News

'Living Wage' Cities in Canada May Double, to Two

Esquimalt councilor says assuring adequate local government pay rates is a winner.

By Andrew MacLeod, 30 Sep 2010, TheTyee.ca

Esquimalt township

Esquimalt, BC: Controversial policy expected to pass.

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

Related

The Township of Esquimalt may become the second local government in Canada to adopt a living wage policy, where people doing work for the local government are paid enough to survive and thrive in the community.

While the topic makes some local politicians nervous, others say it's a winner in their communities and it deserves to become a trend.

The matter is still before Esquimalt council, but councilor Bruce McIldon told a Union of British Columbia Municipalities meeting that he was confident it will pass. "We will be the second community to come onside in Canada. It's a very positive thing."

While some councilors in the Victoria-area municipality have been nervous about endorsing it, he said, young people and blue collar workers understand and like the idea of paying enough to cover the basic necessities including groceries, transportation, shelter, childcare and education.

The motion in Esquimalt builds on the work of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which is encouraging local governments to become living wage employers, and follows a similar move in New Westminster. There is also a union-funded Make a Livin' campaign underway.

The CCPA calculates that a living wage is $18.17 an hour in Vancouver and $17.30 in Victoria. It also has published a resource book to help other municipalities figure out what a living wage is in their communities.

Of the 1,500 delegates at the UBCM conference, around 30 attended the breakfast time session.

New West leading the way

New Westminster councilor Jaime McEvoy acknowledged the issue can be a scary one for local governments.

He said he has been accused of the contradictory crimes of both bankrupting the city and not actually helping anyone. They've also been accused of driving up wages in the city, he said.

"Governments have never been neutral on salaries," he said. The wages they pay have always affected the labour market, he said. They pay their executives well, he noted, and always look carefully at the salaries for councilors and mayors.

"It's only for the group of people at the bottom that we don't worry about what they're making or how they're doing," he said.

And when it's explained as being a way to address child poverty, which is associated with problems such as poor performance in school and various health risks, it finds wider acceptance, he said. While people might argue about minimum wage and increasing welfare payments, when it comes to children, "It's never the kid's fault."

In New Westminster the living wage applies to people working directly for the city, as well as contractors who spend a significant amount of time on city property. Most city employees were already paid decently, so bringing everyone up to a living wage cost just $20,000 more a year, he said. Helping contractors, and it turned out there were 60 or 70 of them doing everything from maintaining street lights to shredding paper, meet the wage requirement required another $150,000 in increased payments.

Cities often give business to the lowest bidder, he said. "Then you're part of the problem and we were part of the problem, to be honest."

The move found broad community support, but it took a long time to get people used to the idea, he said. "It was really a nine month process of introducing the idea and getting to the point where we were ready to move forward."

'Make it an issue'

While many of the attendees at the session voiced support for the idea, they said they would find it difficult to convince their colleagues and communities. As one put it, "This is a tough sell for a lot of people here."

McEvoy said that while it's a touchy issue, it's been one the municipality has been able to lead on. "It's a winning issue," he said. "It's very popular with people on the street."

The CCPA's B.C. director, Seth Klein, said it is true that there will be resistance in many communities. "It's not for no reason that there's [only] one municipality in Canada that's become a living wage employer."

But in New Westminster's case the response has turned out to be positive, he said, with even the corporate press saying nice things about it. Now, besides Esquimalt, groups or councils in Abbotsford, Parksville and Williams Lake are looking at adopting a living wage policy.

Politicians are in a position to build support for it, he added. "I'm a policy guy, not a political strategist, but allow me this: Make it an issue a year from November." [Tyee]

Andrew MacLeod is The Tyee's Legislative Bureau Chief in Victoria. Reach him here.

12 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Fiat lux

    1 year ago

    How is it that before the

    How is it that before the present great, wealth creating market economic theory, globalization, free trade, the free movement of capital, the WTO and the rest of these criminal activities, people have been earning decent wages, we had no foodbanks, no homeless, one breadwinner per family was enough, and children grew up in homes, instead of daycares ?

    We could also buy clothes and other products that lasted and our garbage was next to nothing.

    Does anybody every think of how the world is being screwed by a criminal element using fraudulent theories to steal, rob, enslave and kill millions every year, and get away with it with governments kissing the asses of the biggest criminals in history ?

    Ed Deak.

  • morechatter

    1 year ago

    A Living wage

    So does that mean everyone else is given enough money to drop dead? Pretty much just give your local MLA a call an expect to be put on hold, but please don't hold your breath making the MLA's job that much easier as its the living end for most folks as food is no longer a must in Canada as the low income young and old are given the thumbs down.

  • sdgreen

    1 year ago

    Government is the Problem

    Ed Deak hits the nail with accuracy. I really think that Government is the problem with taxation and fees at all levels Federal, Provincial and Local just sky rocketing. According to recent studies, the Affordability index for Greater Victoria is just over $60,000 per annum, and somewhat more for Greater Vancouver to pay for accommodation, food, utilities, transportation and taxation. This means that it takes two or more to tango to pay for basic needs and taxes.

    How the CCPA came up with the $17 or $18 / hr wage is curious, and I think quite low.

    However, it is absolutely clear that taxation/fees apllied by governments is just totally out of control nearly doubling over that last five years or so. There needs to be a massive re-adjustment, with either wages going up or the cost of governments going down.

    At one time a family could survive quite well on a single wage, to pay for food, housing, cars, family building etc. but no longer. Governments are taking 50% or more out of your paycheck these days and that is increasing.

    I am not totally convinced that governments should be the ones to do the liveable wage; generally very few government jobs are involved. Government senior personnel salaries in my view are a little too high for my liking.

    The minimum wage issue is a bigger one, which in my view should be abolished and replaced with one that allows a reasonable return in order to survive. Perhaps a 'guarenteed income' approach should be considered not only for those just starting out in life, those in Post Secondary schools, those on Pensions or with no pensions at all, and those considered on welfare or are disabled. These incomes would also have to be measured relative to any increase to the cost of living. However, governments would have to completely re-think their expenditures, and or produce effective policies to expand national/provincial economies to bring in greater revenues.

  • G West

    1 year ago

    @sdgreen

    I think you need to look a little more closely at the items in every family's basket of goods each month....the real problem isn't taxes and fees, it is the cost of housing.

    Vancouver happens to be the most expensive place in the world - relative to wages - to live and that's because affording a decent home will require about 70% of an average family income.If that family is making the miniumm wage - forget about it.

    Government is responsible for some of 'that' problem, but far from all of it.

  • sdgreen

    1 year ago

    @GWest

    I don't argue that housing is not part of the problem; it is! Indeed the cost of housing has been increasing at a rapid rate and a very large portion of that cost is caused by large developement fees, inspection fees, taxes and red tape imposed by governments especially at the Provincial and Local levels. Many regulations add to the cost that are really not required.

    Quite frankly when looks at the 'Affordability Index' (in Victoria) a person needs a minimum of just over $60,000 just to live a normal life. Vancouver Mainland is a tad over the Victoria figure.

    I am also not too certain that Statistics Canada really looks at a lot of stuff in the family 'cost' basket either. The latest StatCan figures just do not reality.

    Even a person making what the CCPA suggests as a 'liveable wage' would never own a home, and renting is even a challenge.

    Housing is a challenge for ALL, these days. Governments have added significantly to this problem through imposition of very high fees, taxes and red tape, there is no doubt, along with other nuances like energy and transportation etc. costs.

  • seawitch

    1 year ago

    Yes, the cost of housing is

    Yes, the cost of housing is HUGE. The main contributor to the rise in the cost of housing is that real estate has become a prime investment. Long before most people get an opportunity to buy into a condo development, it has been scanned and assessed for investment return potential by financial advisers. Apartments and houses are even marketed in this way, rather than as homes. People need homes first, and they should have some guarantee of living close by to where they work. We have stopped thinking of communities, and think instead of investment. While people needing homes will still drive a housing market, investment is a large part of what drives the prices. Most people can't afford it. I can think of no really good reason - other than greed that is - why the bulk of the population should not own their homes outright instead of servicing banks with mortgage payments for the rest of their lives.

  • Fiat lux

    1 year ago

    One of the biggest causes of

    One of the biggest causes of unaffordable housing, now also experienced in the eastern members of the EU, is so called "foreign investment" welcomed by all idiot and bought governments and politicians

    The first big jump in Vancouver happened with the influx of Hong Kong monies. We sold our new house in Vancouver for $65,000 in 1979. A year later it was sold to some Hong Kong refugees for $138,000. And that was the beginning.

    Land prices went up 1,000 % virtually overnight with the influx of Swiss and German monies in the late 80s and early 90s, with the soon to be worthless Deutschmark looking for "investment" in sucker countries.

    Then we had the deregulation of the banks by the world's governments, in Canada's case in 1991 in virtual secret by Mulroney, as part of the fraudulent "free trade" and "globalization" racket, for the purpose of permitting the global ruling sector to take control of all resources and economic systems.

    The rise of gold prices is also an excellent example, and proof, that the lords of the world know it very well that the present fraudulent, imaginary monetary system will collapse and the holding of gold and real estate will give them total ruling powers.

    Ed Deak, Big Lake.

  • alive

    1 year ago

    different refugees

    Ed is correct: the Hong Kong monies changed the real estate market here, but it was welcomed by those who stood to profit.

    The reality is that this was one of the first invasions by refugees, and the only difference is that those who came at that time had money!

    Which proves that we are all equal except some are more equal than others!

  • Katherine

    1 year ago

    Definition of "Living Wage"

    The calculation of a living wage must refer to one for families with kids, because as a single person I lived comfortably in Vancouver on a salary of $12.33/hr.

  • John Greg

    1 year ago

    Katherine ...

    Yes, perhaps. But that's just you; just one individual who may have very low requirements to be fulfilled.

    The calculation of a living wage must also take into account many things which may or may not have any place in your life and/or your lifestyle.

    For example, do you need to wear glasses? Do you have high prescription costs? Where do you live and how high is your rent/mortgage? These and many, many more things have to go into the calculations when working out what can only be a broad and generalistic formula for a living wage.

    Personally, even with a below par rent, I would have a very difficult time getting by on only $12 per hour. I would most certainly not be able to "live comfortably".

  • wordbutcher

    1 year ago

    living wages

    odd,we should possibly focus on dieing wages,death wages,loss of hope wages. Suited grey faced old men in power need to know that most of the living and dieing in our country is paid in death wages.

  • jnewcomb

    1 year ago

    Living wage reeks of moral hazard & economic issues

    Similar to minimum wage hikes, "living wages"MAY kill jobs, especially in combination with BC's HST, the new .05 drink/driving limit, and recessionary economy - its a recipe for the perfect job-killing storm.

    The ONLY way that raising municipal government minimum wages (aka "living wage") is if the minimum wage is above the market wage for unskilled entry level labor. In practice, the minimum wage has been far beneath the going wage for unskilled, entry level workers - especially in the public sector with its majority of skilled labour. So, increasing the minimum wage at these levels would have no effect on employment or wages. As a consequence, research findings have ranged from zero to modest job losses as the minimum wage increases.

    However, the notion of a two-tiered living wage - lower one for singles and higher one for families - is not only bad civil rights, its a moral hazard that may encourage family formation that depends on this policy - bad idea especially in over-developed countries that already have unsustainable surplus populations.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.