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

What an interesting debate. It's not an easy one to approach or resolve as many have made comments about the historical basis to why we are here and the range of views of what we can do about it.

I feel it's hard to make comparisons between pay, roles, risk, sectors and unpick things.

I'm always cautious about the comparators as value and therefore compensation is often not as pegged to real risk or worth as people would have us think. It can be very arbitrary or based on historical worth.

Caring for an older person is often seen as low skilled and the pay would deem it low value yet that presumption is probably more likely connected with the value placed on the work by others and the cost model of 'businesses' or services operating in this area so it's linked to the ability to run these businesses as profitable entities rather than the skill and value of the job..

Take football, up until relatively recent times the money in the game was a lot less and still is below the premier league. Footballers still have a relatively short careers at the top flight. Their pay is pegged to the market, what clubs are willing to pay and how clubs are run. To the best of my knowledge, so many clubs are debt ladden entities.

If we take a CEOs. Yes they are responsible for a lot of risk, they might not all get 6 figure payouts when they exit roles but they are also highly unlikely, in the scheme of things, to go to prison or be personally made liable - despite the legislation in place -white collar crime is hard to prosecute and many large scale scandals result in very few actual convictions.

Personally, I believe HR could do a lot in their roles to consider the landscape and context of their businesses, push for mapping of and actively closing pay gaps, push for better ethical and fair pay arrangements for suppliers, the lowest paid in their organisations and be more vocal on ethical good practice beyond the ESG branding piece. I rarely see HR in this space. Perhaps we fear managers and leaders thinking we are not on 'their side', of losing our own jobs or of being seen as non-commercial or we think it's an area that's too full of mindfields or a lost cause. Until we step into and grasp the nettle on some of the thornier challenges of modern day working life I fear we will be tinkering rather than make any progressive changes that come come about to a make good work profitable and better for all of our people.

What an interesting debate. It's not an easy one to approach or resolve as many have made comments about the historical basis to why we are here and the range of views of what we can do about it.

I feel it's hard to make comparisons between pay, roles, risk, sectors and unpick things.

I'm always cautious about the comparators as value and therefore compensation is often not as pegged to real risk or worth as people would have us think. It can be very arbitrary or based on historical worth.

Caring for an older person is often seen as low skilled and the pay would deem it low value yet that presumption is probably more likely connected with the value placed on the work by others and the cost model of 'businesses' or services operating in this area so it's linked to the ability to run these businesses as profitable entities rather than the skill and value of the job..

Take football, up until relatively recent times the money in the game was a lot less and still is below the premier league. Footballers still have a relatively short careers at the top flight. Their pay is pegged to the market, what clubs are willing to pay and how clubs are run. To the best of my knowledge, so many clubs are debt ladden entities.

If we take a CEOs. Yes they are responsible for a lot of risk, they might not all get 6 figure payouts when they exit roles but they are also highly unlikely, in the scheme of things, to go to prison or be personally made liable - despite the legislation in place -white collar crime is hard to prosecute and many large scale scandals result in very few actual convictions.

Personally, I believe HR could do a lot in their roles to consider the landscape and context of their businesses, push for mapping of and actively closing pay gaps, push for better ethical and fair pay arrangements for suppliers, the lowest paid in their organisations and be more vocal on ethical good practice beyond the ESG branding piece. I rarely see HR in this space. Perhaps we fear managers and leaders thinking we are not on 'their side', of losing our own jobs or of being seen as non-commercial or we think it's an area that's too full of mindfields or a lost cause. Until we step into and grasp the nettle on some of the thornier challenges of modern day working life I fear we will be tinkering rather than make any progressive changes that come come about to a make good work profitable and better for all of our people.

Hi Sharon,
I like your thoughts on what HR could do and agree that the fear of being seen as not on the managers side can be a barrier. Indeed, I have experienced this in practice whereby senior leaders were horrified when I started to push for closing the pay gap for our core workers. In previous roles I have seen the HR function develop into nothing more than an administrative function that does the will of the company without pushing the ethical practice and fair pay agendas. Happily I am now with an organisation that sees the HR function as one of strategic importance and a key contributor to business decisions.