20th March 2006, 03:32 PM
Hi OneMan,
My point is that it is wrong to think that the market and the IFA minimums can be divorced from one another when we are talking about wages (as the Invisible Man seemed to be suggesting).
The rates set by the IFA have a profound effect on wages, in some cases raising wages from what the market would dictate, in other cases keeping wages low (which is why the vast majority of units pay at or around those rates regardless of localised market conditions).
Of course there are limits to how high the IFA can put their rates, but based on the discussion on another thread, I have no doubt that RAOs could collectively agree to raise the minimums to a perfectly reasonabl 'dignity wage' of ?300 which would bind all RAOs and all companies advertising on BAJR.
At present the IFA rates seem to 'set' the wage for nearly all companies (RAOs and non-RAOs). Why don't non-RAOs undercut that rate at present? Why would they be more likely to if the rate was set higher?
My point is that it is wrong to think that the market and the IFA minimums can be divorced from one another when we are talking about wages (as the Invisible Man seemed to be suggesting).
The rates set by the IFA have a profound effect on wages, in some cases raising wages from what the market would dictate, in other cases keeping wages low (which is why the vast majority of units pay at or around those rates regardless of localised market conditions).
Quote:quote:If they are placed too high, they would become less effective, because they would increase the competitive disadvantage and more units would ignore them.
Of course there are limits to how high the IFA can put their rates, but based on the discussion on another thread, I have no doubt that RAOs could collectively agree to raise the minimums to a perfectly reasonabl 'dignity wage' of ?300 which would bind all RAOs and all companies advertising on BAJR.
At present the IFA rates seem to 'set' the wage for nearly all companies (RAOs and non-RAOs). Why don't non-RAOs undercut that rate at present? Why would they be more likely to if the rate was set higher?