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 in terms of some contractors (not all of which recognised the union) not paying the Living Wage.  The employees affected were typically cleaners, caterers and security staff.  The Living Wage was built into tenders but it was very difficult to get up to the Oxford Living Wage because multi-year contracts were let at a fixed price.  The contracting company would say they were not the employer and were hampered by the contract.  This was typical from big employers who made very significant profits and could afford to pay a living wage.  One of the more effective approaches was to embarrass them.

The Regional Political Officer of Unite the Union said that the challenges were greatest in the traditionally insecure and low paid professions such as retail, construction, catering, etc., because the outsourcing of these services tended to create a race to the bottom.  Since the City Council passed its living wage motion there had been significant changes in employment patterns in South East England, in both the public and private sectors, including the rise of self-employment and insecure employment.  Economic growth had not translated into wage increases.  The access trade unions had to potentially vulnerable workers was very restricted.  The construction sector was a particular challenge due to the casual and short term nature of employment on particular projects.