Companies gain by paying living wage
The Daily Courier (Vernon)
November 20, 2008 
By: Seth Klein, Deborah Littman, Adrienne Montani and Tim Richards

Families who work for low wages often face impossible choices: buy clothes or heat the house, feed the children or pay the rent.

The result can be spiralling debt, constant anxiety and long-term health problems. Parents not earning a living wage work long hours, often at two or three jobs, just to pay for basic necessities, leaving little time to spend with family or participate fully in their communities.

In B.C., the contradiction between a strong economy and growing economic insecurity is especially stark.

B.C. has the highest child poverty rate in Canada, and over half of B.C.'s poor children live in families where at least one person works full-time.

A living wage is one of the most powerful tools available to address this troubling state of poverty amid plenty.

The living wage is not the same as the legislated minimum wage. Rather, it is a challenge to those who are able, especially large public- and private-sector employers, to pay their direct staff and major contractors a wage that is based on the actual costs of living and raising children in a specific community.

Our recent report, Working for a Living Wage 2008, calculates that the living wage for Vancouver is $16.74 per hour, and for Victoria, $16.39. The calculation includes basic expenses for a family of two parents and two children, where both parents are working fulltime, and incorporates government taxes, credits and subsidies. Our living wage calculation is also enough for a single parent with one child, although a single parent with two children would have a much tougher time.

The living wage is a bare-bones budget, without the extras many of us take for granted, such as debt payments, or savings for retirement or education. And the amounts budgeted for recreation and emergencies are modest.

Living wage movements have been gaining ground over the past 20 years in the UK, the U.S. and a number of Canadian cities.

In 2004, the city of London, England became a living wage employer. And London's new Conservative mayor has declared that paying the living wage is good for business and good for the London economy.

A growing number of UK corporate employers have also adopted the living wage, including HSBC Bank, KPMG, and Price Waterhouse Coopers. And the 2012 London Games will be the first living-wage Olympics.

These employers have found important benefits to paying a living wage: improved recruitment and retention; higher productivity; and being able to market oneself as a living wage employer.

But the living wage is not just about employers.

Government policies and programs also have an impact on our standard of living, and as a result, on the living wage. Direct government transfers can put money into the pockets of low-income families. However, most government transfers and subsidies are reduced or eliminated once a family reaches an income well below the living wage.

The living wage is also affected by public services. A public child-care system, affordable housing and lower public transit fares would all decrease the amount employers need to pay in order to provide a living wage.

If employers feel unable to pay the living wage, but remain committed to ending child poverty, then they should become advocates for these kinds of policy changes.