[DanaC]

Incidentally - there was a time when this country allowed businesses absolutely free reign, with no controls and where there were no benefits to protect the unemployed or low paid. It did not result in higher wages. It resulted in low wages, workhouses and child labour.

When the Uk had a robust benefits system it pushed wages up not down.

I do agree with your point about government effectively subsidising the cost of employment by paying in work benefits. But the answer to that is not to take away the in work benefits but to take away the need for them. The current minimum wage is insufficient for a working family to house, clothe and feed themselves. The cost of living in the UK is very high. And a minimum wage of just under £7 an hour does not meet those costs even if both adults in a house are working full time.

Insisting that businesses pay the full cost of employment, rather than government subsidizing that cost would be a better plan imo. I'd rather we paid money to a few more unemployed people than keep paying the overhead costs for businesses who then pocket large profits at our expense.

If your business cannot afford to pay a fair and proper wage for the people who work there, then your business is not in fact viable. It never was. And if it can afford to pay people a fair and proper wage then it should be doing so. Shave a little of the profit margin - rather than shaving it off the costs of the workforce.

oh - quick point about zero hour contracts - they're not in and of themselves a bad thing. they can work well - I'm on one myself. But many are exploitative - they lock people in with exclusivity clauses that mean they can't take on additional work to fill the gaps left when their employer gives them no work. That means when they are not working and earning, it is the tax payer who pays through working benefits. Again, the tax payer is funding the employers' flexibility.