UK and the Living wage

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/02/picturehouse-cinema-staff-suspended-brixton-ritzy-hackney-picturehouse


I chose this article because my view is contrary to the articles belief and I would like to set out why paying the living wage is going to have an adverse effect of employment and the prosperity of the UK.

The point of the article is to express the anger and frustration against a major employer such as CineWorld for not paying the national living wage. The article paints the brand CineWorld as a villain stating they would rather "intimidate and threaten rather than enter constructive negotiations" and the workers as "victims" and also to push a political agenda stating that labour will 'stand shoulder to shoulder with the victims'. (1)

I disagree with this article, however, it gives good scope for both sides of the argument but still is heavily skewed in the favour of pro-living wage. I believe that when the article quotes labour calling the worker victims, it is demonstrably untruthful as these workers have entered a consensual relationship in which they agree to be paid a specific wage and under their contract will have to fulfil the criteria set. I don't believe it is fair to force a company to pay the living wage as it will have an adverse effect to what is actually wanted. If minimum wage is increased to living wage, the number of jobs will decrease as businesses can't afford the staff. This means that jobs become more exclusive and so where there are jobs, the criteria in order to get the job will be much more tighter. This means that whilst those with jobs will be paid more, there will be less people with jobs.
An illustration by Henry Payne shows the effect perfectly. (2)

On the other hand, CineWorld actually already pays over the national living wage which is "£8.25 per hour" (3) and CineWorld pays the workers "£9.05 per hour in London" and they pay just under the living wage outside the capital "£8.18 per hour". (4)
This means that what this article is arguing for either doesn't realise that they have what they want (which would be ridiculous considering it is their citation to the wages) or they want more than they have. These are unlikely, however, it maybe to push a political agenda. The article was published on June 2 2017 (5) which was 6 days before the UK election (6).

There is no evidence that the minimum wage is even a good thing in the first place. In fact there is evidence of the contrary. For example, the UK monthly wage at the minimum wage is "£1,433" (7)
and a country such as Sweden which does not have a minimum wage has a national average monthly wage of roughly £2,700 (8) (taken from 30,000 krona and converted to GBP)

Overall, the article is mainly just a political piece created in the heat of the election and catalysed by the conservatives views on capitalism and how the capitalistic system works. The article makes a point based off information whilst disregarding information they cite themselves.


https://pastebin.com/RZdJMuX3: All citations and quotes used are linked here.