As UNISON marks Living Wage Week (3-9 November), the union is proud to have won the living wage for Cambridge council employees this year. Sadly this has not been extended to contracted-out services. Thu union points out tat GLL, the new managers of the city’s leisure centres, are condemning staff to the poverty pay of the minimum wage – and removing their free membership of the leisure centres, which allowed staff to maintain a level of fitness necessary for their work and ensured that staff on the lowest incomes could afford to union the facilities.
UNISON has already won back staff’s right to a free swim which GLL initially removed in breach of their contract.
But the company insists that that charging some of the poorest workers in Cambridge £156 a year to use the other facilities in their workplace is fair. With around 200 employees in the city, GLL could make an additional £30,000 a year purely from their own staff.
UNISON believes that taking money out of the already empty pockets of the citys lowest paid workers is cynical and unethical. This is a pay cut in real terms. until a Living wage is paid, the union believes GLL should reinstate the staff membership benefit.
“It is shocking that the council did not make this a living wage contract,” says UNISON branch organiser Gerry Robinson.
“There are numerous living wage contracts in action across the country and you only have to look at the Greater London Authority to see some good examples. Cambridge City Councillors need to stop their excuses and start enforcing some political will.
“This year’s Living Wage Week would be a good time for the council to make its intentions clear over this and any future contracts and stand up for the everyday people that help to keep the city fit and active.
Staff are afraid to speak out publicly, but a UNISON member on the minimum wage stated: “I will no longer be able to afford to take my children to use the sports hall.
“With SLM [the previous contract holders], it was free for me to book so I could go with them, but I cannot afford to pay for membership. The kids will have to go without.”
Another member said: “Health and fitness is my business and keeping fit is part of the job.
“I also need to be able to show staff how the equipment works and recommend different pieces on personal experience.
“GLL will potentially end up with overweight, unfit staff working in the city’s centres because they can’t afford to use the equipment ourselves. Free use is a benefit to both employer and staff in this industry.
They can’t expect us to put up with such bad wages and then take away the one thing that makes the job bearable.”
Daniel Zeichner, Labour parliamentary candidate, added: ”I’ve been working with UNISON, Labour councillors and students on the living wage campaign for a number of years – and we’ve had some success.
“Ed Miliband will announce plans during Living Wage Week to put the issue at the heart of Labour’s election campaign, and in Cambridge I want us to be ambitious and transform ambridge into a living wage city.”
Notes
- The campaign for a living wage is being rolled out across UNISON’s Eastern region.
- GLL (Greenwich Leisure Limited) is a social enterprise whose public name is BETTER
- GLL is charging staff £13 per month to use facilities which have been always been free to use. With around 200 staff, this amounts to over £31,000 if they all join the membership scheme.
- 40% of staff at the leisure centres are paid below the living wage.
- The living wage is an hourly rate set independently and updated annually by the Living Wage Foundation, which providse advice, support and accreditation to living wage employers. The rate is calculated according to the basic cost of living. Outside London, it was set at £7.65 an hour on Monday 4 Movember at the the start of Living Wage Week. At the same time Greater London Authority set the rate for London at £8.80 an hour.
- Cambridge is a high-cost area and many staff cannot afford to live in the city where they work. Travel into the city is high cost and can be challenging.
- Half of all children (58%) in poverty live in homes where at least one of the adults work. (Department for Work and Pensions, 2012, Households Below Average Income 2010/2011. Figures are after housing costs.)
- Families with children are more likely to experience working poverty than those without. A large part of the problem is that many families are surviving on low pay in jobs where there is little chance of progressing. This means that low-paid workers tend to stay low-paid, which keeps them trapped in poverty. Barnardos report (external link, opens in new window).
- Anecdotal evidence from existing living wage employers suggests the benefits are: productivity increases associated with higher effort, cost savings on recruitment and induction training, reduced absenteeism, lower staff turnover, improved workplace morale, motivation and commitment. (What price a living wage? Understanding the impact of a living wage on firm-level wage bills. IPPR 2012)
