The Review Group have asked to invite evidence from large and small employers, business groups, workers who are directly affected by low pay, and agencies, professionals and faith groups in the city that support low paid workers.

The following people have agreed to attend this meeting to speak to the Review Group about issues related to low pay and the promotion of the Oxford Living Wage.  The Chair will ask each external guest to speak for up to 5 minutes.

·         Al Bell, Director, CAB Oxford

·         Dr Joe McManners

·         Ruth O’Loughlin, HR Manager, Oxfordshire County Council

·         Fiona Percival, Oxfordshire County Council

·         Jolie Kirby, CEO of Community Schools Alliance Trust (Cheney School)

·         Caroline Glendinning, Unison Branch Secretary, OCC

·         David Hawkins, Unison, OCC

·         Abdul Rahman

·         Peter Nowland

The representatives of Oxfordshire County Council spoke first and the Panel noted that:

·         The County Council’s lowest pay rate was £7.78 per hour which was paid to over 600 employees including school lunch supervisors and cooks.  This cohort represented 1.6% of the total County Council workforce expressed in terms of full time equivalent posts.  The attendees hadn’t looked at the gender balance of these employees.

·         In total 19% of the County Council workforce were paid below the Oxford Living Wage and 6% below the Real Living Wage.

·         Social Workers and Social Work Assistants were paid well above the Oxford Living Wage.  There were difficulties around recruitment and retention but a review had found that pay was not the central issue.

·         The County Council paid £22 per hour for home care services. It was not possible to identify what was paid to individuals on commissioned services because the exact amount a member of staff was paid would depend on the business model of the provider.

·         The County Council was not opposed to the aspiration of becoming a living wage employer but cost was a limiting factor given the funding reductions and increased demand for statutory services.  If pay differentials were factored in, raising pay to the level of the Oxford Living Wage would cost in the region of £20m per year. 

The Panel noted a written statement provided by a representative of a community school alliance trust based in the city which said that:

·         The lowest paid members of staff earned £8.19 per hour.

·         The trust board had discussed moving to the Oxford Living Wage and were looking at the financial impact and exactly how they could do this and over what time period.

·         The biggest issue is that school funding is not in line with increased costs for the sector.

·         They face the issue of a widening gap between salaries and cost of living, which impacts staff on lower salaries. They try very hard to provide benefits for staff such as providing Pay Care to all employees which supports costs for medical and health care, and free use of the gym.

·         They support the moral case underpinning the Oxford Living Wage campaign wholeheartedly.

The Panel spoke to a doctor from Oxfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group (and former councillor who proposed the original living wage motion), noting that:

·         There was a need to make more progress in terms of recognising, supporting and accrediting employers paying the Oxford Living Wage.

·         NHS commissioning was very complex and the main considerations were affordability and the level of activity, so it was difficult to raise this issue up the agenda as a key priority.

·         There was a direct link between low pay and ill health.

In discussion with the City Council’s UNISON representatives the Panel noted that:

·         The council was outside of national pay bargaining and had just completed a 3 year local pay deal.

·         The next pay deal would include a lump sum or percentage increase (whichever was higher), which would benefit lower paid workers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28

The Review Group have asked to invite evidence from large and small employers, business groups, workers who are directly affected by low pay, and agencies, professionals and faith groups in the city that support low paid workers.

The following people have agreed to attend this meeting to speak to the Review Group about issues related to low pay and the promotion of the Oxford Living Wage.  The Chair will ask each external guest to speak for up to 5 minutes.

·         Matt Padley, Centre for Research in Social Policy, Loughborough University

·         Mark Fransham, social researcher (former City Council employee)

·         Luke Marion, Finance & Commercial Director, Oxford Bus Company

·         Sue Merrell, Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers

·         Ed Thomas, Unison Brookes University

·         Lamis Hamdi, Oxford University Islamic Society

·         Eric Bossward, Church England St. Mary's Barton

Mark Fransham said that poverty rates in Oxford were close to the national average alongside a very buoyant labour market and low unemployment. The picture in the City was probably clouded to some extent by the very large student population. The inference is that ‘in work’ poverty is probably a significant issue (ie inability to get enough work). The costs of living in Oxford were widely recognised as being comparable in many respects to those in London so there was a powerful logic in the principle of at least an Oxford Living Wage (OLW).

Low pay does not, of itself, necessarily contribute to poverty. The number of hours that a person can work was significant, whether as a result of personal circumstances (eg having a caring responsibility) or a limitation by an employer. Support from advice centres was important as was the role of the Council in helping to secure a smooth transition for residents to Universal Credit.

Mark said that there was no reliable evidence to support the now often held contention that low paid workers were being forced out of the City. There was however evidence that high rental costs were causing people to leave, not least because those costs continued to increase while benefits remained the same and or decreased in real terms. One commentator had referred to this movement of people as ‘social cleansing’.

Mark noted the need to consider whether, if the OLW was adopted, how, geographically,  should it  be applied. 

Laura Valadez explained that the Centre for Research in Social Policy (CRSP) had developed a  methodology  for determining what was referred to as the Minimum Income Standard (MIS). It was an ongoing programme of research which sought to define what level of income is needed in order to reach a minimum socially acceptable standard living in the UK. The MIS informs calculation of the Real  Living Wage (RLW). The methodology for determination of the MIS is built around case studies and a precise analysis of detailed research with groups of members of the public specifying what items need to be included in a minimum household budget. The results show how much households need to earn in order to achieve this disposable income. The analysis is conducted every other year with an inflation element added for the years between. The London Living Wage (LLW), based on the MIS ,was being phased  (to do so all at once would be ‘too much too soon’).

Laura said that the experience of a living wage in the USA was complicated to unravel because of the federal structure there.  There was, however, some evidence that the introduction of a living wage had had a positive effect on the economy, resulting in, among other things, a reduction in the turnover of staff  with improvements in pay.

Luke Marion said that the  Oxford Bus Company (OBC) employed c. 600 people of whom c. 40 were bus drivers, paid well by industry standards (c. 27 - 30k) as well  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22

The Review Group have asked to invite evidence from large and small employers, business groups, workers who are directly affected by low pay, and agencies, professionals and faith groups in the city that support low paid workers.

The following people have agreed to attend this meeting to speak to the Review Group about issues related to low pay and the promotion of the Oxford Living Wage.  The Chair will ask each external guest to speak for up to 5 minutes.

·         Emma Kosmin, Living Wage Foundation (slides included)

·         Paul Medley, Chair of Trustees, Oxford Food Bank

·         Fred Hanna, Unite the Union

·         Ian Woodlands, Unite the Union

The Living Wage Foundation Programme Manager said that the Foundation operated an accreditation system across the UK with a public kite mark.  The Living Wage rate applied to the whole country outside of London, which had a separate London Living Wage rate, and was intended to be a floor.  The rate of the Living Wage was calculated annually based on the cost of living and feedback from families about what items should be factored in to the calculation.  Accredited employers pledged to pay the Living Wage to all employees aged over 18 and third party contractors and in doing so signed a legal license agreement form.  There was also a whistle blowing mechanism.  On 6 November the Foundation would be publishing pay data and the newly calculated living wage rates.  There was both a moral case and a business case for paying the Living Wage.  The Foundation worked with businesses large and small in a number of ways and had lots of tools and resources.  These included:

·         A database and interactive map of businesses that pay the Living Wage;

·         Legal guidance for public and private sector organisations on the Social Value Act 2012;

·         A franchise model for accreditation (Scotland, Wales, Jersey, Hong Kong);

·         An online shop;

·         Digital packs;

·         Guidance on applying the Living Wage to grant-funded posts (the ‘Friendly Funders’ scheme);

·         A Living Wage people’s movement.

·         Social media;

·         Mailing lists;

·         Negotiation training.

The Review Group heard that 85 local authorities were accredited Living Wage employers but no other council’s promoted their own rate which was different from both the Living Wage and the London Living Wage (which reflected the established system of ‘London weighting’).  The Living Wage Commission, which oversaw the methodology of the Living Wage, could listen to Oxford’s case but there were complex factors to consider and the evidence suggested that accrediting one rate (outside of London) was the best approach.  The UK kite marking system was a front runner internationally due to its simplicity.  There was a need to listen to employers in the city, many of whom will operate across the UK, and to carefully consider the evidence base in determining which living wage rate was right for Oxford.

The Oxford Food Bank Chair of Trustees explained that his organisation collected surplus food and distributed it to over 80 organisations based in and around the city which were in contact with people experiencing low pay, unemployment and homelessness.  Its operations had expanded over the last six months and were expected to continue to do so.  In was volunteer led but include a small staff team who were paid above the Living Wage.  This was reflective of the cost of living in the city and the charity’s wish to give staff responsibility and retain them.  It was estimated that for every £1 donated, £20 worth of food would be distributed.

The Regional Officer of Unite the Union said that he negotiated on behalf of BMW workers and was proud of their terms and conditions.  There were issues  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15

The Review Group have asked to invite evidence from large and small employers, business groups, workers who are directly affected by low pay, and agencies, professionals and faith groups in the city that support low paid workers.

The following people have agreed to attend this meeting as witnesses to speak to the Review Group about issues related to low pay and the promotion of the Oxford Living Wage:

·         Dr Joe McManners, former city councillor who proposed the Living Wage council motion in November 2007;

Dr McManners was not present at the meeting.  The Review Group agreed to invite representatives of the following organisations to future meetings:

·         The retailer John Lewis

·         The major bus companies operating in the city

·         A2Dominion property group

·         The emerging local living wage campaign

·         The Citizens’ Advice Bureau