Forums Forums Local News Wirral hairdressers’ “named and shamed” by Gov.

They must have agreed to the wage structure in the first place, why is it always the employers fault. I had employees once never again

They must have agreed to the wage structure in the first place, why is it always the employers fault. I had employees once never again

Employment Laws. perhaps??

You are talking about naive kids that have just left school, how would they know what the rates were ? ready to believe and to be abused, disgraceful.

You mean kids have rights .??????

Ive been a hairdresser for the last 12 years
I can remeber my first job was a right skivvy for crap money under paid and over worked
Im well backing the name and shame bloody discgrace

So you were forced to do this at gunpoint? And did they, or did they not, give you your 'start' in the hairdressing business? Once upon a time, this was how all of us got started, everyone's first job was overworked and underpaid (whether or not you were an official "apprentice")! That was how most people got their little foot onto the first rung of the career ladder.
"Caution! 'Nanny State' at work!" (or not, as the case may be...)
And before you accuse me of being in favour of slave-labour, one little local Hairdresser's shop, paying apprentice-level wages to someone (presumably!) willing to accept that, in order to get a start in the business, is a VERY different thing from large-scale businesses using illegal / slave-labour, IMNSHO.

If you read the thread properly its not about apprentice wages per se its about not paying the correct level of apprenticeship wages, this business has also been funded by PAYE and still failed to pay the correct rate, it is about a business that has broken the law, and then gone bleating to the newspapers about how they have been unfairly treated for ripping off kids, yes you are quite right to say they accepted the job but they didn't sign on to be ripped off by their money grubbing employers, I am sure you or they would not like to see their children being unfairly treated and should welcome laws that stop that happening.

I read the thread.
BTW, how can a business be "funded" by a method of paying income tax ("PAYE")? And why does the Government get to decide what the "correct" rate for ANYTHING is?
And OK, yes I get it, Nanny States have LAWS that dictate what a hairdresser has to pay a kid and probably, for all I know, what a parent has to pay Pocket Money. I just don't think we need that, OK? Who is the victim exactly, when a kid gets a start in employment / learning a trade, and a business gets to stay in business? "Money grabbing employers" indeed??? - How DARE they actually provide someone with a JOB, the complete B****RDS!
Maybe I should just euthenize myself, as clearly I must be way too old to have an opinion.

Nowhere did I suggest that you shouldn't have an opinion, as to the PAYE apprentice ship scheme, it does I believe allow employers tax relief for those that they employ, point two the government doesn't "get to decide" these rates are the lowest rates employers are allowed to pay, all these laws were brought in to protect people from rogue employers, along with HASWA to stop things like children working in coal mines and up chimneys, you know the kind of thing employers "would never dream of doing" but would if they could get away with it, anyway enough of the history lesson, maybe you have lived in the land of the free, the good ole USofA for too long, after all Atlanta must have a long history of employee abuse, something which has carried on into the 21st century, maybe your country should consider some employer regulation there.

I do get carried away sometimes, I get that we have national "minimum wage" laws but I suspect you have gone off the point here too - this was never, as far as I know, about underage children working up chimneys, or down anywhere, was it? No-one said that.
I guess the point I want to make is, who was the victim here, are these three people going to be better off from their employer being nailed for this? Is it preferred that a business fails altogether and no-one has a job? (Especially in times like these when ANY job is so hard to come by?)
What good does fining them, boycotting them (as advocated on here) and very probably putting them out of business, do for their allegedly "abused" employees?
Don't get me wrong, I am NOT in favour of anyone ripping people off and thereby reaping ill-gotten gains - and if these hairdressers were doing so, then OK, shame on them indeed.
But if all they were doing was trying to keep 3 people employed rather than going bankrupt?
There is an argument here in the USA right now that increasing the minimum wage (yes there is one, here in the USA) will actually cost thousands of low-paid people their jobs altogther, rather than improving their lot (as it is intended to do).
We shall see, I supppose... time will tell!