Pay rise ought to be commended

August 17, 2016

Spark is  introducing a benchmark salary above which its staff are paid.

All non-commission full-time staff will earn at least $40,000 a year, and front-line commission employees who earn a lower base salary will earn an average of $42,000.

If compared to the current living wage of $19.80 an hour, $40,000 a year minimum falls short at $19.23 an hour.

Spark general manager of human resources Danielle George said the company wanted to “do the right thing” for its staff and attract the best talent, as well as contribute to turning New Zealand into a higher wage economy. . . 

“We have revised our entire value proposition, exploring how we can best deliver base pay and meaningful benefits, all designed to meet the needs of a very diverse workforce.”

The new Spark pay policy has benefited more than 250 staff who have received pay increases over the past two years to bring them up to the new level. . . 

That ought to be cause for commendation but the Council of Trade Unions’ Richard Wagstaff doesn’t think so:

“Their $40,000 salary that they’re promoting is actually a little under the living wage which doesn’t really inspire too much in terms of fair pay for people.”

Spark says the pay scheme is a commitment to a higher-wage economy, and once you take into account staff benefits, the overall package is better than the living wage.

“We want to do the right thing for our people and to attract the best people to a career in Spark,” says general manager of human resources Danielle George.

“If that sets a standard that encourages others to follow, that’s got to be a good thing for New Zealand.”

Benefits include credit towards Spark products and services, life and income insurance, flexible working arrangements and interest-free loans to buy company shares. . .

Spark is offering more than $4.00 an hour more than the minimum wage which is $15.25.

Paying that is a legal requirement and it’s reviewed each year, taking into account that increasing it could price some people out of jobs and threaten some businesses. The living wage is an artificial construct which takes no account of what’s affordable.

Another union, the PSA is praising three Wellington mayoral candidates who support the living wage:

The PSA held a forum for candidates which was attended by Justin Lester, Jo Coughlan, Helene Ritchie, Keith Johnson, Andy Foster, Nicola Young and Nick Leggett.

Mr Lester, Ms Ritchie and Mr Leggett confirmed they support the Living Wage for all council workers, including those employed through contractors and council-controlled organisations.

“We’re extremely pleased to hear three candidates plan to build on the good work already done by Wellington City Council towards making this a fairer city”, PSA National Secretary Glenn Barclay says.

“The PSA decided to hold this forum to hear from the candidates first-hand about their vision for Wellington – including their stance on local ownership of local services and privatisation.

“Wellington City Council has already taken great strides towards becoming New Zealand’s first accredited Living Wage council since it voted to do so in 2013.
“We know this has the backing of Wellington’s voters – what’s now needed is a mayor and a council that will deliver on the promises and finish the job.”

Do voters really support that and if they do, are they happy to be rated more to pay for it?

Unlike the minimum wage, the living wage takes no account of the value of work being done or the danger that some businesses couldn’t survive if they were forced to pay it.

It’s also based on what a vicar thinks a family of four needs to participate in society which ignores the fact that not everyone has to support a family of four on their wages, and if they do Working For Families would give them a generous top-up if they were on a low wage.

New Zealand isn’t a high-wage economy and that’s a weakness. But the solution is increased productivity and upskilling, not the job-threatening imposition of the so-called living wage.


Delusion and hypocrisy

December 14, 2013

Mike Hosking’s award for for financial delusion using other people’s money goes to the Wellington City Council committee which voted for the living wage plan.

. . . Let’s just work through how this will unfold. Wellington City Council will pay their contractors their perception of this ‘living wage’. What then happens is two fold.

Firstly everyone else who does similar work will want the same pay rate, thus putting pressure on companies that can’t afford it given they don’t have the luxury of a fiscal well that can be drawn from at any given moment. Spending money is always easy when it isn’t your own.

After that happens, everyone will want more because you will have created a fiscal distortion in the workplace. And once everyone has stuck their hand up, all of a sudden it won’t be a living wage anymore. It will just be a wage that lots of people get. And given they’ve got it, they’ll spend it. And when they spend it, it will drive inflation up, which will lead to price increases, which will lead to the same clowns who started it saying “jeez, that wage isn’t going as far as it used to, so we’ll top it up again”. . .

 Anyway, the upshot is all this is going to do is add a cost to doing business. When you do that, the consumer ends up paying or people start losing their jobs. . .

If businesses want to adopt a living wage for their employees, that’s their business and their money.

Councils have very little of their own money. They might make a bit more from council owned companies and recover costs from some activities but most of what they have is what’s earned by and paid to them by ratepayers.

Some of them are businesses which might want to pay their own staff more but can’t afford to do so.

One of the businesses that doesn’t is owned by a councillor who voted for the policy:

It wasn’t within the rules, but new councillor Nicola Young attempted to make a point about the living wage with an amendment yesterday.

Before voting against the living wage plan, Ms Young tried to move “that all councillors who support implementation of the living wage assure us that they will pay the living wage to their employees – including cleaners, baby-sitters, gardeners – with the same implementation date as Wellington City Council”.

The move followed fellow fresh councillor Mark Peck – who supported the living wage – admitting that he did not pay all his hospitality staff $18.40 – “and I won’t”. . .

Jordan Williams of the Taxpayers Union responded:

“Some councillors supported charging ratepayers more to pay a living wage for council employees when they won’t do the same for their own staff.”
 
“In the case of Cr Mark Peck his reported comments suggest that he can afford to pay his hospitality staff a living wage but just ‘won’t’.”
 
“That is shameful. He is happy for Wellington ratepayers, including those living in poverty, to pay more for something he doesn’t see the value of.”
 
“It’s a case of hypocritical politicians spending other people’s money on something they won’t. So much for Cr Peck being a steward of ratepayers’ money.”

So there we have it the financially deluded and hypocritical are running the capital city.

Those of us who live there can only hope the delusion and hypocrisy is stopped at the full council meeting and the rest of us will hope it doesn’t spread any further.


%d bloggers like this: