Haringey Council to Pay London Living Wage

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Narendra Makanji on November 8, 2013 at 8:32

The cleaning staff at CONEL in Tottenham are protesting today, Friday, for a living wage. Come on CONEL, catch up!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on November 8, 2013 at 9:33

Joe Goldberg, Haringey's Cabinet member for Finance has told me that Haringey have been Living Wage employers since 2010.

He commented on our Facebook page: "We have paid Living Wage since 2010. We do more than most. We not only pay LLW but i wrote it into our procurement policy which is even more important. For reasons that are way too thin to go into we are not accredited by London Citizens, but we do more than is required from themFor reasons that are way too thin to go into we are not accredited by London Citizens, but we do more than is required from them".

I'm not too clues up on the ins and outs of what the difference of opinion is, but I have been trying to keep something of an eye on this issue for the past few years and I'd quite forgotten that I'd submitted an FOI on this issue a coupe of years ago. Reported here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Helen on November 9, 2013 at 10:03

Spoke to a Haringey Veolia streetsweeper this morning who said he and other agency were paid the minimum wage.  Groundwork staff who work in LBH parks and housing estates also do not get the LLW.  Groundwork were even using workfare schemes (unpaid labour) earlier this year - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/jsa_work_placements#incoming...

I suspect this (and other outsourced services not paying the LLW) probably explains why Haringey are not accredited.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Schmitz on November 9, 2013 at 2:01

I am glad that the Council is pledging itself to pay the London Living Wage.

However, I believe that it is inaccurate to claim that it has been doing this since 2010.

At the time of the 2012 debate over the Council's budget (28th February) the council employed 973.4 people on Grades Sc 1 to Sc 5 who earned between £14,697 and £23,277 a year. It also employed 2.6 people on manual grade who earned a mere £11,757.

£14,697 divided by 52 yielded £282.63 a week which in turn yielded £7.85 for a 36 hour week. or 45 pence an hour below the then London Living Wage for those at the bottom of Grades Sc 1 to 5.

In response to this situation, the Liberal Democrat group proposed a budget amendment that would have allowed a bonus that year of £250 for the persons on the lowest pay scale, as well as for all other members of staff earning less than £23,000 a year, and we proposed allocating £250,000 to pay for it. This bonus was intended to reflect a bonus of £250 paid by the central government to civil servants who earned less than £21,000 a year.

Our amendment, like all budget amendments, was placed before independent Council officials in advance in order to ensure its affordability, but despite the fact that it was judged affordable, the Labour group voted it down.

These points have been aired in an earlier discussion on this site http://www.harringayonline.com/forum/topics/844301:Topic:431254

There is a related question of whether contractors who supply services to the Council are paying the London Living Wage, and if not whether the Council is effectively using its purchasing power to pressure those contractors into paying it. European procurement directives do have an impact on precisely what Councils can do about this, and in early 2012 I corresponded briefly with Cllr Goldberg on the subject. While the Council has had some success with its contractors (in particular with regard to security staff) It would be useful if we could now have a more general progress report about this.

David Schmitz

Liberal Democrat Councillor for Harringay Ward

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Helen on November 9, 2013 at 11:22

Part of the problem could be resolved if the Council reviewed its decision to adopt a different 'price tag' for job evaluations to that used across the rest of London.  The details and implications of this were probably never drawn to Councillors' attention by the highly paid officers who devised them.   This entrenched overpayment for higher graded staff at the expense of lower graded staff. For example in order to reach Scale 2 you have to get 299 points under the GLPC scheme, but 326 under the Haringey scheme.  Scale 2 meets the LLW whereas Scale 1 doesn't.   Meanwhile, at the top end you need less points to reach a higher grade under the Haringey price tag.  If a job is evaluated at 696 points, under the GLPC price tag you would be on Grade PO6, whereas under the Haringey price tag you'd be on PO8 (about £7000 more).

This obvious disadvantage to low paid workers is made worse by the fact that it is much harder for low paid jobs to achieve points in the first place as factors are not weighted equally.  For example the maximum number of points awardable for physical demands is 24, while the maximum number for knowledge and skills is 272.

Details of the scheme can be seen by visiting this page

and click the link under under 'additional documents'
  GP_2008.09.29_Agenda Item 10_Equal Pay_Appendix, item 26
on p18 you'll see the price tag adopted by Haringey and how it differs to the Greater London
scheme. 

• ▶ Reply