Why do we accept low pay for key workers as the norm?

I think we also need to exercise some caution here. The concept of a key worker isa wide one and now seems to cover a wide range of jobs. So whilst fully accepting some key workers are indeed paid poorly (in care homes etc traditionally due to some of the issues highlighted above) not all key workers are.

Median total earnings for Police Constables and Sergeants is £40K and many quickly reach the top of their pay spines. Newly Qualified Teachers earn £25K+ and again many rise by annual increments to 40K. According to the RCN the average salary of a nurse in the NHS is £33K. (And accept that with any average there will be lower examples as well as higher ones). Some though not all these jobs also come with additional benefits that are important when making comparisons

Whilst none of these salaries is going to make you rich or even very comfortable, they are all above the "average" salary in the UK.

So let's be clear which key workers we think are low paid. Often (not exclusively) it's those requiring lower formal "skills" (and accept that people also do these jobs for other reasons) and can in some ways be seen as a factor of a normal market, improve skills and improve prospects.

For what its worth Jacky I think there is some merit to the discussion about a Universal basic payment. But it won't (I think) help this debate for the majority of people at the bottom as in effect it will simply replace benefits. It may in fact make the situation slightly worst for some at least in terms of differentials

When I posted on this thread I had in mind the workers who provide domiciliary care. I think I am right that contracts for domiciliary care are awarded by Social Services and provided the supplier can meet the minimum standards to fulfil the contract, they go to the lowest bidder. I would speculate that outsourced hospital jobs (porter, cleaner, canteen worker) operate on much the same lines. I don't think there is much opportunity for progression for this type of worker. There might be a supervisory role for someone to organise rotas etc, but its going to be for a small addition to their hourly rate. Whereas, as you point out, some key services (the police, fire service and teaching, for example) can provide a career structure and the potential of a senior job on considerably higher pay.

When I posted on this thread I had in mind the workers who provide domiciliary care. I think I am right that contracts for domiciliary care are awarded by Social Services and provided the supplier can meet the minimum standards to fulfil the contract, they go to the lowest bidder. I would speculate that outsourced hospital jobs (porter, cleaner, canteen worker) operate on much the same lines. I don't think there is much opportunity for progression for this type of worker. There might be a supervisory role for someone to organise rotas etc, but its going to be for a small addition to their hourly rate. Whereas, as you point out, some key services (the police, fire service and teaching, for example) can provide a career structure and the potential of a senior job on considerably higher pay.

David indeed there is something not quite right. But that's not "necessarily" linked to being a key worker. Many of those people are in cleaning, retail, factory, security etc.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I think the debate to be had (which I also think is what you are saying) is far more about social justice and inequalities across the economy rather than restricting it to particular sectors.

Elizabeth

Contracts no longer go to the lowest bidder, in areas we work in i have not heard of this at all, they go through a formal process, most Local Authorities award contracts via an ethical framework.

The Local Authority give the hourly rates to the provider and a provider will have to make that work, this rate is authority wide. Different areas of support may have different rates, but usually all domicilary care is paid to all providers at the same rate.

I won't go into support workers pay, I will be here all day, but I will say that the the skills they are required to have are not always reflected and recognised.

You are right there is not always the progression, but also a lot of staff just want to stay in the support role as that is what they feel is best for them.

Sharon

Very true Keith. The initial question being about key workers, we cannot ignore that many other workers are also low-paid, for many of the same reasons that some key-workers are, nor should we ignore that many once low-paid key workers became and/or are adequately or even well-paid. The mystery seeming to be not why these inequalities exist or have remained existent, (as explored above) but how they should be addressed and removed. As you suggest, much debate to be had.

Much as it might temporarily relieve the problem of financial hardship, I feel a universal basic income will not make housing available for those currently unable to afford rent, it will merely create a shortage encouraging rents to rise and exploitation, such as multiple-occupation of unsuitable dwellings, to increase. Similarly for other resources currently of limited access to those in poverty: Being able to buy more food will further exacerbate our increasingly stretched supplies, driving prices up and (potentially) quality down, and on every level a UBI can only become a benchmark of necessity for payments by those who see "fair" incomes as an unnecessary liability to their profits, and a (powerful) force for inflation. Regrettably, I believe the effect will be more opportunities for exploitation of those existing on the UBI and not a long-term solution to poverty. I have no answers, but don't feel a UBI, if not associated with other substantial changes, is one either.

P

Hi Sharon

I am really pleased to know this. We have had posts in these forums from HR professionals in the care sector grappling with sickness absence when staff are deployed on contracts that do not provide for the cost of sickness cover. This has not happened recently, but I can remember more than once posting that if a contract has been won on terms which only work when all the staff are healthy all the time, you don't have a viable business model. It's been a while since I've seen a post like that, so if contracts are now being won by care providers offering their staff more generous terms, i.e. covering their legal responsibility to pay SSP, that is a really good thing. If the care commissioner is looking at bids from an ethical perspective, a bid that doesn't allow an employer to meet legal minimum payments shouldn't be accepted.

Again, it is a while ago, but I got to see a care company up close when a member of my own family needed domiciliary care to live. The carers themselves were fantastic but the organisation behind them was shambolic. The whole structure seemed to depend on the good nature of the staff to go above and beyond the minimum, often working in their own time to complete work. I brought safeguarding issues to the attention of Social Services and the CQC in writing every time they occurred, but nothing ever happened as a result. Not once. If I sounded cynical, it was based on my experience.

We actually had two family members who were terminally ill at the same time. One was in the West country and one in London. It was the London care provider that seemed barely able to cope. The carers supporting my other family member seemed much better trained and administered.