Beyond the bottom line: The challenges and opportunities of a living wage
Article
IPPR's major report asks what role public policy should play in supporting progress on the living wage, the campaign for which has exemplified the power of bottom-up organisation.
Eleven years after it was revived by a broad-based community campaign in East London, the living wage is now an established fixture of our national policy debate. Yet in some senses, living wages have generated more heat than light, and as the living wage concept begins to attract serious scrutiny, the time is ripe for a far more rigorous and informed discussion.
What is the role of public policy in supporting progress on the living wage? The living wage campaign exemplifies the power of bottom-up organisation, and this must remain at the heart of the living wage idea. Yet there is a clear role for public policy in supporting civil society.
Recommendations and proposals in this report focus on:
- Encouraging living wage leadership within the public sector
- Using the procurement power of national and local government to extend living wage coverage
- Supporting the take-up of living wages among large private sector employers
- Incentivising living wage coverage among small and medium-sized enterprises
- Strengthening the living wage campaign
Related items
Taken to heart: Inequalities in heart disease in Scotland
More than 7.6 million people across the UK live with cardiovascular disease (CVD), around twice as many as live with Alzheimer’s disease and cancer combined.Skills passports: An essential part of a fair transition
This month, government will publish its Clean Energy Workforce Strategy. This plan covers two aims. First, filling the growing demand for skills in clean energy industries is essential to keep on track to reach the government’s clean power…Fixing the leak: How to end the £22 billion annual taxpayer losses at the Bank of England
The Bank of England increased its interest rates over recent years, aimed at reducing inflation. But this has also had an unintended effect on the Bank of England’s massive government bond buying – ‘quantitative easing’ – programme.