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

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

I've been thinking about pay a lot recently, in trying to re-think reward in my organisation. When you think logically about most roles in just one organisation, there isn't much to justify the huge disparity in pay rates that are given. We all come to work, usually for a standard amount of hours, put in a reasonable amount of effort and (hopefully) gain some satisfaction from the work we do alongside the pay that we receive - but even the aim for a reasonable wage ratio is that the top earners in an organisation should receive 20 times as much pay as the lowest (and currently most FTSE businesses would be nowhere near as close as 20x).

Logically, we should pay our cleaners more than our chief executives, because I think most of us would get more intrinsic satisfaction (and therefore less requirement for extrinsic motivation) from the latter. And you could probably sustain an organisation for far longer without a chief executive than without its cleaners.

It's just down to labour markets - the skills required for cleaning can be learned quickly and build upon the daily skills that we all need in our personal lives, whereas leading a company demands (probably) qualifications, experience and the type of personality that narrows the field significantly. Care is similarly accessible to a wider labour market, at least in theory - though in practice, I think you need to be a pretty amazing kind of person to undertake care work on a regular basis, whether paid or unpaid.

Nina Waters said:

Logically, we should pay our cleaners more than our chief executives, because I think most of us would get more intrinsic satisfaction (and therefore less requirement for extrinsic motivation) from the latter. And you could probably sustain an organisation for far longer without a chief executive than without its cleaners.

That's only one interpretation of logic based on one value set. An alternative would be who adds most value and fundamentally an CEO will help create and sustain the employment of all the people in that business, their salaries, livelihoods etc. A cleaner whilst important doesn't. A CEO may well have far higher demands on them, stresses and pressures etc.

Appreciate that Keith, and I'm perhaps being flippant but also trying to think about what we are rewarding. I totally accept that responsibility is key to increased pay - and the burden that falls on those at the top of an organisation in terms of constant monitoring and worry will be very different from those who are its lowest paid, combined with the impact that a very strong CEO can add.

Very interesting debare. Thank you and keep 'em coming.

It goes much beyond the level of operational responsibilities for me Nina. A CEO of a listed company have little or no job security and can be removed by the Board with little or no notice - the days when big payouts were made in these situations are long over for the majority of CEOs.

They also carry the personal and civil criminal responsibility for many of the wrongdoings that their employees can undertake - believe me with 200,000 people in 70+ countries it's unealistic to think that they can have day to day control over everthing that happens, in every country in the world.

In the last 30 years of my life my CEOs have typically worked 70+ hour weeks, taking 1-2 weeks "break" a year (no right to disconnect from the shareholders and investors) - when you have global activities, phone exchanges/meetings can be necessary at any time of the day or night, and require immediate decisions. I'm not complaining for them, They have chosen this lifestyle because it suits them and because the rewards go a long way to compensating for minor inconveniencies like no family life. They also command these salaries because it' a seller's market with very few exceptional people who can function well at this level.

Personally I find it more shocking that footballers and top cinema actors receive salaries much higher than those of our CEOs who by and large are seeking to add value to society by adding value to their company and to its employees through sustainable growth.

Thanks for all the responses to this thread- an important and interesting debate about wider inequalities in society, and how we value and reward different job roles.

I wonder what your views are on the role of employers in challenging the status quo here- including pay, but beyond that too. For example in this year’s CIPD Good Work Index we’ve noted inequalities in workload and availability for flexible workers for key workers too (as others have noted in this thread, ‘key worker’ is a broad definition so this won’t be true of all key worker roles but certainly some- and of course some of these are issues for those that fall out of this definition too).  What action can employers and people professionals take?

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.