The Chair will open the meeting.

The Chair opened the meeting.

Apologies were received from Councillor Angie Goff. 

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.

Invited:

·         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

·         Mish Tullar, Head of Comms, OCC

·         Justin Thorne, HR Resourcing Business Partner, OCC

An open discussion on implementing the Oxford Living Wage across the city in which the Review Group may wish to explore the following lines of inquiry:

-       What are the impacts of low pay on individuals and communities in the city; how widespread is this issue and in which sectors?

-       What are the barriers to large and small employers in the city adopting a living wage policy?

-       Would a Kitemarking system for the ‘Oxford Living Wage’ be workable?

-       Is the Oxford Living Wage the best and most appropriate living wage rate for the Council to pay and promote more widely?

-       What more could the Council do to promote the payment of a living wage and make it unacceptable for other employers in the city to not do so?

-       Are there opportunities to strengthen encouragement to contractors and sub-contractors to pay a living wage?  If not, what are the barriers? If so, what are the risks?

-       What more could the Council do to publicise a living wage through publicity and communications such as Your Oxford, etc.?

The Council’s HR Resourcing Business Partner said that following the Council motion the lowest pay grades had been removed to ensure that no employees had been paid below the Oxford Living Wage (OLW).  The lowest salary was currently equivalent to an hourly rate of £9.49 and this would rise to £9.79 from April 2018.  It was difficult to enforce the payment of the Oxford Living Wage by contractors.  In the case of Fusion Lifestyle it had not been included as a contractual obligation for them to pay the OLW but the Council picked up the difference.  The Council had no zero hours contracts but did have some casual contracts e.g. for seasonal youth engagement work, and there was no obligation on these workers to accept the hours offered.  These employees are paid at least the equivalent of the OLW and after 13 weeks they have a right to be paid the equivalent of permanent staff.

The Corporate Policy, Partnership and Communications Manager added that the Council had insisted on the payment of the OLW through large projects such as the Westgate redevelopment and the Barton joint venture.  Living Wage Week presented a clear opportunity for the Council to state what it does and promote the OLW.   Any wider campaigning would need to be driven by the Council’s leadership but it would be possible, although resource intensive, to get the message out there by proactively targeting employers.  A powerful campaign was possible but there was a need to be thoughtful and sensitive to the Council’s partners.  There was no register of employers who pay the OLW.  If Oxford decided to move to the London Living Wage it would still be an outlier and this would be a confusing message to get across to employers from a communications perspective.

In discussion the Review Group also noted that:

·         Local authorities have no levers to require contractors to pay a living wage to staff who aren’t engaged on their contracts.

·         One local authority has produced an ethical charter, which is aspirational in nature.

·         One local authority has hired a part time officer to promote the Living Wage and co-ordinate a leadership group.

·         Some employers have separate minimum standards agreements with their contractors but this is not always an easy fit for sectors such as social care where many workers are self-employed.

·         Unite would look at any campaign proposal because addressing low pay is central to their aims; the Regional Officer said he would take responsibility for pushing a living wage in Oxford if the Council also committed some resource.

·         Some charities may support a campaign but others would be wary of the political dimensions of promoting a living wage.

·         The reopening of the Westgate Shopping Centre is creating upward pressure on wages as retailers compete to attract employees.

The Review Group have asked to issue a call for evidence in the form of a survey which will be made available on the Council’s consultations webpage.

The Review Group are asked to approve the draft survey, subject to advice from the Council’s Consultation and Engagement Officer.

The Review Group agreed to shorten the survey by combining questions 7 & 8 and questions 10 & 11, and by removing questions 17 & 18.

The notes of the previous meetings are included for reference.

Agreed.

Meetings are scheduled as follows:

17 October 2017, 2pm

1 November 2017, 5pm

Noted.