Council’s promise on ‘living wage’ (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
City of York Council’s promise on ‘living wage’
11:10am Wednesday 10th October 2012 in News
By Mike Laycock, Chief reporter
MORE than 500 of the lowest-paid workers at City of York Council could be in line for a pay rise.
Senior officials and councillors have pledged to ensure that all employees receive a rate of at least £7.20 an hour, recently recommended as a living wage by York’s Fairness Commission.
Council figures show that more than 500 workers, about 8.4 per cent of the workforce, are paid less than this.
Council leader James Alexander said: “We as an authority should be leading the way in saying that the job somebody does for us should not leave them unable to properly support themselves.
“We are committed to the implementation of a living wage in York, as many other councils are doing up and down the country.”
He said officers were preparing proposals to bring to the cabinet at a future date, but the council said it was not yet possible to say how they would foot the bill for the extra payments or what it would cost.
Pauline Stuchfield, assistant director of customer & business support services, said: “The council is committed to exploring in detail how it can achieve a living wage for all council-employed staff and will work hard to encourage schools, partners and other businesses across York to do the same.”
She said the authority currently employed 6,521 members of staff, 3,067 of whom worked in schools.
“All of these staff are paid above the minimum wage [£6.08],” she said. “About 550 of these staff are currently not receiving the living wage of £7.20 per hour.”
The York Fairness Commission, sponsored by the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, was formed last year with the aim of ensuring none of York’s residents are forgotten amid the recession.
The Press reported last month that the commission’s landmark report, outlining how York should tackle inequality and poverty, specifically called for wages to be set at a level allowing a “minimum socially acceptable standard of living”.
London’s living wage was calculated at £8.30 an hour, with the figure elsewhere being £7.20. The national hourly minimum wage is £6.08.
The report said the council should set a “realistic time frame” for introducing a living wage policy and promote the approach to businesses and other local authorities.
Heather McKenzie, of the union Unison, welcomed the council’s commitment to a living wage, saying: “We are really pleased and hope they will begin discussions with unions within weeks about how this is going to be implemented.”
She understood that some examples of employees who might benefit included cleaners, some admin staff and some school mid-day supervisors.
Comments(24)
Osbaldwick Lad
says...
12:17pm Wed 10 Oct 12
NoNewsIsGoodNews
says...
12:27pm Wed 10 Oct 12
He said officers were preparing proposals to bring to the cabinet at a future date, but the council said it was not yet possible to say how they would foot the bill for the extra payments
Maybe those council employees on a ridiculous wage could fund the ones that don't yet get a livable wage.
Oaklands Resident
says...
12:34pm Wed 10 Oct 12
Now locally they say this isn't a "living wage!"
They are supported by someone who lives in a Palace at Bishopthorpe and the Labour chair of a "fairness commission" who recently drew £80,000 in severance payments from Yorkshire Forward
Surely the remedy is with the Unions. When they seek a wage increase go for a flat rate rise. That will benefit the lowest paid most?
Alexanders approach may mean more pay for some, but it will be at the expense of losing jobs.
IkonAndDiva
says...
12:48pm Wed 10 Oct 12
"Guide me, O thou great redeemer,
Pilgrim through this barren land;
I am weak, but thou art mighty,
Hold me with thy powerful hand;
Bread of heaven, bread of heaven
Feed me till I want no more;
Feed me till I want no more."
Your humble and obedient lowly paid, often standing idle, council workers.
YSTClinguist
says...
12:49pm Wed 10 Oct 12
Pete the Brickie
says...
12:50pm Wed 10 Oct 12
mjr119
says...
1:23pm Wed 10 Oct 12
YorkPatrol
says...
2:02pm Wed 10 Oct 12
Woody G Mellor
says...
3:00pm Wed 10 Oct 12
YorkPatrol wrote:They already do, and you paid for it. Thanks!
I hope they are going to give them an iPad each too so they have easier access to Facebook and Twitter throughout their working day
Elephant
says...
3:16pm Wed 10 Oct 12
StephBlah
says...
3:44pm Wed 10 Oct 12
yorkborn66
says...
3:56pm Wed 10 Oct 12
Give an employee a living wage and a sense of purpose, in the long run works out far cheaper financially , not to mention a better workplace .
roskoboskovic
says...
4:24pm Wed 10 Oct 12
Matt_S
says...
4:24pm Wed 10 Oct 12
"Employers and private sector thinking more about profit and shareholders before their staff."
Well, yes. But if they don't make a profit, they can't afford to pay anyone.
again
says...
4:28pm Wed 10 Oct 12
YorkPatrol wrote:Like you?
I hope they are going to give them an iPad each too so they have easier access to Facebook and Twitter throughout their working day
yorkborn66
says...
4:42pm Wed 10 Oct 12
Matt_S wrote:A profit is after all expenditure (including wages )
This is a good thing provided that the increase in pay comes from reducing the salaries of those earning more, rather than from eliminating positions.
"Employers and private sector thinking more about profit and shareholders before their staff."
Well, yes. But if they don't make a profit, they can't afford to pay anyone.
I would eliminate non cost effective positions; positions of high value to be scrutinized to make sure the taxpayer is getting value for money and the persons in these positions are meeting realistic targets to match their employment role.
An every day occurrence in normal world of employment
Even AndyD
says...
5:09pm Wed 10 Oct 12
again wrote:Well exactly. Bit of a cheap shot and based on a nothing story drummed up by the Press for a bit of faux outrage. As fallen for by Mr Patrol.
YorkPatrol wrote:Like you?
I hope they are going to give them an iPad each too so they have easier access to Facebook and Twitter throughout their working day
Yorkphotographer
says...
5:46pm Wed 10 Oct 12
bob the builder
says...
6:54pm Wed 10 Oct 12
Elephant wrote:Not the York Wheel that's for sure. Perhaps from selling off the libraries and the waste collection contracts? That way they will have less staff to pay as well.
It would be helpful if Mr Alexander explains exactly where the money will come from to pay for it.
Ex CYC
says...
2:23pm Thu 11 Oct 12
Secondly how much has the Fairness Commission cost and how much has Ruth Redfearn or her company 'You Must be Wondering' been paid to carry out this work
York1900
says...
6:39pm Thu 11 Oct 12
York1900
says...
6:54pm Thu 11 Oct 12
Oaklands Resident wrote:The Tories raised the minimum wage by the minimum they could
So Labour nationally introduced a minimum wage.
Now locally they say this isn't a "living wage!"
They are supported by someone who lives in a Palace at Bishopthorpe and the Labour chair of a "fairness commission" who recently drew £80,000 in severance payments from Yorkshire Forward
Surely the remedy is with the Unions. When they seek a wage increase go for a flat rate rise. That will benefit the lowest paid most?
Alexanders approach may mean more pay for some, but it will be at the expense of losing jobs.
inflation all ways hits people on the lowest wage the hardest
MINIMUM WAGE IS WHAT THE LAW SAYS THE MINIMUM YOU CAN PAY SOMEONE
It is to stop those emplyers who would like to pay fifty pence an hour like they did before the minimum wage
Ex CYC
says...
11:36pm Thu 11 Oct 12
York1900 wrote:This is unlikely to be true given the new cap in Council Tax Benefit - those working but in receipt of Housing Benefit will not qualify for Council Tax Benefit
This is two way street buy paying more in wages they pay out less in housing and council tax benefit
again says...
11:26am Wed 10 Oct 12
And, no, I don't claim benefits or dodge my taxes.