Tweet
Deacon Thwaites merely grandstanding on minimum wage
Friday, February 01, 2008
If there is one area of national life that should be approached on a non-partisan basis, it is the setting of the National Minimum Wage.
The political point-scoring about who would have given more to the poor is certainly not helping anyone, least of all the beloved poor. All it does is make us look foolish.
From the day the first minimum wage was established under the Michael Manley administration of the 1970s, each revision has been criticised by the party in opposition as not enough.
Once that party gets into power and the boot is on the other foot, the newfound wisdom is that a higher rate cannot be afforded. Enough of this nonsense.
The point is that every Opposition knows that the Government of the day would love to make the minimum wage as high as possible and thereby enhance its popularity. But a rate cannot be set without consideration for those employers who simply cannot afford to pay it.
All that would do is put the very people the minimum wage was supposed to help, out of their jobs and create all sorts of confusion in industry.
When you think of it, it is a pity that a country has to set a national minimum wage. It certainly would have been better if the rate was influenced more directly by the market and its law of supply and demand.
But we are well past that bit of wishful thinking because we all know that there are some very exploitative employers who still believe in paying 'slave wages'.
The minimum wage emerged as a useful tool to force such employers to give a living wage to the lowest wage earners, most of whom were domestic helpers being shamelessly cheated of their labour.
It is, of course, ironic that nowadays, domestic helpers generally get wages above the minimum wage, because of the higher demand for their service, and especially because good, reliable help is getting harder and harder to find.
We strongly believe that the Government and the Opposition should strive to reach consensus on what the National Minimum Wage should be, instead of staging the traditional slugfest over whatever figure is set.
The verbal sparring in the Parliament on Tuesday over the latest figure demonstrated that we are still going down that useless road. We really would have been pleased if the Opposition, led by Mrs Portia Simpson Miller, could have seen it fit not to make that same mistake again.
And as for the decision of MP Ronald Thwaites to vote against the increase, it was just about grandstanding. Mr Thwaites jolly well knew that if the Government was defeated in the vote, thousands of Jamaicans benefiting from the minimum wage would not have received any increase at this time of high prices.
But he also knew that his party would abstain and that allowed him the luxury of a 'no' vote that he hoped would make him look like a knight in shining armour. Clearly, his deacon's halo is not enough.
We had hoped that this issue was on the menu of items on the agenda for the Vale Royal talks between the prime minister and the leader of the Opposition. Based on the information available to us so far, it wasn't. We would strongly recommend, however, that the setting of the National Minimum Wage be included on the agenda for the next round of these talks. For like crime, health and education, the National Minimum Wage should escape the wrath of partisan squabbling.
Friday, February 01, 2008
If there is one area of national life that should be approached on a non-partisan basis, it is the setting of the National Minimum Wage.
The political point-scoring about who would have given more to the poor is certainly not helping anyone, least of all the beloved poor. All it does is make us look foolish.
From the day the first minimum wage was established under the Michael Manley administration of the 1970s, each revision has been criticised by the party in opposition as not enough.
Once that party gets into power and the boot is on the other foot, the newfound wisdom is that a higher rate cannot be afforded. Enough of this nonsense.
The point is that every Opposition knows that the Government of the day would love to make the minimum wage as high as possible and thereby enhance its popularity. But a rate cannot be set without consideration for those employers who simply cannot afford to pay it.
All that would do is put the very people the minimum wage was supposed to help, out of their jobs and create all sorts of confusion in industry.
When you think of it, it is a pity that a country has to set a national minimum wage. It certainly would have been better if the rate was influenced more directly by the market and its law of supply and demand.
But we are well past that bit of wishful thinking because we all know that there are some very exploitative employers who still believe in paying 'slave wages'.
The minimum wage emerged as a useful tool to force such employers to give a living wage to the lowest wage earners, most of whom were domestic helpers being shamelessly cheated of their labour.
It is, of course, ironic that nowadays, domestic helpers generally get wages above the minimum wage, because of the higher demand for their service, and especially because good, reliable help is getting harder and harder to find.
We strongly believe that the Government and the Opposition should strive to reach consensus on what the National Minimum Wage should be, instead of staging the traditional slugfest over whatever figure is set.
The verbal sparring in the Parliament on Tuesday over the latest figure demonstrated that we are still going down that useless road. We really would have been pleased if the Opposition, led by Mrs Portia Simpson Miller, could have seen it fit not to make that same mistake again.
And as for the decision of MP Ronald Thwaites to vote against the increase, it was just about grandstanding. Mr Thwaites jolly well knew that if the Government was defeated in the vote, thousands of Jamaicans benefiting from the minimum wage would not have received any increase at this time of high prices.
But he also knew that his party would abstain and that allowed him the luxury of a 'no' vote that he hoped would make him look like a knight in shining armour. Clearly, his deacon's halo is not enough.
We had hoped that this issue was on the menu of items on the agenda for the Vale Royal talks between the prime minister and the leader of the Opposition. Based on the information available to us so far, it wasn't. We would strongly recommend, however, that the setting of the National Minimum Wage be included on the agenda for the next round of these talks. For like crime, health and education, the National Minimum Wage should escape the wrath of partisan squabbling.
Comment