One in five workers paid less than the living wage: five questions answered

Bar staff, waiters, retail assistants.

A new report from KPMG has revealed nearly five million people receive less than the recommended living wage. We answer five questions on this latest report.

What is the Living Wage?

It’s a rate established as a recommended minimum wage for a basic standard of living and is roughly £1 more than the national minimum wage. In London the recommended Living Wage is £8.30 an hour and in the rest of the UK it’s £7.20.

Why are nearly £5 million people paid less than the recommended Living Wage?

The rate is voluntary unlike the national minimum wage (£6.19 for those over 21) which is law, so employees can request the rate but there is nothing to make an employee pay it.

In what industries do many of these five million people work?

The report says 90 per cent of bar staff and 85 per cent of waiters and waitresses do not get the minimum recommended Living Wage and around 780,000 sales and retail assistants are also missing out.

What areas are the worst affected?

According to the report Northern Ireland has the highest proportion of people earning below the Living Wage with 24% of workers receiving less, followed by Wales at with 23%, with London and the South East of England the lowest, both at 16%.In terms of total numbers, London, the North West of England and the South East of England had the most.

What do the officials say?

Frances O'Grady, the incoming general secretary of the Trade Union Congress (TUC), told the BBC: "It is shocking that in this day and age, one in five workers is still earning less than is needed to maintain a decent standard of living.

"The living wage is not a luxury, and means that low-paid workers do not have to make tough choices over whether they can afford the everyday things that most of us take for granted, such as their fuel bill or a winter coat for their children.

"Many more employers could afford to adopt the living wage, and we hope that many more decide to pay it in the coming months. Now more than ever is the time for employers to put an end to poverty pay."

The wages of bar staff fall short. Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

No, William Hague, there's nothing anti-democratic about opposing Brexit

The former Tory leader appears to be suffering from a bout of amnesia. 

William Hague just made an eyecatching claim in the House of Lords during the debate over Article 50. He attacked those Remainers still seeking to restore Britain’s European Union membership in general and Tony Blair in particular, saying that if he had called on voters to “rise up” against New Labour after he lost the election, Blair would have told him to listen to the voters.

To be fair to Hague, it has been sixteen years since he went down to crushing defeat to Blair, so he may have forgotten some of the details. Happily, the full text of his resignation speech the morning after is still online.

Here’s Hague, 2001:

"The people have spoken. And just as it is vital to encourage everyone to participate in our democracy, so it is important to understand and respect the result. The Labour party have won the election and I have already congratulated them on doing so. But they have done so without great public enthusiasm….It is therefore a vital task for the Conservative party in the coming parliament to hold the government to account for the promises they have made and the trust people have placed in it.”

And here’s Blair, 2017:

“I want to be explicit. Yes, the British people voted to leave Europe. And I agree the will of the people should prevail. I accept right now there is no widespread appetite to re-think. But the people voted without knowledge of the terms of Brexit. As these terms become clear, it is their right to change their mind. Our mission is to persuade them to do so.”

And here’s Blair’s last line which has so offended William Hague:

“This is not the time for retreat, indifference or despair; but the time to rise up in defence of what we believe – calmly, patiently, winning the argument by the force of argument; but without fear and with the conviction we act in the true interests of Britain.”

This is funny, because here’s William Hague’s last line in 2001:

"I wish I could have led you to victory but now we must all work for our victories in the future.”

 Here’s what the “you lost, get over it” crowd have to explain: what is the difference between these two speeches? Both acknowledge a defeat, acknowledge the mountain to climb for the defeated side, but resolve to work harder to secure a better result next time.

It’s particularly galling when you remember that taking Britain back in would not require a second referendum but a third: because the Brexiteers, far from losing in 1975 and getting over it, spent four decades gearing up to take Britain out of the European Union.

There’s a more valid criticism to be had of the value of a continuity Remain campaign which appears to hold many of the people who voted to Leave in distaste. Certainly, at present, the various pro-Remain forces look more like the unattractive fringe that lost in 1975 than the well-disciplined machine that won the replay in 2016. But the fact there was a replay in the first place shows that there’s nothing anti-democratic about continuing to hold on to your beliefs after a defeat. What is anti-democratic is trying to claim that the result of any electoral contest, however narrow or how large, means that everyone who disagreed with you has to shut up and pretend you were right all along. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.