Filming with the BBC and Chris Chope's Employment Private Members Bill

The BBC are going to film our family for a program with Nick Robinson about tax. As part of it they want to look at the things that the SACC does. They want to see me going out collecting testimonies for the welfare reform survey on monday between 4pm and around 5pm. Anyone who would like to be involved with this please get in contact.

I have also written a letter to Chris Chope about his second reading in Parliament today:

Dear sir,

I am watching with dismay your live debate in the commons. 

Firstly, I would like to say that just because a person might approach you, out of desperation, stating that they would work for less than minimum wage does not mean that it is right for them to be "freed from the constraints of the minimum wage".

Introducing a low pay commission would introduce the expense and bureaucracy that is spoken about with such contempt in the very program I am watching.

There is already a "training wage" accommodated within the minimum wage rules which is why there is a separate rate for 18-21 year olds. The reason the minimum wage rates exist is to ensure that people are not providing labour in return for less than can sustain them. 

If you were to remove the national minimum wage all those competing for positions currently typically attracting the national minimum wage would be at risk of severe and lifelong poverty which would also destroy the economy. The current tax avoidance incentives promoted by the Conservatives, Labour and now the Coalition mean that the wealthiest do not pay their share of taxes. The tax burden has increasingly fallen mostly on poorer and poorer people. If the minimum wage was removed and current tax laws retained this would cause an absolute crisis in the income this country makes from taxation.

It was stated that "this is about freedom, liberty and the right to work". I put it to you that this bill is indeed about freedom and liberty - freedom and liberty for the exploitative wealthy business owner to profit from the desperation of the UK worker as they currently do from the desperation of the overseas worker. The right to work is nothing without the right to fair pay and currently even the minimum wage fails to address this - the runaway wealth of the richest is holding back the productivity of the economy. In order to solve the wage crisis it is necessary to introduce, in addition to the minimum wage, a maximum wage which is linked to the minimum wage and includes those at the top who profit from shares, dividends and bonuses as income and those at the bottom who's services are contracted.

This would build a strong economy based on fair pay for work and fair taxation. Cutting the minimum wage requirement is one easy way to massively increase state subsidies for those employed in low paid work. As Government, you cannot extricate your responsibilities to public health or keeping citizens from destitution. 

The assertion that workplace victimisation does not already exist and that the removal of the minimum wage would not attract victimisation is entirely ridiculous. As a person who has been employed on minimum wage for employers with varying levels of scruples from big reputable multinational companies to low level tax avoiding gangsters employing people in the black market I can say I have experienced workplace victimisation in every job I have had. My husband has also been victimised in his workplace and his employers often require him to work intermittently through the night (sometimes up to 3 or four hours for each call) every night for 1 week once a month whilst still driving 22 miles to and from work and working a 9-5 daytime shift. Common triggers for victimisation are taking entitled breaks and holidays - common reasons are that employers in a capitalist economy need people to work as long and for as little as they can get them to. One job I had would not allow me to go to midwife appointments whilst pregnant or take my required holiday entitlement. They also put me on a salary that, when taking into consideration the numbers of hours I worked, was below minimum wage. I firmly believe removal of the minimum wage requirement would become a similar target for the victimisation of workers.

Mr Chope mentions that he "like most" members, fills his office with "unpaid volunteers" he states that "One of the reasons for this is because there is no flexibility on the minimum wage". I put it to him that it is absolutely immoral for him to fill his office with unpaid volunteers, that he has a responsibility to pay the people who work for him. His assessment is looking at the problem from the wrong direction, he should be asking why employers are not willing to pay a living wage? If he wants to drive down unemployment he needs to curtail tax avoidance, stop exploitation of third world workers and prevent institutions such as the one he works for relying on unpaid interns.

I have heard it asserted that asylum seekers should be able to work for less than the minimum wage - this is overtly racist and offensive and should attract no further comment.

I have also heard it asserted that the opposition to the bill are trying to portray all employers as evil. This misses the point. Without doubt most employers want to retain a good employee but they also are incentivised to retain that employee at the lowest possible rate. The point is not that all employers are "evil" but that there are factors in the nature of the market which incentivise low pay and that the existence of the probability that there are employers out there who are motivated to exploit their employees and that these employers are most likely to be the ones who pay the lowest wages, needs to be considered and planned into any legislation on employment. To deny this fact is ludicrous. It needs to be understood that this bill directly incentivises and rewards those employers who are unscrupulous.

Yours sincerely,

K M Sumner

Southport Anti-Cuts Coalition.