James Ashton: The Living Wage is welcome but it could be bad for business

The new measure could have adverse effects for both start-ups and firms offering lower-skilled employment
More food for thought: George Osborne increased the Living Wage for workers in his Budget speech
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
James Ashton9 July 2015
WEST END FINAL

Get our award-winning daily news email featuring exclusive stories, opinion and expert analysis

I would like to be emailed about offers, event and updates from Evening Standard. Read our privacy notice.

Back in March, when I interviewed the boss of McDonald’s, talk turned to wages. Despite tough competition for the burger chain — think Five Guys, Byron, Honest Burger, Gourmet Burger Kitchen et al — it had recorded 36 quarters of growing sales in the UK. And despite the myriad eating-out choices in London, the Golden Arches’ market share remains bigger here than the rest of the country.

So if trading was so good, would the company consider paying its staff more? Jill McDonald — the since departed executive — wasn’t keen. New joiners, she explained, started “a bit” above the minimum wage of £6.50 an hour for over-21s and had two pay reviews in the first year. As for the London living wage of £9.15 an hour, she described it as a “lovely idea” but McDonald’s found it “simply unaffordable, like many retailers and hospitals”. Yesterday, that “lovely idea” became a reality, with a “living wage” of £7.20 an hour from next April, rising to £9 by 2020. There are caveats. Osborne’s “living wage” isn’t as generous as it seems. It begins at 50p higher than the minimum wage, and only for over-25s not over-21s.

Pay rises have been elusive as the economic recovery took hold. As far back as last November, John Cridland, the CBI director-general who speaks for business, expressed surprise that wage growth hadn’t happened yet and, in the interests of fairness, it must. By February, it was David Cameron, knowing he had an election to win, who issued a clarion call to reward workers. Yet wage growth only began to outpace inflation when inflation plummeted thanks to falling oil and food prices — a global phenomenon distinct from British chief executives’ generosity.

On the face of it, fixing wage levels is little better than Ed Miliband’s threat to fix energy bills. Business leaders like as few political interventions in their world as possible. Because they failed to act, Osborne is acting for them, trading higher basic wages for lower in-work benefits with the sweetener of corporation tax falling once again.

The Chancellor brandished research that suggested minimum wage increases had had a minimal impact on employment levels but they had led to fewer hours worked — which might implicitly lead to productivity improvement. Few believe higher pay converts automatically to higher productivity. The flow is the other way around.

If firms have to pay more, they might make less investment in training and pour less money into the latest machinery and computers — two acts that do boost productivity. It also erodes the competitive advantage of one employer that chooses to pay more than another — a key issue in the capital, where the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry reported this week that 57 per cent of firms looking for new staff encountered difficulties in finding suitably skilled workers.

And even if it is effective, the five years it will take for the new living wage to reach £9 an hour is still a quick fix when the tougher, longer-term alternative is to tool up the next generation with 21st-century skills.

Thinking he could offset the cost of higher wages with lower corporation tax suggests Osborne has wonky scales. Not all organisations are created equal. The Living Wage is of little interest to science-based firms whose highly-skilled, highly-paid workforce fit into the Government’s vision of a knowledge economy. It was of little consequence for Mark Carney to pledge to the Trades Union Congress last September that the Bank of England would be an accredited Living Wage employer by the time of the same conference this year — even though his pledge included bringing contracted service staff up to the London Living Wage.

But it causes a headache for lower-skilled, labour-intensive firms such as retailers. Living Wage campaigners had a strong presence at Marks & Spencer’s annual shareholders meeting on Tuesday. The chairman, Robert Swannell, made encouraging noises about the cause but did not commit to joining it. Unless Osborne’s diverted-profits tax — the Google tax by another name — has a quick impact, it threatens to put bricks and mortar retailers at a further disadvantage to web retailers who retain a far smaller workforce.

Then there is the disparity between small and large firms. Multinational companies pay a disproportionately large amount of all corporation tax. Small firms, many likely to be start-ups, factor in several years of losses to reach a critical mass. The feedback yesterday was that a hike in the National Insurance employment allowance didn’t do enough to defray the cost of the living wage for them. Start-ups might recruit less.

Some bosses I spoke to said the Living Wage level imposed on them would become a new benchmark around which low pay congregates, with the result that more staff proportionately would sit within the lowest pay bracket to compensate the firm. There is more: the promotions ladder would concertina so that workers would think twice about taking on extra responsibility if it meant little more money. It could mean demotivated staff stick with lower skills for longer.

Companies including McDonald’s —whose model is complicated by the fact that most of its branches operate under a franchise system — argue that there is more to employment than just wages. In the burger chain’s case, there is training, free meals and discounted driving lessons. There are also 17 applicants for every job advertised. That is an argument for the birds now.

Yet I can’t help thinking there are two ways to tackle the particular crisis hitting those who struggle in the capital. One is to forcibly increase their income; the other is to drive down costs. Osborne chose the former but he could have looked harder at the latter. If the Chancellor was able to solve the capital’s lack of affordable housing, the single biggest cost for most young Londoners he could even be forgiven for leaving London trailing in the fiscal devolution stakes.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in