Why we should fear the National Living Wage

The term ‘living wage’ may cause the legal minimum to become the going rate for low-skilled work.


Today sees the introduction of the much publicised National Living Wage (NLW). The NLW will be paid to those aged 25 and over, and will be set at £7.20 per hour (with an initial target for it to reach £9 by 2020).

However, unlike the independent living wage set by the Living Wage Foundation, the NLW is not subsistence based.

Rather, the NLW will be set as a proportion of the national median wage, despite the fact that doing so may cause unemployment. This is not the same as the national minimum wage that is set to ensure as many workers as possible are protected from low pay, whilst minimising job losses.

This understanding of minimum wages, as wage floors, is different to that of living wages, which are set against criteria to ensure one can maintain a decent standard of living. What is actually being introduced is a higher national minimum wage.

So why mislead the British public?

One reason reflects the realisation amongst conservatives across Europe that minimum wages are politically useful; their public popularity more than outweighs their potential to cause unemployment.

At home, the Conservatives have bargained that a higher minimum wage will improve their support amongst working class voters.

The NLW is set to increase the pay of up to one in four workers in poorer parts of Britain, providing a firm foundation for the development of ‘blue collar’ conservatism, with its appeal to ‘aspirational’ voters and our new ‘high-wage, low-welfare’ economy.

Considerations of semantics and politicking aside, there are genuine concerns amongst employers and workers that the NLW will hinder the effectiveness of a statutory system that is widely considered to be the most advanced in the world.

A common response from businesses when faced with higher wages is that in order to adjust they will have to make redundancies. Decades of research has shown that job losses directly attributable to increases in minimum wages are minimal. Suggestions by the British Retail Consortium that up to 900,000 jobs could be lost by 2025 as a consequence of the NLW and other pressures are no doubt exaggerated.

Unusually, it is disquiet amongst small and medium sized businesses that is making the headlines.

Sectors such as agriculture and social care, where between 60 and 70 per cent of total business turnover is spent on labour costs, have warned that in order to remain competitive they will have to reduce employment.

They argue that adjustment channels such as investing in productivity improvements are not possible without support from local or central government. Safeguards for such industries, as have been introduced in other countries (e.g. Germany), have not been forthcoming.

Workers themselves are somewhat ambivalent. Although the increase returns the minimum wage to its real value before 2008, it will initially be less than two-thirds of the national median wage and is thus still a low wage by international standards.

Moreover, the labelling of the NLW as a ‘living wage’ has raised concerns the new legal minimum will become the ‘going rate of pay’ for low-skilled work.

As ‘normalisation’ occurs, it becomes increasingly difficult for workers to justify higher pay without trade union representation.

What’s happening to Britain’s minimum wage? Such issues are not in keeping with its reputation as the pinup of statutory systems. The answer lies in the way the NLW was announced and the possible future direction of the Low Pay Commission (LPC).

The surprise inclusion of the NLW in last summer’s budget by George Osborne was made without the consultation of the LPC. The role of the body responsible for setting the minimum wage has been further undermined by the government’s introduction of a target for its future level.

What use are the LPC’s recommendations if targets are to be set in advance? For employers and workers, the conciliatory and evidence-based approach of the LPC would have gone a long way towards allaying some of the fears now expressed.

This point cuts to the real danger of the NLW: the replacement of social partner cooperation with government unilateralism in setting minimum wages will fundamentally alter the operation of the LPC.

As an example of Blue Labour thinking, the success of the current system is a result of the agreement it seeks to foster. What industrial democracy there is in Britain is being undermined without protest.

We should be asking why these issues haven’t been raised by those in the shadow cabinet, in particular Angela Eagle, and press them to do so. However, the launch of Consensus – with the backing of Jon Cruddas – raises hope for the defence and future promotion of Blue Labour institutions such as the LPC.

What was initially indignation at a policy mis-sold to millions is slowly turning into fear for the future of a system that was one of New Labour’s greatest achievements.

George Wilson is a doctoral candidate at the University of Leeds, focusing on minimum wages and employment law. He tweets as part of @Lex_Laboris

Like this article? Sign up to Left Foot Forward's weekday email for the latest progressive news and comment - and support campaigning journalism by making a donation today.

4 Responses to “Why we should fear the National Living Wage”

  1. wg

    What a load of mealy-mouthed waffle – Labour set a minimum wage and every multi-national, multi-million pound profit-making company duly came down to it; and those low wages were bailed out by the tax credit system paid for by the tax payer.

    We also saw a large influx of migrant workers – who’s wages at home were lower than the minimum wage, and could live in a five-to-a-room style – push out the indigenous unemployed families due to those unemployed making the understandable choice of opting for a generous welfare system paying more than the minimum wage.

    I would suggest that George Wilson – who “..is a doctoral candidate at the University of Leeds, focusing on minimum wages and employment law.” – actually spends some time working on a building site or in a shipyard, if he can push in front of the hordes, that is.

  2. Dr LJB Hayes

    Thank goodness for doctoral students! A thoroughly well informed and insightful analysis which hits the nail on the head. Minimum wage legislation was introduced by New Labour as a response to the Tory project of dismantling collective bargaining/wages councils which had left the UK as a haven of low wage employment. However, the minimum wage project stalled after 2006 and the level of protection on offer collapsed following the financial crisis. Low wages are not only harmful to the low waged, they damage the economy more broadly. The NLW is a swizz which will reinforce justification for the ‘minimum’ to be regarded as the ‘just’ (particularly with regard to the employment of working class women). It is no substitute for the sectoral collective bargaining that the UK economy so desperately needs.

  3. Fleck

    Hi, wg. Could you please tell me the exact point at which this article becomes, “mealy-mouthed waffle”. As we know all migrant workers will accept the five to a room compromise if the ten to a room option is no longer available.
    “Push out the indigenous unemployed families due to those unemployed making the understandable choice of opting for a generous welfare system paying more than the minimum wage.” This is straight Daily Mail speak. Instead of spending all your time on building sites and shipyards, why don’t you try living on the “generous welfare system”. Let’s hope your not disabled as well as being on benefits.

  4. Brexit could cut value of National Living Wage by 40p an hour | Left Foot Forward

    […] considering that the NLW was developed and launched last summer without meaningful consultation with the Low Pay Commission, further unilateral action by the government is not […]

Leave a Reply