Showing posts with label living wage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label living wage. Show all posts

Tuesday, 18 November 2014

Low pay, Living Wage

So here's the first of my weekly (hopefully) blogs about something I've been reading/ thinking about over the week. I'll try to keep them on topical issues, hopefully they're not too much like a school essay (I've just finished uni, so I sometimes can't help it!)

This first one is on low-pay. I was lucky enough to go to a talk by the Resolution Foundation last week (I've only just found time to write about it) and so thought it was a good a place as any to start writing. I'd really appreciate any feedback you had and I hope you enjoy!

Around five million British workers, that’s around 22% of employees, are not paid enough to cover their basic needs, according to the Living Wage Foundation. Women (25% of whom earn less than the Living Wage), part-time workers (43%), and the young (72% of 18-21 year olds) are disproportionately likely to be earning less than the Living Wage which has increased to £9.15 an hour in London.

There are huge sectoral imbalances too, with those working in retail and hospitality, for example, also much more likely to be earning in low-paid jobs. Along with measly pay, these kind of jobs come with a platter of poor T&C’s, insecure contracts, no guarantee of hours, and reduced access to employment tribunals. Yet these low paid, insecure jobs, many of which are self-employed, are what drives the employment figures proclaimed by the Government. To continue to hold these figures aloft misses the crucial facet of the modern employment market, low paid jobs are now a bigger problem in Britain than shortage of work.

Britain continues to stand out as having one of the highest incidences of low paid work in advanced economies,  according to research by the think-tank Resolution Foundation, behind all but 6 countries (the US, South Korea, Israel, Canada, Ireland and Poland in the proportion  of full-time employees earning less than two-thirds of median full-time pay making workers in Britain twice as likely as counterparts in Switzerland (9 per cent) and four times more likely than employees in Belgium (5 per cent) to earn below the low paid threshold. Furthermore, a recent report yesterday by the New Economics Foundation suggested that, in the past year, whilst the poorest 10% of the population have suffered a 15% decline in their income, the richest 10% have seen their earnings rise by 3.9%. It’s little wonder we have growing numbers of people visiting food banks and desperately struggling to afford the absolute basics.

Nor is the issue of low pay purely a problem only for those who are earning less than the Living Wage, for the wages of the low-paid are supplemented with in-work tax credits, which means that our taxes are being used to subsidise the profits of private companies.

What all this amounts to is that poverty is increasingly the preserve of the working; in 2011, 6.1 million people in poverty were in working households (at least one person working) compared with 5.1 million living in workless household; in London 28% of people are living in poverty. Of these, nearly 60% are living in working households. The economic ‘recovery’ has not been matched by a corresponding social recovery. The fact that, since the early 2000’s, pay has failed to keep pace with increases in overall economic outputs is a reflection of a combination of shifts in the British labour market and industrial structure. So, is work still the route out of poverty?

Joseph Rowntree Foundation research suggests that, whilst decent work may still be the best route out of poverty, the rising level of in-work poverty is indicative of a labour market failing to create ‘decent’ jobs. As well as ‘bad’ jobs, in-work poverty is a result of the rising cost of living, a tax and benefit system that doesn’t incentivise work, and a lack of progression from low-paid, low-skilled jobs. This final theme was picked up on in a Resolution Foundation publication on the escape routes from low-pay, which found that, over a 10 year period from 2002-2012, the majority of people failed to escape the low-pay cycle on a permanent basis.

The truth is that none of the big three party’s recent record on income or wealth inequality is anything to shout about. For all their rhetoric we need politicians to actually commit to its reduction, and we need them to support policies that achieve this and we need the next government to make pay progression a priority; the key question in coming years will be whether or not renewed jobs growth  will lead to pay growth that is shared across all workers. That doesn’t mean the hopelessly regressive taxation proposals many have put forward. It means a Living Wage, a proper industrial strategy to create decent jobs, reinstatement of the educational maintenance allowance and the 50p top rate of income tax, a progressive property tax – and a commitment that the net effect of party’s manifesto policies will be to reduce inequality.

The Living Wage will play an important part of this goal, Julia Unwin, Chief Executive at JRF and JRHT, said:
“With the economy recovering from a deep and damaging recession, our research shows higher pay is vital to helping low-earning workers make ends meet. The Living Wage - which recognises the cost of essentials in how it is calculated from JRF research - is an important part of the answer. We will never achieve our full economic potential until we address the high levels of poverty across the UK, so paying a Living Wage is an important first step to getting to grips with the country’s in-work poverty problem.” 
Furthermore, by explicitly focusing on living standards, the Living Wage changes the terms of the debate by looking beyond the minimum wage, which focuses on what the labour market can bear without a significant effect on employment.

Yet, the Living Wage alone is not a panacea; with 44 per cent of people in working poverty living in households where no one is being paid less than the Living Wage, it only provides part (albeit a significant part) of the answer. Nor does the Living Wage guarantee an acceptable standard of living.

The massive variations in family circumstances necessarily mean that no realistic hourly pay rate can ever lift every family to an adequate living standard. In nearly half of working households in poverty, all adults earn more than around £7.40 (the national Living Wage is £7.65) an hour. The amount of work seems to be a crucial factor for in-work poverty; in nearly half of these households only one person works, a further 25% of households in poverty have only part-time workers. This is a more complex problem that requires extensive support to aid second earners, from better access to childcare to enhanced education and training, to reform of the welfare system.

I'm struggling to find a fitting conclusion to this, but the discourse around employment has changed. The political parties struggle to divorce themselves from their addiction to 'employment' figures, but we need to understand that the issue is much deeper than that. And that's why, for all the talk of a 'recovery' most of us are struggling more than ever.

I’m aware this has been quite an abstract blog, with a lot of stats and figures and very obviously lacking in anecdotal evidence about just how much of a struggle life can be on wages below the Living Wage.

If you, or someone you know, is living on less than the minimum wage then I would be honoured to chat and help share your story, because something this important cannot be left unheard, and each and every story matters, so please get in contact. I haven’t included any references but if you want to read the research yourself, or have a look at some of the literature on the subject, then, again, I’d be more than happy to share it with you.

Friday, 17 February 2012

Lambeth Council fails to get reassurances from Tesco over protection for workers at Streatham Hub

Further to my blog yesterday about the danger of Tesco paying ‘slave wages’ in its new store which is part of the Streatham Hub development, I have received a response from Leader of Lambeth Council Steve Reed.

He told me that rather than getting assurances from Tesco about fair wages for workers in Streatham, Lambeth will rely on ‘the law’ as determined by the Conservative/ Lib Dem Coalition.

As this feature on Newsnight last night showed clearly (and I covered yesterday) the Government however is not protecting workers. In fact it is encouraging their exploitation – and this is precisely why Lambeth Council needed to use its influence.



With its acceptance of the bribe from central Government to freeze council tax and its ruthless cuts which are hitting the disabled, Labour controlled Lambeth is looking more and more Conservative by the day.

There are of course alternatives. Indeed, Labour’s failure to get assurances from Tesco to protect workers in Lambeth is an example of huge double standards. As the Newsnight piece points out, an alternative is to get employers to commit to paying a “Living Wage” to employees. The Green Party in fact successfully campaigned to get Lambeth Council to pay a “Living Wage” to its employees. It seems however that what is good enough for the Council, is not good enough for workers in Lambeth.

[Update 12.40pm 17/2/12: HT to @Jason_Cobb for pointing out that Lambeth have form for paying lip service to the Living Wage. First of all they tried to block it. Then they refused to extend it out to Lambeth's contracted out workers.]

Tuesday, 18 October 2011

But besides roads, civil partnerships, climate change, economic equality and protecting small business, what have the Greens ever done for London?

Since the London mayor and Assembly were first elected in 2000, there have been two or three Green Party Assembly Members (AMs). These are just some of the things that they have achieved:

2000 Civil Partnerships
At the first ever Mayor’s Question Time assembly member Darren Johnson called on the Mayor to introduce a registration scheme for same-sex partners.
What happened next? A successful scheme was introduced, paving the way for civil partnerships legislation at national level.

2001 Thames Gateway Bridge
Greens began campaigning against Ken Livingstone’s plans for a new six-lane road bridge. As a price for supporting the Mayor’s 2005 budget the Greens called for the mayor to fund the objectors in order that the environmental case could be properly presented at the public inquiry.
What happened next? The public inquiry failed to give the go ahead for the bridge and the new Mayor Boris Johnson then abandoned it altogether.

2003 Climate change budget
Greens criticized Mayor Ken Livingstone’s budget for devoting just £300,000 per year to making London’s homes and buildings greener.
What happened next? In a series of budget deals with the then Mayor, Green AMs got the climate change budget at the London Development Agency increased to £8 million per year.

2004 Living Wage
As part of a budget deal Greens called on the Mayor to establish a Living Wage unit to tackle poverty pay in the capital.
What happened next? The GLA and a growing number of public and private sector bodies now pay the London Living Wage as a minimum.

2005 Leaking water mains
An investigation led by Darren highlighted the fact that a third of London’s drinking water was lost through leaking mains pipes.
What happened next? Following pressure from the Assembly Thames Water began a major mains replacement programme.

2006 Cycling budget
Green AM Jenny Jones commissioned a report which led to the setting of a target to increase cycling by 400% through the introduction of cycle hire, cycling superhighways and cycling hubs in outer London.
What happened next? The Green AMs secured budget commitments from Ken Livingstone which led to a tripling of the budget for cycling and walking.

2008 Opposing Heathrow expansion
Darren Johnson led the Environment Committee investigation into Heathrow expansion. The report showed that the economic benefits were exaggerated and the environmental impacts understated.
What happened next? In 2010 the new Government abandoned Heathrow expansion, the Assembly’s all-party report playing an important role in establishing a broad political consensus.

2009 Road safety
Green AM Jenny Jones fought the closure of the Metropolitan Police Commercial Vehicle Education Unit, which instructs HGV drivers on road sharing and awareness of vulnerable road users.
What happened next? This unit has now been reinstated within the traffic police section.

2010 Protecting small shops
For the Assembly’s Planning and Housing Committee, Green AM Jenny Jones led an investigation looking at what could be done to protect London’s small shops.
What happened next? Mayor Boris Johnson agreed to put policies for the protection of small shops in his new London Plan, the overall planning document for London.

Imagine what a few more Green Assembly Members could achieve in 2012...

Thursday, 13 October 2011

Lambeth’s chief executive moves up pay league table despite cuts

Analysis by the Green Party has revealed that Lambeth council’s chief executive Derrick Anderson has moved up the league table of London council chief executive’s pay, despite implementing some of the most far reaching cuts of any London borough.

The latest figures show that during 2010-11 Lambeth’s head earned £215,963 (this is excluding pension contributions, which were an additional £30,976, giving a total annual salary of £246,939) moving from fourth to third place among the 32 London boroughs. The Green Party analysis (based on each council’s 2010/11 Statement of Accounts) found that the average pay of council chief executives across London in fact fell by 4% during the same period.

In the previous financial year (2009-10) three chief executives of London councils were paid more than Derrick Anderson. In the face of cuts, many council heads cut their salaries. Lambeth’s did not. Anderson subsequently became the third highest paid council chief executive in London during 2010-2011, only marginally behind those of Tory run Hammersmith and Fulham (£225,785) and Kensington & Chelsea (£220,976).

In April this year, Anderson finally announced that he would take a pay cut for 2011-12 and waive his entitlement to a bonus. This was strange as Lambeth had previously claimed he received “no performance related pay or bonuses”.

The figures came to light through London-wide analysis by the London Green party. The amount earned by Anderson in 2010-11 is over 17 times the minimum wage earned by some of Lambeth council sub contractors and over 13 times the Living Wage which the council pays its direct employees.

Lambeth has still to pay a Living Wage to all those who work on behalf of the council. Green councillor Rebecca Thackeray campaigned in 2009 to get Lambeth to adopt a Living Wage for all who carry out work for the council. This was opposed by Labour councillors who only accepted that Lambeth’s direct employees should received a ‘Living Wage’.

Last month Lambeth came second from bottom in a league table of all councils in England, measuring the severity of cuts to disabled people’s services. This included a 22% cut to adult care and support.

It is a stark contrast that whilst Lambeth has some of the highest executive pay in the whole country, it is imposing some of the most severe of cuts for its most vulnerable residents.

People in Lambeth will wonder why, in one of the most deprived boroughs in the country, where the cuts are so deep, Lambeth’s head took so long to take a cut in his own pay, whilst many of his contemporaries did so across London.

But the priority must be for Lambeth council to increase the pay of all those it employs as other councils have done, so everyone gets a Living Wage. It isn’t just Lambeth’s chief executive and Lambeth residents who are being treated in different ways. The staff who implement vital council services are also subject to double standards.


Key figures for all boroughs in London are as follows:

Borough Staff paid more than £150k* Chief exec remuneration* No. of times higher than living wage

Barking and Dagenham 3 £162,087 10
Barnet 9 £200,976 12
Bexley 3 £199,248 12
Brent 2 £203,853 12
Bromley 3 £177,135 11
Camden 6 £204,961 12
City of London 1 £142,000 9
Croydon 4 £204,520 12
Ealing 1 £183,854 11
Enfield 1 £194,693 12
Greenwich 5 £189,667 11
Hackney 5 £177,956 11
Hammersmith and Fulham 5 £225,785 14
Haringey 2 £189,890 11
Harrow 2 £195,965 12
Havering 1 £180,213 11
Hillingdon 1 £183,250 11
Hounslow 1 £156,901 9
Islington 1 £210,000 13
Kensington & Chelsea 2 £220,976 13
Kingston 1 £179,000 11
Lambeth 5 £215,963 13
Lewisham 1 £192,387 12
Merton 1 £200,390 12
Newham 5 £188,022 11
Redbridge 1 £181,542 11
Richmond 1 £178,744 11
Southwark 5 £182,089 11
Sutton 1 £156,195 9
Tower Hamlets 2 £186,528 11
Waltham Forest 2 £180,000 11
Wandsworth 9 £191,122 12
Westminster 3 £200,543 12
London total / average 95 £188,983 11

* Total remuneration including expenses, excluding pension contributions.