Addressing cheap labour may avoid NHI – Sowande suggests
On the Umoja radio programme aired on July 11, 2013, Wheatley said he felt it was unfair for persons to lose their insurance which may be offering global coverage in favour of another which would primarily only be accepted in the Virgin Islands.
The commentator suggested that an attempt be made at solving the problems of people who can’t afford healthcare locally while adding that the local business community should be examined within this context. “The business community don’t seem to be able to pay the same type of benefits you would get, maybe if you’re working in the financial services industry or working for the bank or you’re working for government.”
He said this situation sometimes leads to the employment of persons who it is believed might accept less pay. It is a concept he conceded would be dangerous.
Wheatley questioned the impact cheap labour may have on society in certain instances where persons are paid such small amounts that they end up in forced housing situations. “You may not be concerned as to whether you have employees who can’t afford to rent an apartment for themselves, so maybe three or four of them have to shack up together.”
The host said he felt businesses had a responsibility to offer employees a ‘liveable salary’ and good benefits as opposed to just taking on a concept of cheap labour. “I think in the end that whole concept of cheap labour doesn’t do well for our society, it has some ripple effects in the society that are not good,” Wheatley stated.
In offering a solution for small business owners who say they can’t afford the proposed NHI, Wheatley said he would like to see the government make insurance mandatory for everyone while giving businesses and persons the opportunity to form health insurance cooperatives at the same time.
“I think businesses could form cooperatives with other businesses where they put some money in a little pool and the money would be there if it is needed,” he suggested. He was also critical of insurance services that he felt were heavily driven in favour of large profits which he stated could sometimes be seen as ripoffs.
Government's proposed mandatory National Health Insurance policy, which was scheduled to be implemented this August, has since been sent back to the drawing board after several rounds of consultations with residents of various communities around the Virgin Islands.
Follow Us On
12 Responses to “Addressing cheap labour may avoid NHI – Sowande suggests”
Consistent with the theory of business, businesses are in operation risking capital to meet customer demand for goods and services. They invest (risk) capital to return a profit on their investment. A few demonstrate a conscience and act compassionately to turn a fair and reasonable profit on their investment. But most are greedy and selfish and push to turn the maximum profit possible, demonstrating little to no compassion for either employees or consumers. These businesses exploit both employees and customers.
Regrettably, too many businesses are in the latter category. Their pricing schemes are out of this world. Yes, they should turn a fair and reasonable profit; but the current practice is not fair and reasonable.. It is more as Shylocking. It is pure and simple unabashedly GREED. Many attribute the high prices to shipping cost, utilities, operations, overhead....etc for their high prices. Moreover, too many demonstrate no concern for the adverse effect their greed and exorbitantly high prices have on the quality of life and standard of living for both their employees and customers, as well as the impact on the economy.
Consequently, greed, together with the passion for high prices, drive the recruiting of cheap labour from overseas. This labour added to local labour creates a surplus of available labour-intensive, low wage labour. Advantage businesses. Businesses can and usually exploit this surplus of low wage labour, especially from the more motivated group---expats.
Nonetheless, what is good for businesses' bottom line is not good for employees, customers and the territory. These greedy businesses, though risking their capital to provide a service/product and employment, are not demonstrating exemplary social or corporate responsibility.
With the low, exploited wages many families and individuals are struggling to make ends meet. Some may argue that employees should prepare themselves for higher paying jobs. True. But there needs to be a balanced approach between workers and businesses. Many businesses have the capacity to charge much lower prices whereas workers should do their part to prepare themselves for upward mobility.
Faced with low wages and a staggeringly high cost of living, many, many families and individuals too have to take on second or third jobs (taking time away from families),huddle/pack together in too large numbers in living arrangements with other family members/friends(stressing building systems), partake in social behaviors that are not condoned but are understandable given the circumstances, skip necessary nutritious foods, go without basic medical care....etc.
Moreover, in order to stretch their limited resources, consumers avoid the high prices at home, and flee to St. Thomas, Puerto Rico, Saint/Sint...etc for more affordable products . Though shopping at home has a multiplier effect on the economy, who can blame the customer for looking out for his or her family? Businesses are looking out for theirs.
Cheap labour is not a harmless event. It adversely impacts our standard of living, quality of life, customer shopping patterns and practices, housing, social behaviors, medical care, nutrition, economy.....etc.
So I'm operating a small business, I'm barely making ends meet, I treat my employees with respect and keep them on as long as I can. I don't draw a salary for months just to keep the lights on and keep paying them a salary. I'm paying them as much as I can based on my business. What is a 'liveable' salary Sowande? If one of my employees have 5 kids should that be my problem? You need to snap into reality boss man from chatting bull2345. No business is obligated to pay anyone a liveable wage. A business pays what it can pay for a particular job most times. Surely larger companies with flexibility offer what is termed a 'cost of living' increase annually which is similar to Government increment. But smaller businesses simply cannot raise fees just because. Imagine if we elect these simpletons to run our country? Hmm. The 'market' determines these things in most cases, not Government. The approach to address these issues cannot be done in a vacuum. There needs to be an effort across the board and the root of the problem addressed.