Bill Garriock
Special to The Lake Report

When did it become the role of town council to “provide leadership” to encourage businesses in the private sector to pay what anti-poverty groups advocate is a living wage for all workers?

And why would council, in an open session, discuss and vote on the possible adoption of “a living wage” for the town when it is clearly a compensation issue that should first be discussed under the practice of good corporate governance, particularly when the town has an employee bargaining group?

Because the living wage concept was discussed publicly, and not privately, before the implications of adopting it are clear, there is now likely an expectation that the town should be paying a minimum wage of $18.91 for workers, the amount reported as the living wage for this area. 

The reporting of the council meeting, (“Living wage proposal a divisive issue for council,” The Lake Report, Dec. 2), suggests there is not a clear understanding of the subject matter or the implications of adopting a living wage program.

“A living wage” and “minimum wage” are not the same.

The latter is set by the province and is the minimum that all employers must pay their workers, and it is scheduled to rise to $15 per hour in January in Ontario.

A living wage, on the other hand, is different, and is a different amount for each town and city.

It is designed to let people know the relative cost of living in a particular area.

Living Wage Canada defines it as: “To pay wages to both direct and contract employees that are sufficient to provide the basics to families with children calculated as an hourly rate at which households can meet its basic needs, once government transfers have been added to the family income and deductions have been extracted.”

It is based on two full-time income earners supporting a family of four, including two children, one of which is in full-time daycare and the other in “before and after” child care.

As reported, the 15 to 20 Town of NOTL workers to whom the adoption of a living wage would apply would include camp counsellors, swim and aquatic staff, and library staff. These seem to be different than the criteria outlined above by Living Wage Canada.

We all want everyone to have the opportunity to earn as much as they can to support themselves and their families in their chosen lifestyle.

And if they genuinely need financial help, society should be there for them. Our society is out of balance with respect to the distribution of wealth and that issue needs to be addressed, but it is not the role of our town council to do that and in the process interfere with the rights of those in the private sector who have their own issues to deal with.

The cost to adopt a living wage compensation program will be much more than first evident.

The town has a pay system of grades for each job category and pay bands. These are usually determined by compensation surveys and models that have as their purpose to ensure that employees across the organization are fairly paid both internally and in comparison with other organizations.

Any change has a ripple effect. Many factors are considered, including the value of benefits provided, usually 25 to 30 per cent above the basic hourly wage.

That is the role of council: to set and oversee compensation policy to ensure that employees are fairly and equitably paid. 

But is not the role of council to ensure that all employees in our community are fairly paid, nor to promote “a provincewide push from anti-poverty advocates to secure a living wage for workers.”

And it is not the role, as Coun. Norman Arsenault said, “to encourage businesses to adopt a living wage” or to suggest what they should pay their employees.

Bill Garriock lives in Niagara-on-the-Lake.