Do City Councillors have the courage to do the right thing?
Keep
Our Asserts Canterbury (KOA) is pleased the Council has finally released one of
the reports prepared by its staff on the Living Wage before a debate and vote
at this Thursday’s council meeting.
It
is deeply disappointing the Council refused to release this report (and other
reports still hidden from the public) to enable Christchurch citizens to
discuss the proposal. As things stand we have had three years of delays, secret
meetings, withheld information and obfuscation from senior Council staff and
some elected representatives.
It
seems clear that business lobby groups, Treasury, senior Council staff and the
Mayor are strongly opposed to the introduction of the Living Wage for those
employed to do Council work.
Democracy
has always been an irritant to supporters of neo-liberalism who would prefer to
stifle debate rather than face community expectations.
The
picture which faces the Council this week is a simple one; while it seems clear
the majority of Councillors and the wider public support introduction of
the Living Wage, the tone of the senior staff report is deeply antagonistic to
the Living Wage. It conjures up a long list of “risks” and potential
“difficulties” while ignoring the reality of the direct experiences from
overseas where councils have introduced the Living Wage without the sky falling
in. The writers are so hostile to the concept that they didn’t even bother to
consider the implications of including VBase staff or employees of Council
contractors in the proposal.
The
report canvasses the opinions of well-paid business leaders and Treasury
officials but community opinion and the views of those who would benefit from
the proposal are ignored. KOA for example was
never
consulted despite raising this as an issue of serious concern in the 2016
mayoralty campaign when our candidate John Minto spoke on the issue to
widespread acclaim from audiences across the city. During that campaign we
argued that the policy could be paid for by managing down senior staff salaries
at the Council, which have sky rocketed in recent decades.
It
is especially disappointing to see well-paid senior staff decrying the cost of
implementation of the Living Wage for directly employed staff (a relatively
modest $775,000) and highlighting the fact that no budget provision has been
made for this. This is a cynical comment when several years have passed since
the issue was raised with the Council.
It
also contrasts sharply with the very recent secret Council meeting to approve
an unbudgeted $10 million grant towards the restoration of Christchurch
Cathedral or the earlier decision to give $300,000 of ratepayer money to
wealthy developer Antony Gough to make his $150 million development energy
efficient.
In
short, if there is a will on the part of Councillors to implement the Living
Wage, then there is a way to include it in the budget immediately.
We
urge Councillors to implement the Living Wage in full this week for directly
employed staff and insist on an urgent report from staff, including a financial
proposal, to implement it also for VBase staff and employees of Council
contractors. This would represent a clean break by the Council from the
strictures of neo-liberalism which has led to a much more deeply divided city
over the past 30 years.
In
taking this action we suggest Councillors look no further than the example of
the National government which recently agreed to a billion-dollar settlement
for low-paid care workers. This was not phased in as a half-baked policy but
was simply announced and implemented in full. The Christchurch City Council
should do the same with the Living Wage.
The
Council’s role is not to be diverted by scaremongering by vested interests who
are happy with growing inequality and an ever-smaller share of GDP going to
workers.
The
Christchurch City Council’s job is to ensure that everyone employed, directly
or indirectly, to do council work is paid at a rate that enables them to participate
as citizens with the dignity and respect that comes from being paid reasonable
wages.
Yes
some groups will complain about this policy but low-paid workers will celebrate
and the Christchurch City Council will have done the right thing towards a
fairer, less unequal city.
