation?

Yes, I am OK to pay, let us know the bill per person.
Whay not 100%?
jamie1503/05/2020 19:00

More harm than good because it is not sustainable for employers to pay …More harm than good because it is not sustainable for employers to pay employees 30% wage increase. Small businesses which are struggling may go under due to such a foolish idea. Large businesses that are struggling may undergo the same fate, causing 10000s of job losses. Even large, very profitable businesses will take a hit which investors will not like and they will do anything to please those investors.Raising pay by 30% will increase unemployment and means staff will be worked even harder than before (if they don't, they'll get replaced).Where is all the 'relative' money you mention going to come from? Say if this increase is given, and there are no job losses, everyone will have more money. Inflation will increase and prices will be higher, therefore there will be no difference in the end.


Any business which is unable to have 30% flex in a crisis of a decade shouldn't be in business at all. They may as well work on other widgets which do this, like sewing PPEs, make computers pottery like they did and still do in Staffordshire.
I personally believe all Key workers should certainly get a bonus of like 10% from the lockdown started until it finishes. I think nhs staff should get 20%+ bonus
jamie1503/05/2020 19:00

More harm than good because it is not sustainable for employers to pay …More harm than good because it is not sustainable for employers to pay employees 30% wage increase. Small businesses which are struggling may go under due to such a foolish idea. Large businesses that are struggling may undergo the same fate, causing 10000s of job losses. Even large, very profitable businesses will take a hit which investors will not like and they will do anything to please those investors.Raising pay by 30% will increase unemployment and means staff will be worked even harder than before (if they don't, they'll get replaced).Where is all the 'relative' money you mention going to come from? Say if this increase is given, and there are no job losses, everyone will have more money. Inflation will increase and prices will be higher, therefore there will be no difference in the end.


You said, "Raising pay by 30% will increase unemployment and means staff will be worked even harder than before (if they don't, they'll get replaced)."


No, it doesn't! I t makes more employment, the opposite of you say.

Simple evidence:-

Say, a bloke earns £100, he get an extra £30. He spends all the dosh.

Before, he could deploy only £100 worth of other people's employed labour, he is now able to use £130 worth of employed labour.

QED: Now 30% of extra employment.

Show me some simple sums, that 30% will increase unemployment.
splender03/05/2020 18:51

Why does it cause more harm than good?Money is relative, goes round and …Why does it cause more harm than good?Money is relative, goes round and round, more money for more work as key workers, less money for less work, the same money is distributed in a different amounts. Then, they spend more money, and more money goes into circulation for others to earn.



The money has to come from somewhere - either higher taxes and / or higher prices. Higher prices on goods & services, combined with higher VAT, hurt the poor the most. There is also a compliance issue - when taxes and prices get raised far too much, the tendency to evade jumps. You will then end up having more people asking for cash rather than a bank payment which in turn will put more pressure on the rest.
I would be happy with just a cheeky bonus, 30% won’t happen
splender03/05/2020 19:15

You said, "Raising pay by 30% will increase unemployment and means staff …You said, "Raising pay by 30% will increase unemployment and means staff will be worked even harder than before (if they don't, they'll get replaced)."No, it doesn't! I t makes more employment, the opposite of you say.Simple evidence:-Say, a bloke earns £100, he get an extra £30. He spends all the dosh.Before, he could deploy only £100 worth of other people's employed labour, he is now able to use £130 worth of employed labour. QED: Now 30% of extra employment.Show me some simple sums, that 30% will increase unemployment.


Say a company has 10 employees. They pay £1,000 to each employee (so £10,000 wage bill). 30% pay increase would be £1,300 per employee, so £13,000 total wage bill.

£3,000 for a business with just 10 employees is a lot of money. Not all businesses are very profitable, especially in their first few years. If all employees are retained, and there is a similar scenario across all businesses of all sizes, a lot of small businesses will either fail or have to increase prices. If cost of employment is too high then companies may look to cheaper alternatives such as automation.

In addition, even if everyone had more money (as in your ideal scenario), that bloke will not be the only one with £30 extra in his pocket. Everyone will have £30 extra. If everyone has more money to spend then companies can charge more. That's why we see cheaper prices in regions with lower wages such as India. Employers pay less so costs are lower as people cannot afford things if priced the same here as in India.

This is basic economics. Wage increases = price increases (or automation of jobs).
jamie1503/05/2020 19:33

Say a company has 10 employees. They pay £1,000 to each employee (so …Say a company has 10 employees. They pay £1,000 to each employee (so £10,000 wage bill). 30% pay increase would be £1,300 per employee, so £13,000 total wage bill.£3,000 for a business with just 10 employees is a lot of money. Not all businesses are very profitable, especially in their first few years. If all employees are retained, and there is a similar scenario across all businesses of all sizes, a lot of small businesses will either fail or have to increase prices. If cost of employment is too high then companies may look to cheaper alternatives such as automation.In addition, even if everyone had more money (as in your ideal scenario), that bloke will not be the only one with £30 extra in his pocket. Everyone will have £30 extra. If everyone has more money to spend then companies can charge more. That's why we see cheaper prices in regions with lower wages such as India. Employers pay less so costs are lower as people cannot afford things if priced the same here as in India.This is basic economics. Wage increases = price increases (or automation of jobs).


Don't use logic lol
bozo00703/05/2020 19:21

The money has to come from somewhere - either higher taxes and / or higher …The money has to come from somewhere - either higher taxes and / or higher prices. Higher prices on goods & services, combined with higher VAT, hurt the poor the most. There is also a compliance issue - when taxes and prices get raised far too much, the tendency to evade jumps. You will then end up having more people asking for cash rather than a bank payment which in turn will put more pressure on the rest.


We don't need more money.

The point of this thread is "key workers" deserve more (as demonstrated by the impact Covid-19) , if you buy into the clapping hands of covid-19 harder and more risky work, and buy into the fact.

Like, on a school playground, there are 100 bags of sweets going round in normal play time, a crisis comes, 10 kids could have got badly injured, a few key children save them or keep play going, therefore the 10 kids get more bags of sweets.
splender03/05/2020 19:07

Yes, I am OK to pay, let us know the bill per person.



very generous of you, not only paying 80% of non key worker wages you are giving key workers a 30% rise too, they should knight you.
splender03/05/2020 19:35

We don't need more money. The point of this thread is "key workers" …We don't need more money. The point of this thread is "key workers" deserve more (as demonstrated by the impact Covid-19) , if you buy into the clapping hands of covid-19 harder and more risky work, and buy into the fact. Like, on a school playground, there are 100 bags of sweets going round in normal play time, a crisis comes, 10 kids could have got badly injured, a few key children save them or keep play going, therefore the 10 kids get more bags of sweets.


Can't help it lol
splender03/05/2020 19:35

We don't need more money. The point of this thread is "key workers" …We don't need more money. The point of this thread is "key workers" deserve more (as demonstrated by the impact Covid-19) , if you buy into the clapping hands of covid-19 harder and more risky work, and buy into the fact. Like, on a school playground, there are 100 bags of sweets going round in normal play time, a crisis comes, 10 kids could have got badly injured, a few key children save them or keep play going, therefore the 10 kids get more bags of sweets.


I'd imagine key workers rather have a small pay increase + work for a successful, profitable company to have job security as opposed a short term unsustainable pay increase which could lead to them being made redundant.

I am not saying key workers do not deserve more, they absolutely deserve any pay rises they get. However, it is of paramount importance that things such as pay increases are sensible and sustainable for everyone's benefit.
Dannyrobbo03/05/2020 19:37

very generous of you, not only paying 80% of non key worker wages you are …very generous of you, not only paying 80% of non key worker wages you are giving key workers a 30% rise too, they should knight you.


If @splender is footing the full bill for wage increases then I take back everything I've said
splender03/05/2020 19:15

You said, "Raising pay by 30% will increase unemployment and means staff …You said, "Raising pay by 30% will increase unemployment and means staff will be worked even harder than before (if they don't, they'll get replaced)."No, it doesn't! I t makes more employment, the opposite of you say.Simple evidence:-Say, a bloke earns £100, he get an extra £30. He spends all the dosh.Before, he could deploy only £100 worth of other people's employed labour, he is now able to use £130 worth of employed labour. QED: Now 30% of extra employment.Show me some simple sums, that 30% will increase unemployment.


No such thing. Well lets start with the VAT that comes off the top, then we could trickle down through all the taxes. The government gets it all back, it's just a case of how much you get to use on the way.

If i give £200 to a chap on a plane flying to Heathrow (in theory). He checks into a hotel for £120. So £20 goes to gov as VAT.
The hotel chain pays tax on their profits. Then they pay business rates (tax). They have to have insurance (taxable).
The hotel employees are taxed on their wages plus NI - just another tax in reality. The hotel manager spends some of his wages on a new TV (20% vat to gov) He spends some paying his council tax (tax) he pays his house and car insurance (taxable).
The insurance company employs people, who's wages are taxable. They spend their wages on things that are subject to VAT.
etc etc etc etc.. They get it all back in the end.
Edited by: "joyf4536" 3rd May
jamie1503/05/2020 19:41

If @splender is footing the full bill for wage increases then I take back …If @splender is footing the full bill for wage increases then I take back everything I've said



I think he might be in for a bit of a shock in the next budget even without his 30% pay Increase
Plus how would you decide who gets the pay increase? The workers who worked the whole period, the workers who worked part before getting furloughed, the workers who worked part and then had to off shielding? What about the workers in the company that had to self isolate? I can see the unions being up in arms that one worker gets a greater wage than another.
My mum is a key worker, she works in a factory making bread (admin side). How does the petition intend to address people who work in factories, drive trucks, Amazon and delivery drivers, shop workers and so on? As it seems the only ones the petition could actually benefit, if it ever was agreed to, was people such as the NHS and army, so stating ‘key workers’ is rather misleading.
jamie1503/05/2020 19:33

Say a company has 10 employees. They pay £1,000 to each employee (so …Say a company has 10 employees. They pay £1,000 to each employee (so £10,000 wage bill). 30% pay increase would be £1,300 per employee, so £13,000 total wage bill.£3,000 for a business with just 10 employees is a lot of money. Not all businesses are very profitable, especially in their first few years. If all employees are retained, and there is a similar scenario across all businesses of all sizes, a lot of small businesses will either fail or have to increase prices. If cost of employment is too high then companies may look to cheaper alternatives such as automation.In addition, even if everyone had more money (as in your ideal scenario), that bloke will not be the only one with £30 extra in his pocket. Everyone will have £30 extra. If everyone has more money to spend then companies can charge more. That's why we see cheaper prices in regions with lower wages such as India. Employers pay less so costs are lower as people cannot afford things if priced the same here as in India.This is basic economics. Wage increases = price increases (or automation of jobs).



You said, "Say a company has 10 employees. They pay £1,000 to each employee (so £10,000 wage bill). 30% pay increase would be £1,300 per employee, so £13,000 total wage bill. £3,000 for a business with just 10 employees is a lot of money. Not all businesses are very profitable, especially in their first few years....."

Because of what you wrote, we know exactly where you have gone wrong with your understanding of this petition.

The key workers are not in private (profitable) businesses. You read the petition again! The workers are in the public sector. We are talking about sovereign dosh, not as you understood, wrongly, private profits and loss. You got it totally wrong with your point mixing up private sector with the public sector.

I quote from the Petition, "Private sector workers are often rewarded, but those working for the government, especially hospitals and education are not. we all are relying on those undervalued, nurses, teachers, people working in the shops, police etc who are risking their own and possibly their families health, to keep us safe."
splender03/05/2020 19:55

You said, "Say a company has 10 employees. They pay £1,000 to each …You said, "Say a company has 10 employees. They pay £1,000 to each employee (so £10,000 wage bill). 30% pay increase would be £1,300 per employee, so £13,000 total wage bill. £3,000 for a business with just 10 employees is a lot of money. Not all businesses are very profitable, especially in their first few years....." Because of what you wrote, we know exactly where you have gone wrong with your understanding of this petition. The key workers are not in private (profitable) businesses. You read the petition again! The workers are in the public sector. We are talking about sovereign dosh, not as you understood, wrongly, private profits and loss. You got it totally wrong with your point mixing up private sector with the public sector.I quote from the Petition, "Private sector workers are often rewarded, but those working for the government, especially hospitals and education are not. we all are relying on those undervalued, nurses, teachers, people working in the shops, police etc who are risking their own and possibly their families health, to keep us safe."


I work for a private sector ??? No bonus or pay raised mention and the company works on behalf of the nhs as it’s a pharmacy
choccie3203/05/2020 19:53

My mum is a key worker, she works in a factory making bread (admin side). …My mum is a key worker, she works in a factory making bread (admin side). How does the petition intend to address people who work in factories, drive trucks, Amazon and delivery drivers, shop workers and so on? As it seems the only ones the petition could actually benefit, if it ever was agreed to, was people such as the NHS and army, so stating ‘key workers’ is rather misleading.



You read the petition words, it would appear not many did, when they made their points!
splender03/05/2020 19:55

You said, "Say a company has 10 employees. They pay £1,000 to each …You said, "Say a company has 10 employees. They pay £1,000 to each employee (so £10,000 wage bill). 30% pay increase would be £1,300 per employee, so £13,000 total wage bill. £3,000 for a business with just 10 employees is a lot of money. Not all businesses are very profitable, especially in their first few years....." Because of what you wrote, we know exactly where you have gone wrong with your understanding of this petition. The key workers are not in private (profitable) businesses. You read the petition again! The workers are in the public sector. We are talking about sovereign dosh, not as you understood, wrongly, private profits and loss. You got it totally wrong with your point mixing up private sector with the public sector.I quote from the Petition, "Private sector workers are often rewarded, but those working for the government, especially hospitals and education are not. we all are relying on those undervalued, nurses, teachers, people working in the shops, police etc who are risking their own and possibly their families health, to keep us safe."


You said: Any business which is unable to have 30% flex in a crisis of a decade shouldn't be in business at all. They may as well work on other widgets which do this, like sewing PPEs, make computers pottery like they did and still do in Staffordshire.

Therefore it's safe to assume you read it in the same way I did.

Regardless, a 30% public sector pay increase would increase all of our taxes and cause inflation. Much of the same issues as previously described would still exist. Taxes due to the CJRS and other similar schemes will already be much higher, a 30% taxpayer funded increase in wages will lead to even higher tax bills.
splender03/05/2020 20:00

You read the petition words, it would appear not many did, when they made …You read the petition words, it would appear not many did, when they made their points!


I think the discussion title needs amended to government only key workers not all key workers
ndyanem03/05/2020 19:57

I work for a private sector ??? No bonus or pay raised mention and the …I work for a private sector ??? No bonus or pay raised mention and the company works on behalf of the nhs as it’s a pharmacy


I don't know why it is not mentioned. What do you want though?
By this logic, shouldn't smokers be also charged a lot more for healthcare? Why should non smokers subsidise them? Or why should those without an alcohol problem subsidise those who fill the A&E on Jan 1?

It is very easy to sign petitions and offer suggestions.
jamie1503/05/2020 20:02

You said: Any business which is unable to have 30% flex in a crisis of a …You said: Any business which is unable to have 30% flex in a crisis of a decade shouldn't be in business at all. They may as well work on other widgets which do this, like sewing PPEs, make computers pottery like they did and still do in Staffordshire.Therefore it's safe to assume you read it in the same way I did.Regardless, a 30% public sector pay increase would increase all of our taxes and cause inflation. Much of the same issues as previously described would still exist. Taxes due to the CJRS and other similar schemes will already be much higher, a 30% taxpayer funded increase in wages will lead to even higher tax bills.


I was following you flying off a tangent, with your erroneous statement about the private sector to see where you are going with this, you said,"Large businesses that are struggling may undergo the same fate, causing 10000s of job losses. Even large, very profitable businesses will take a hit which investors will not like and they will do anything to please those investors, " and you did.

You have to thank me to let you know what it says on the tin (petition).
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text

    Discussions