Marmite maker Unilever to insist suppliers pay 'living wage'
21/01/2021
|
news
|
business
|
502
Unilever says that by 2030 suppliers must pay staff enough to cover a family's basic needs.
1
dougie
21/01/2021 11:00:19
12
12
bbc
Marmite is the greatest food on the face of the earth
Another reason to love Burton-on-Trent.
(Along with Branston pickle! Maybe.)
If you like your food to taste like a dog's arse.
P. S
(I don't know what a dogs arse tastes like but I'm guessing it's marmite.)
P. S
(I don't know what a dogs arse tastes like but I'm guessing it's marmite.)
Love it.
Hate it.
It's a great goal to set but surely this can be done before 2030?
Gives them time to switch all their suppliers to countries where the living wage is $50 a month.....
Should be legislated for, also not profiting from slavery
Or climate damage for that matter
Or climate damage for that matter
Now we’ve left the EU firms are dealing the benefit of paying better wages and will be onshoring more production to avoid tariffs.
Win Win,
Win Win,
Lolz, only yesterday the Tories announced a review of workers rights....
“...by 2030”. May as well say by 2099.
"Food services giants Sodexo and Compass Group, which are on the Living Wage Foundation's list of recognised service providers, have made similar supply chain commitments in the UK." -
That'll be the Compass Group that produced the children's packed lunches we saw 2 weeks ago - more work needed on the "social responsibility" side of their business methinks!
That'll be the Compass Group that produced the children's packed lunches we saw 2 weeks ago - more work needed on the "social responsibility" side of their business methinks!
" "We will ensure that everyone who directly provides goods and services to Unilever earns at least a living wage or income, by 2030." "
The key word being "directly."
This massive multinational has very publicly absolved itself of all ills from its sprawling supply chains, most of which begin in developing countries.
Hypocritical, but hey, free advertising from the Impartial BBC for them.
The key word being "directly."
This massive multinational has very publicly absolved itself of all ills from its sprawling supply chains, most of which begin in developing countries.
Hypocritical, but hey, free advertising from the Impartial BBC for them.
Chasing positive PR whilst maintaining a capitalist approach. Far from ethical.
Why wait until 2030? Do it now if you want any credibility.
Overpaying staff clearly results in all the money for the food disappears. This grandstanding politicised nonsense is not acceptable.
I'll take a lecture from a company that hasn't been fined on multiple occasions for price fixing and cartel behaviour, this isn't one of them and I hate marmite.
What they are actually saying is ‘ You can screw your workers for another 10 years at least, by which time you will be retired to the Seychelles’.
Another advertisement from the either bone idle or corrupt BBC news team.
They could have said ‘many firms including etc’
Another advertisement from the either bone idle or corrupt BBC news team.
They could have said ‘many firms including etc’
EU nationals were paid minimum wage in UK. Their contracts were based in Poland Romania etc
Not really. I imagine the spec is make up food parcels & this is the price / unit, that 's what they will do to that unit price as they will have to factor in staff pay, packaging, storage & transport, & still make a profit. They will work to the spec provided. Not too much fresh stuff as that could 'go off' before it gets handed out. Which would just create more problems.
I absolutely love Marmite, but does anyone else think it is insanely expensive for what is effectively a byproduct of the brewing industry?
Agreed, I can only bring myself to buy it on offer
Toast, lots of marmite, cheese, baked beans, more cheese on top. Heaven ??
Because people are clearly prepared to pay an "insanely expensive" price for it - i.e. Unilever are more than happy to rip people off.
So maybe Unilever are not so virtuous as this news story makes out they are ?
So maybe Unilever are not so virtuous as this news story makes out they are ?
Well it'll be even more expensive once the supplier starts paying living wage, so best stock up now.
But you still pay for it ??
You are paying for their huge advertising campaign. Also for their weird (and surely loss-making) experiments with Marmite chocolate, Marmite body spray etc...
And no I'm not making it up:
https://www.lynxformen.com/uk/products/deodorant-antiperspirant/deodorant/lynx-africa-marmite-bodyspray.html
And no I'm not making it up:
https://www.lynxformen.com/uk/products/deodorant-antiperspirant/deodorant/lynx-africa-marmite-bodyspray.html
It is, and their Colmans Mustard.
Both are big shop treats for me.
Anyone else hear that 'Low Rider' song whenever they see Marmite lol?
Both are big shop treats for me.
Anyone else hear that 'Low Rider' song whenever they see Marmite lol?
it tastes horrid
If my wife or kids bring it in to the house, its straight in the outside bin when they are not looking. Foul disgusting, product that has no place in any reasonably minded house.
More of a Bovril man myself but yeah Unever really have raked up the price of both ??
true
my preferred by-product of the brewing industry is beer
my preferred by-product of the brewing industry is beer
"Unilever, whose products include Marmite, Ben & Jerry's ice cream and Dove soap"
---
I'm not sure which one tastes best - Dove soap I think.
---
I'm not sure which one tastes best - Dove soap I think.
So... only 9 years to implement it. Nothing like being an "agile" and "nimble" company eh?
Why should it take them until 2030 to do this?
Big ships take longer to turn. At least they are making a commitment.
Maybe it’s suppliers need the time? Just a thought.
It's a great goal to set but surely this can be done before 2030?
You assume that the ingredients are available from such countries.
Bet you’re a great laugh at parties
We need either a proper minimum wage & scrap all tax credits or we go the way we are, supporting large companies like Amazon &Tesco by supplementing their employees incomes via tax credits
Tax payers in this country are shafted at every turn
If we all earn decent pay & pay tax we are all better off
We need some basic manufacturing jobs for less academic people to do & to get the UK off its arse
Tax payers in this country are shafted at every turn
If we all earn decent pay & pay tax we are all better off
We need some basic manufacturing jobs for less academic people to do & to get the UK off its arse
Regardless of how many people Amazon employ, we should not be supplementing the richest person in the Worlds company, it is an insult to all of us, even those in Government. I agree with you, but this is the UK, they do not know how to do efficiency or how to be fair here, you know this. We know the Gov protect banks and big corporation. We do not matter, until we decide enough is enough.
Essentially taxpayers are funding shareholder dividends. It is outrageous that we allow this. MSM and government manipulate the poorer sections of society to fight each other whilst the rich get richer.
Issue is if we pay a real living wage then companies will invest more in technology/self service etc to remove jobs thus significantly reducing employment; Governments have chosen to keep employment high and supplement with tax credits etc.
Pay is plenty and excessive. When you start paying large amounts extra for stuff you want instead of the better value then pontificate deeming others must have more pay, like you probably get given.
It is not an aim of Conservatives to improve the general well-being.
It is simply to consolidate and to extend their power.
Poverty, ignorance, and insecurity among the populace all empower their elite.
So don't expect them to help, eh?
It is simply to consolidate and to extend their power.
Poverty, ignorance, and insecurity among the populace all empower their elite.
So don't expect them to help, eh?
All that will happen with higher wages is businesses will automate quicker and/or take manufacturing oversees to areas where wage rates are lower. This means even less UK jobs for the lower paid. Many businesses could not survive in the UK with higher wages. They would not be sustainable. The level of economic naivety is unbelievable.
EU nationals were paid minimum wage. Their contracts were based in Poland Romania etc ..
If only we had free access to the World's biggest trading block it might make sense to base factories here.
Or people need to learn to live within their means......
Absolutely agree. Scrap tax credits and up the minimum wage by a corresponding amount.
only larger on-line retailers will be able to absorb the costs of moving products across the borders
they'll still import in to Britain and in to Europe from places with lower costs
this is a smart move by a brand
branded products have been on the slide in terms of market share for a while
holding surrounding business to wage standards means the worker as consumer can actually afford the product
they'll still import in to Britain and in to Europe from places with lower costs
this is a smart move by a brand
branded products have been on the slide in terms of market share for a while
holding surrounding business to wage standards means the worker as consumer can actually afford the product
Given Unilevers new ethical stance they are on a long term track to refuse to engage and deal with the UK's HMRC. HMRC is an organisation who struggle to pay some of their lowest grade clerical staff anything more than the absolute legal minimum at the moment. We live in interesting times...
If they are so ethical, why is it taking them 10 years to implement this?
Yeah, let's pick holes in a positive step forward.
I applaud Unilever's stance. No one should work for a pittance.
Nobody has a god given right to a certain rate of pay. Someone wants something done, they offer a rate. Take it or leave it. If no one wants to for that rate it tells them they are not offering enough. The correct rate is when people are prepared to do it, ie market rate. Supply & demand dictates this. Nothing else should influence the rate, otherwise you are messing with the basics of economics
The idea that some rate of pay is 'fair' and less is not is puerile.
Each employee must add to a firm's profit more than he/she earns. Many UK firms barely break even. We are not competitive.
If you think you are undervalued, change jobs or start your own company.
With automation, outsourcing, AI, etc, (real) pay rises will be the exception. Brexit is more likely to bring pay cuts.
Each employee must add to a firm's profit more than he/she earns. Many UK firms barely break even. We are not competitive.
If you think you are undervalued, change jobs or start your own company.
With automation, outsourcing, AI, etc, (real) pay rises will be the exception. Brexit is more likely to bring pay cuts.
Do you pay well then do you Marmite?. It is all very well the propaganda about pay here, but Marmite probably do not pay great themselves, of course they can look great up against another company that is paying less than they are?. I would lay £, that Marmites production lines have cheap labour and when I say cheap, I mean just earning above the wage they are going on about here. Contradicting.
Speculative drivel. Why don't you post facts?
If they are paying, as you say, just above the wage they are on about here, then there's no contradiction. they are doing exactly as they expect suppliers to do.
Seems like a Great Idea.
Probably lead by a boss who has Children & wants the best in the future.
Too many companies are run by fools on steroids aka birth control pills & have lost their moral values or by men who have been influenced by terrible women & get angry & selfish at the world.
Probably lead by a boss who has Children & wants the best in the future.
Too many companies are run by fools on steroids aka birth control pills & have lost their moral values or by men who have been influenced by terrible women & get angry & selfish at the world.
We need either a proper minimum wage & scrap all tax credits or we go the way we are, supporting large companies like Amazon &Tesco by supplementing their employees incomes via tax credits
Tax payers in this country are shafted at every turn
If we all earn decent pay & pay tax we are all better off
We need some basic manufacturing jobs for less academic people to do & to get the UK off its arse
Tax payers in this country are shafted at every turn
If we all earn decent pay & pay tax we are all better off
We need some basic manufacturing jobs for less academic people to do & to get the UK off its arse
Regardless of how many people Amazon employ, we should not be supplementing the richest person in the Worlds company, it is an insult to all of us, even those in Government. I agree with you, but this is the UK, they do not know how to do efficiency or how to be fair here, you know this. We know the Gov protect banks and big corporation. We do not matter, until we decide enough is enough.
People voted for Brexit because enough was enough. Look where it got you.
I'm assuming you don't buy anything from Amazon .
"but this is the UK, they do not know how to be fair here" I don't really see any other countries standing up to Amazon either!
Experience has shown that when it comes to commercial interests, consumer action is far more effective. Vote with your feet and don't buy from Amazon. Small firms need your support more than ever.
Experience has shown that when it comes to commercial interests, consumer action is far more effective. Vote with your feet and don't buy from Amazon. Small firms need your support more than ever.
Any other conspiracy theories?
While I applaud Unilever for this move which is most welcome, I can't help but wonder WHY it's going to take them almost 10 YEARS to implement it !!!
Surely 2 or 3 years at most should be their target, yes I get they are a huge business with many bodies to negotiate with over this but in 10 years time the poorer will have become even more poorer...
It's welcome but it's way too slow in ambition.
Surely 2 or 3 years at most should be their target, yes I get they are a huge business with many bodies to negotiate with over this but in 10 years time the poorer will have become even more poorer...
It's welcome but it's way too slow in ambition.
Because they will have to put the clause into contracts as they renew, as cancelling existing contracts to add the new clause could lead to litigation and compensation claims.
EU nationals were paid minimum wage in UK. Their work contracts were based in Poland Romania etc
It is a commercial product and there are alternatives in a competitive market, so Unilever are not "ripping people off". People elect to pay that price. They could purchase an alternative or boycott the product entirely. Too many people ready to assume "the public" need someone to make decisions for them.
"i.e. Unilever are more than happy to rip people off."
Unilever are ripping off no one.
Once associated costs are met the final price is set according to customer demand. If the customer deems the price is too high and stopy buying, the company will either reduce the price of cease production.
Unilever are ripping off no one.
Once associated costs are met the final price is set according to customer demand. If the customer deems the price is too high and stopy buying, the company will either reduce the price of cease production.
Surely a living wage is anti-tory: if you start lifting people out of poverty, then how are the elite going to profit?
By now we should realise that it isn’t benefits that raise people out of poverty. It certainly helps to keep them alive but in the same sorry state. The only way to leave poverty behind is through education & ambition. Labour great at chucking benefits at people but lousy at giving the poor a leg up. They like people to be eternally grateful but know their place.
Not sure it will.
Workers at the Tiptree factory have been told to expect jam tomorrow and I bet that workers at the Sun-Pat factory will still be getting peanuts .
Workers at the Tiptree factory have been told to expect jam tomorrow and I bet that workers at the Sun-Pat factory will still be getting peanuts .
This is basic economics it is mainly poor who spend nearly all they earn on the essentials to live. So increase their income increase their spending power increased sales and profit and growth. For far too long the system has concentrated on the wealthy so called wealth earners who mostly hide their money not invest as described. It is everyday people and their taxes and buying. Good news.
You are so right, and this is basic economics. The pity of it all is that instead of this being a guiding principle, we get all this guff about trickle-down, incentives for management, etc. Paying those at the bottom greatly-increased wages would have a massive impact on the economy, leading to more profits, more employment and more taxes. Giving money to the rich is pointless.
Good move but why 9 years to implement.
That picture of the toast is making me hungry. Pity theres no marmite in the house.
That picture of the toast is making me hungry. Pity theres no marmite in the house.
60,000 suppliers in 190 countries - that's quite an alignment task. It would be easy just to tell their suppliers to do it but very difficult to police effectively.
I suspect if they could do it more quickly then they would.
I suspect if they could do it more quickly then they would.
Its to do with the contracts they have with suppliers, new clauses cant just be inserted into a 6 or 7 year contract, and cancelling the contract would result in compensation being sought.
It would also push the price of goods supplied up above the agreed contracted rate, so that the other company can pay the extra wages without going bankrupt.
It would also push the price of goods supplied up above the agreed contracted rate, so that the other company can pay the extra wages without going bankrupt.
Do you pay well then do you Marmite?. It is all very well the propaganda about pay here, but Marmite probably do not pay great themselves, of course they can look great up against another company that is paying less than they are?. I would lay £, that Marmites production lines have cheap labour and when I say cheap, I mean just earning above the wage they are going on about here. Contradicting.
While I applaud Unilever for this move which is most welcome, I can't help but wonder WHY it's going to take them almost 10 YEARS to implement it !!!
Surely 2 or 3 years at most should be their target, yes I get they are a huge business with many bodies to negotiate with over this but in 10 years time the poorer will have become even more poorer...
It's welcome but it's way too slow in ambition.
Surely 2 or 3 years at most should be their target, yes I get they are a huge business with many bodies to negotiate with over this but in 10 years time the poorer will have become even more poorer...
It's welcome but it's way too slow in ambition.
Still shouldn't take 10 years in most cases, transport/ distribution contracts are generally only a year or two long at most and put out for tender on a regular basis by big business who are always looking for the best deal.
As said their move is welcome but for the most part a 10 year timetable is too long and will not help most of those they are seeking to help in a reasonable timely fashion.
As said their move is welcome but for the most part a 10 year timetable is too long and will not help most of those they are seeking to help in a reasonable timely fashion.
Does anyone have trouble getting marmite stains out using Unilever products?
Before or after consumption?
... well you do every single day, whether it be Covid (vaccinations), or Brexit (Yipeeee ... we are out !).
you really are a complete hypocrite muppet.
you really are a complete hypocrite muppet.
Do you pay well then do you Marmite?. It is all very well the propaganda about pay here, but Marmite probably do not pay great themselves, of course they can look great up against another company that is paying less than they are?. I would lay £, that Marmites production lines have cheap labour and when I say cheap, I mean just earning above the wage they are going on about here. Contradicting.
The lives of everyone would get better. Including the already wealthy.
There would be a financial "levelling up" and other people would have a better standard of living, clean water, things like that.
There would be less economic pressures to migrate away from poverty & to start wars.
Sounds good to me.
There would be a financial "levelling up" and other people would have a better standard of living, clean water, things like that.
There would be less economic pressures to migrate away from poverty & to start wars.
Sounds good to me.
" "We will ensure that everyone who directly provides goods and services to Unilever earns at least a living wage or income, by 2030." "
The key word being "directly."
This massive multinational has very publicly absolved itself of all ills from its sprawling supply chains, most of which begin in developing countries.
Hypocritical, but hey, free advertising from the Impartial BBC for them.
The key word being "directly."
This massive multinational has very publicly absolved itself of all ills from its sprawling supply chains, most of which begin in developing countries.
Hypocritical, but hey, free advertising from the Impartial BBC for them.
Every wage is a "living" wage. It's level just determines how well you live.
It depends more on where you live.
I lived in Brighton for yeas working for local Gov and retail. In 5 years I still had no savings, car, or went out more tha once a week for a couple of pints. I had colleagues living on their own who spent 75% of their wages just on rent.
I lived in Brighton for yeas working for local Gov and retail. In 5 years I still had no savings, car, or went out more tha once a week for a couple of pints. I had colleagues living on their own who spent 75% of their wages just on rent.
Seems like a Great Idea.
Probably lead by a boss who has Children & wants the best in the future.
Too many companies are run by fools on steroids aka birth control pills & have lost their moral values or by men who have been influenced by terrible women & get angry & selfish at the world.
Probably lead by a boss who has Children & wants the best in the future.
Too many companies are run by fools on steroids aka birth control pills & have lost their moral values or by men who have been influenced by terrible women & get angry & selfish at the world.
Do you pay well then do you Marmite?. It is all very well the propaganda about pay here, but Marmite probably do not pay great themselves, of course they can look great up against another company that is paying less than they are?. I would lay £, that Marmites production lines have cheap labour and when I say cheap, I mean just earning above the wage they are going on about here. Contradicting.
The MW was paid by the employer, not the government.
The hidden agenda is simple: to raise people out of poverty & penury. Not very hidden.
"State aid" means "aid given by the state", not "laws made by the state"
The hidden agenda is simple: to raise people out of poverty & penury. Not very hidden.
"State aid" means "aid given by the state", not "laws made by the state"
Its to do with the contracts they have with suppliers, new clauses cant just be inserted into a 6 or 7 year contract, and cancelling the contract would result in compensation being sought.
It would also push the price of goods supplied up above the agreed contracted rate, so that the other company can pay the extra wages without going bankrupt.
It would also push the price of goods supplied up above the agreed contracted rate, so that the other company can pay the extra wages without going bankrupt.
"Food services giants Sodexo and Compass Group, which are on the Living Wage Foundation's list of recognised service providers, have made similar supply chain commitments in the UK." -
That'll be the Compass Group that produced the children's packed lunches we saw 2 weeks ago - more work needed on the "social responsibility" side of their business methinks!
That'll be the Compass Group that produced the children's packed lunches we saw 2 weeks ago - more work needed on the "social responsibility" side of their business methinks!
" "We will ensure that everyone who directly provides goods and services to Unilever earns at least a living wage or income, by 2030." "
The key word being "directly."
This massive multinational has very publicly absolved itself of all ills from its sprawling supply chains, most of which begin in developing countries.
Hypocritical, but hey, free advertising from the Impartial BBC for them.
The key word being "directly."
This massive multinational has very publicly absolved itself of all ills from its sprawling supply chains, most of which begin in developing countries.
Hypocritical, but hey, free advertising from the Impartial BBC for them.
Any opportunity to have a pop. Why are you even here?
How exactly would you like a company to control its tier 3 suppliers wage structure? I’m sure you considered that when writing your response....?
the have to use directly or for example someone working for a supplier to unilever buys a pen, the pen supplier and all the suppliers of plastic etc all have to be paying it also, the audit trail would effectively make the pen cost a fortune
A direct supplier can be requested to provide evidence - an indirect one can't. The indirect supply chain can be very long and if 'everyone' is supposed to take some responsibility, you can't ask for a full list of everyone involved in the supply chain and then refuse to deal with your main supplier simply because one of a myriad of smaller ones don't quite meet a criteria. Economic reality.
Love it.
Ensuring your suppliers pay a living wage by 2030? Wow,that's awfully good of you.So basically ,it's ok to pay workers bugger all until then.
Business is not there to look after your well being. Its there to look after its own. It offers work at a rate. Take it or leave it. You dont have to take it. If people dont take up the offer, they would have to put the rate up to get staff. Of course you could always set up a business yourself and not rely on anyone else to sort your life out and make it nice and comfy for you?? How about that?
2030... No rush then. Just sit back and feel noble for the next nine years while doing actually nothing.
Though I upvoted this, till the UK population (among others) realise the days of cheap food are over the aim will not be met - It will need legislation to drag companies into this or some will take advantage of the race to the cheapest.
Harsh, I mean its 1250 now, I don't think just over 7 1/2 hours is excessive
"Food services giants Sodexo and Compass Group, which are on the Living Wage Foundation's list of recognised service providers, have made similar supply chain commitments in the UK." -
That'll be the Compass Group that produced the children's packed lunches we saw 2 weeks ago - more work needed on the "social responsibility" side of their business methinks!
That'll be the Compass Group that produced the children's packed lunches we saw 2 weeks ago - more work needed on the "social responsibility" side of their business methinks!
Shouldn't the headline read "Unilever commits to additional 10 years of exploitation of people on below living wages."
So if you buy or use a Unilever product (which I'm sure you do) you are exploiting people.
You're really saying, every other comapny is commited to open-ended exploitation and, at least Unilever has done something, even if you don't quite know why it might take 10 years to fully implement acros their global business.
Which other company that has made as similar commitment with any timescale at all?
Which other company that has made as similar commitment with any timescale at all?
About time. It's ridiculous that so many companies don't pay enough to live on, while still making huge profits. What's worse their profits often get subsidised by the tax payer through in work benefits. This should be mandated by government, but of course the Tories are always on the side of business profits not workers whatever they might say.
It would probably take me until 2030 to get through a jar of marmite.And that would probably be at gunpoint.
Yeah, let's pick holes in a positive step forward.
Yup : a mix of grandad 'jokes' and hatred of business...............
Comme toujours..
Comme toujours..
We need either a proper minimum wage & scrap all tax credits or we go the way we are, supporting large companies like Amazon &Tesco by supplementing their employees incomes via tax credits
Tax payers in this country are shafted at every turn
If we all earn decent pay & pay tax we are all better off
We need some basic manufacturing jobs for less academic people to do & to get the UK off its arse
Tax payers in this country are shafted at every turn
If we all earn decent pay & pay tax we are all better off
We need some basic manufacturing jobs for less academic people to do & to get the UK off its arse
Its not for businesses to decide how much a person/family needs to survive and meet that expectation. If someone needs more to survive, get a better paid job or work longer hours. If I have to pay staff even more per Hr, business is not sustainable & I will not take the risks for less reward. I'll be automating & taking production oversees. Its a simple fact of economic life in a world economy.
The price of their products are going to shoot up if Unilever insist that everyone in its supply chain gets paid a 'living wage'. How will that affect sales & dividends? Will Unilever pay their suppliers on time as well? Will other companies supplied by a supplier that supply Unilever accept higher costs? Great news if every company does it but I suspect that won't happen. The new Dutch Cadbury!?
They used the same argument against the abolition of slavery.
Shouldn't the headline read "Unilever commits to additional 10 years of exploitation of people on below living wages."
Absolutely, yes. You would be part of the problem not part of the solution.
As they test on animals we don't buy anything from Unilever.
As they test on animals we don't buy anything from Unilever.
That most likely depends on the product. Try thinking in a less binary manner.
Or any other product or service at all, presumably. Except Unilever, who have actually started to improve.
Another BBC headline from this interview could have been that when asked if Unilever were having supply chain problems due to Brexit he said "No". "You mean you are not experiencing any teething troubles" he said maybe one or two perhaps but nothing to worry about. Disappointed interviewer moved on.
The price of their products are going to shoot up if Unilever insist that everyone in its supply chain gets paid a 'living wage'. How will that affect sales & dividends? Will Unilever pay their suppliers on time as well? Will other companies supplied by a supplier that supply Unilever accept higher costs? Great news if every company does it but I suspect that won't happen. The new Dutch Cadbury!?
This is basic economics it is mainly poor who spend nearly all they earn on the essentials to live. So increase their income increase their spending power increased sales and profit and growth. For far too long the system has concentrated on the wealthy so called wealth earners who mostly hide their money not invest as described. It is everyday people and their taxes and buying. Good news.
You are so right, and this is basic economics. The pity of it all is that instead of this being a guiding principle, we get all this guff about trickle-down, incentives for management, etc. Paying those at the bottom greatly-increased wages would have a massive impact on the economy, leading to more profits, more employment and more taxes. Giving money to the rich is pointless.
There are own-brand yeast extracts that are good alternatives. In the meantime choose a supermarket that pays its staff and suppliers’ staff top $ and buy from there. Doesn’t have to be only spreads. Consumer buying power has immense potential.
Buy British
????
Buy British
????
Sainsburys do their own brand, it's cheaper and has a lower sodium content.
I'm looking for british lemons and limes oh and a few kiwi fruit do you know where I can find them?
It would be nice if they could stop all testing on animals too!
Unilever are leaders in scrapping animal testing and only test where they are legally required to do so. They are currently leading a campaign against the European Union Chemicals Agency who insist on animal testing to show safety of ingredients and working to influence countries like China to end animal testing. It is politicians that are forcing unnecessary animal testing on companies.
Regardless of how many people Amazon employ, we should not be supplementing the richest person in the Worlds company, it is an insult to all of us, even those in Government. I agree with you, but this is the UK, they do not know how to do efficiency or how to be fair here, you know this. We know the Gov protect banks and big corporation. We do not matter, until we decide enough is enough.
"People voted for Brexit because enough was enough. Look where it got you."
Yeah.....I for one won't sleep tonight worrying about that poor young woman in London who was so shocked to discover she had to pay duty on her £200 coat ordered directly from a European boutique.
I bet that will make your average minimum wage working class Northerner think "oh if only I had not voted for Brexit!!!"
Yeah.....I for one won't sleep tonight worrying about that poor young woman in London who was so shocked to discover she had to pay duty on her £200 coat ordered directly from a European boutique.
I bet that will make your average minimum wage working class Northerner think "oh if only I had not voted for Brexit!!!"
So if you buy or use a Unilever product (which I'm sure you do) you are exploiting people.
I was making a statement not asking a question.
Because people are clearly prepared to pay an "insanely expensive" price for it - i.e. Unilever are more than happy to rip people off.
So maybe Unilever are not so virtuous as this news story makes out they are ?
So maybe Unilever are not so virtuous as this news story makes out they are ?
It is a commercial product and there are alternatives in a competitive market, so Unilever are not "ripping people off". People elect to pay that price. They could purchase an alternative or boycott the product entirely. Too many people ready to assume "the public" need someone to make decisions for them.
There are own-brand yeast extracts that are good alternatives. In the meantime choose a supermarket that pays its staff and suppliers’ staff top $ and buy from there. Doesn’t have to be only spreads. Consumer buying power has immense potential.
Buy British
????
Buy British
????
There are own-brand yeast extracts that are good alternatives. In the meantime choose a supermarket that pays its staff and suppliers’ staff top $ and buy from there. Doesn’t have to be only spreads. Consumer buying power has immense potential.
Buy British
????
Buy British
????
Gives them time to switch all their suppliers to countries where the living wage is $50 a month.....
Every wage is a "living" wage. It's level just determines how well you live.
Every wage is a "living" wage. It's level just determines how well you live.
JW. Look at what footballers earn per week and do it percentage wise then people in normal everyday jobs should be getting a minimum wage of a thousand pounds per week.
My average is around 800 per week after tax working as a domestic in a nhs hospital ??
So they cannot use people in India.
The workers cannot afford their own homes and have to live with parents.
It is not uncommon for flats in central Mumbai to cost £1 million passed on from generation to generation. A dead asset as of sold they have nowhere to live.
Servants sleep on the streets and if lucky outside the flat near the stairs and women on the balcony floor.
The workers cannot afford their own homes and have to live with parents.
It is not uncommon for flats in central Mumbai to cost £1 million passed on from generation to generation. A dead asset as of sold they have nowhere to live.
Servants sleep on the streets and if lucky outside the flat near the stairs and women on the balcony floor.
Absolutely, yes. You would be part of the problem not part of the solution.
As they test on animals we don't buy anything from Unilever.
As they test on animals we don't buy anything from Unilever.
So if you buy or use a Unilever product (which I'm sure you do) you are exploiting people.
Having worked for Unilever for almost 15 years, I really applaud their Sustainability programmes and this is another initiative that, were I still there, I would be really proud of.
I'm not still there as they showed little regard for their UK employees with years of pay freezes or 0.25% average increases. I wasn't in poverty but worked all hours and had very little left over each month.
I'm not still there as they showed little regard for their UK employees with years of pay freezes or 0.25% average increases. I wasn't in poverty but worked all hours and had very little left over each month.
You just wait for the launch of Primarmite ...made with actual tears of slave labour
Who's going to remember in 2030 what Unilever said in 2021 to keep shareholders happy?
It isn't keeping me happy as a shareholder.
Not because I want people to work for peanuts, but because it is the role of governments to ensure people are not exploited .. by ALL COMPANIES.
What concerns me is that this takes management resources to implement. Diverting from their core business.
BUT .. lets see what happens. Good company, so not selling.
Not because I want people to work for peanuts, but because it is the role of governments to ensure people are not exploited .. by ALL COMPANIES.
What concerns me is that this takes management resources to implement. Diverting from their core business.
BUT .. lets see what happens. Good company, so not selling.
The entire ethos of Unilever, since its foundation, is to make big money out of waste products. Hey presto!! Soap and ice cream from waste fats. Sandwich spreads from waste yeast. Marketing campaigns which are a waste of time...
Meanwhile in Johnsons wonderful 'Brexitland' where unicorns roam free. They are looking at ways of curtailing workers rights.
Tell me again. Who was Brexit meant to free?
Tell me again. Who was Brexit meant to free?
We need either a proper minimum wage & scrap all tax credits or we go the way we are, supporting large companies like Amazon &Tesco by supplementing their employees incomes via tax credits
Tax payers in this country are shafted at every turn
If we all earn decent pay & pay tax we are all better off
We need some basic manufacturing jobs for less academic people to do & to get the UK off its arse
Tax payers in this country are shafted at every turn
If we all earn decent pay & pay tax we are all better off
We need some basic manufacturing jobs for less academic people to do & to get the UK off its arse
2030? Way to kick that can down the road for the next CEO to have to deal with (or more likely, quietly sweep under the rug).
A case of marmite tomorrow but not today? Why as long as 2030?