East Lancs men more likely to be better paid, say TUC statistics

Blackburn Citizen: More than 25 per cent of working women in East Lancashire are struggling on pay lower than the living wage More than 25 per cent of working women in East Lancashire are struggling on pay lower than the living wage

MORE than a quarter of working women in East Lancashire are struggling on pay which is lower than a ‘living wage’.

Figures released by the TUC show a high proportion of men earning no more than a few pounds an hour. However significantly more women are underpaid, according to the statistics.

In Blackburn, 19.5 per cent of men and 26.7 per cent of women are struggling to earn the living wage of £7.65 which councils and businesses are trying to adopt.

The problem affects 27 per cent of male employees to 35 per cent of women in Hyndburn, while in Rossendale and Darwen, 29 per cent of men are underpaid and 35 per cent of women.

A more level picture is evident in Burnley where 24 per cent of all employees are underpaid, with men and women equally affected.

The East Lancashire parliamentary constitu-encies feature on a list of low wage ‘blackspots’ compiled by the union which is campaigning for the £7.65 living wage.

Its analysis of official figures from the House of Commons Library shows that nationally, on average, one in five jobs pays under the ‘living wage’ – currently set at £8.80 in London and £7.65 across the rest of the UK.

North west TUC regional secretary Lynn Collins said: “The figures are a cause for concern.

“Extending the living wage is a vital way of tackling the growing problem of in-work poverty.”

In 2012, Hyndburn Council adopted a living wage for workers and last year Lancashire County Council did so too.

The national minimum wage is to increase by 19p an hour to £6.50 later this year, giving more than a million workers a pay rise.

The rate for 18 to 20-year-olds will go up by 10p to £5.13 an hour.

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:41pm Wed 2 Apr 14

BuckoTheMoose says...

Poverty refers to the inability to feed and clothe yourself along with lack of clean water and medical facilities.

There is no such thing as in work poverty. To suggest there is simply demeans the word. People living in real poverty would love the standard of living that Britains poorest enjoy.

If people are struggling on their wage, increasing wages is not the answer. Who pays for the extra wages? The employer.

Increasing wages just increases the cost of goods and services, which means no one is better off and sooner or later, economically illiterate campaigners will be demanding wages go up yet again.

If you can't live on your current wage you have two choices. In the short term, tighten the belt. In the long term, improve your skills and seek better employment.

To demand more money for no more work simply increases the spiral of costs and hurts everyone.

If money grew on trees we wouldn't need a job anyway. It must be worked for.
Poverty refers to the inability to feed and clothe yourself along with lack of clean water and medical facilities. There is no such thing as in work poverty. To suggest there is simply demeans the word. People living in real poverty would love the standard of living that Britains poorest enjoy. If people are struggling on their wage, increasing wages is not the answer. Who pays for the extra wages? The employer. Increasing wages just increases the cost of goods and services, which means no one is better off and sooner or later, economically illiterate campaigners will be demanding wages go up yet again. If you can't live on your current wage you have two choices. In the short term, tighten the belt. In the long term, improve your skills and seek better employment. To demand more money for no more work simply increases the spiral of costs and hurts everyone. If money grew on trees we wouldn't need a job anyway. It must be worked for. BuckoTheMoose
  • Score: -3

1:40am Thu 3 Apr 14

Timefor says...

Oh dear, BuckoTheMoose you really must keep up dearie. Meritocracy is as big a myth as your take on poverty. There is no point in discussion when an ability to look around is absent. Even dear old, Nigel F, of whom I aint a supporter, has declared that it's time for a people's army to rise up and get beyond the three major parties who continue to fail us all so badly.

At least I can agree with you when you say that it is employers who must pay a decent wage. From my perspective in respect of this article, I would prefer to see that living wage set and paid at a minimum of £10 per hour with only small employers and where a genuine inability to pay this level can be demonstrated exempted.
Oh dear, BuckoTheMoose you really must keep up dearie. Meritocracy is as big a myth as your take on poverty. There is no point in discussion when an ability to look around is absent. Even dear old, Nigel F, of whom I aint a supporter, has declared that it's time for a people's army to rise up and get beyond the three major parties who continue to fail us all so badly. At least I can agree with you when you say that it is employers who must pay a decent wage. From my perspective in respect of this article, I would prefer to see that living wage set and paid at a minimum of £10 per hour with only small employers and where a genuine inability to pay this level can be demonstrated exempted. Timefor
  • Score: 2

7:27am Thu 3 Apr 14

BuckoTheMoose says...

Timefor wrote:
Oh dear, BuckoTheMoose you really must keep up dearie. Meritocracy is as big a myth as your take on poverty. There is no point in discussion when an ability to look around is absent. Even dear old, Nigel F, of whom I aint a supporter, has declared that it's time for a people's army to rise up and get beyond the three major parties who continue to fail us all so badly.

At least I can agree with you when you say that it is employers who must pay a decent wage. From my perspective in respect of this article, I would prefer to see that living wage set and paid at a minimum of £10 per hour with only small employers and where a genuine inability to pay this level can be demonstrated exempted.
Interesting. That would destroy businesses and the economy and put most of the workforce out of a job.

It would also increase the cost of goods and services to a point where the other half who still have jobs would be in so called 'poverty'.

I'm sure you would love to earn £10 per hour and so would I, but unfortunately that money needs to be earned.

I can certainly agree that the three major parties are pants, but this isn't (or shouldn't be) a party politics issue. The market should decide wages. It's only when politicians step in and force artificially increased wages that we start to get serious economic problems, price increases and young and unskilled people priced out of work.
[quote][p][bold]Timefor[/bold] wrote: Oh dear, BuckoTheMoose you really must keep up dearie. Meritocracy is as big a myth as your take on poverty. There is no point in discussion when an ability to look around is absent. Even dear old, Nigel F, of whom I aint a supporter, has declared that it's time for a people's army to rise up and get beyond the three major parties who continue to fail us all so badly. At least I can agree with you when you say that it is employers who must pay a decent wage. From my perspective in respect of this article, I would prefer to see that living wage set and paid at a minimum of £10 per hour with only small employers and where a genuine inability to pay this level can be demonstrated exempted.[/p][/quote]Interesting. That would destroy businesses and the economy and put most of the workforce out of a job. It would also increase the cost of goods and services to a point where the other half who still have jobs would be in so called 'poverty'. I'm sure you would love to earn £10 per hour and so would I, but unfortunately that money needs to be earned. I can certainly agree that the three major parties are pants, but this isn't (or shouldn't be) a party politics issue. The market should decide wages. It's only when politicians step in and force artificially increased wages that we start to get serious economic problems, price increases and young and unskilled people priced out of work. BuckoTheMoose
  • Score: -1

4:12pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Timefor says...

Goodness me and at the risk of seeming aggressive, the same arguments were used when the minimum wage was being introduced and, know what, it didn't happen. Mind you, if you can point me to any evidence of where, "businesses and economies (have been) destroyed" or "workforce(s put) out of a job" I'd be happy to have a look.

I'm struggling to understand how you've arrived at a conclusion that "this isn't . . . a party politics issue"? Seems to me that our 3 main parties regularly and repeatedly demonstrate that it is and that all 3 are clearly aligned to business. In short, they and their supporters are furthering this class war on a daily basis and, guess what, we the ordinary people, the majority, are losing. I can agree that the market should decide wages and the sooner we realise the strength we have and exercise it, the sooner this will happen and the appalling, unsustainable inequality in incomes will begin to be redressed with the well-researched benefits for everyone.
Goodness me and at the risk of seeming aggressive, the same arguments were used when the minimum wage was being introduced and, know what, it didn't happen. Mind you, if you can point me to any evidence of where, "businesses and economies (have been) destroyed" or "workforce(s put) out of a job" I'd be happy to have a look. I'm struggling to understand how you've arrived at a conclusion that "this isn't . . . a party politics issue"? Seems to me that our 3 main parties regularly and repeatedly demonstrate that it is and that all 3 are clearly aligned to business. In short, they and their supporters are furthering this class war on a daily basis and, guess what, we the ordinary people, the majority, are losing. I can agree that the market should decide wages and the sooner we realise the strength we have and exercise it, the sooner this will happen and the appalling, unsustainable inequality in incomes will begin to be redressed with the well-researched benefits for everyone. Timefor
  • Score: 0

6:55pm Thu 3 Apr 14

BuckoTheMoose says...

Timefor wrote:
Goodness me and at the risk of seeming aggressive, the same arguments were used when the minimum wage was being introduced and, know what, it didn't happen. Mind you, if you can point me to any evidence of where, "businesses and economies (have been) destroyed" or "workforce(s put) out of a job" I'd be happy to have a look.

I'm struggling to understand how you've arrived at a conclusion that "this isn't . . . a party politics issue"? Seems to me that our 3 main parties regularly and repeatedly demonstrate that it is and that all 3 are clearly aligned to business. In short, they and their supporters are furthering this class war on a daily basis and, guess what, we the ordinary people, the majority, are losing. I can agree that the market should decide wages and the sooner we realise the strength we have and exercise it, the sooner this will happen and the appalling, unsustainable inequality in incomes will begin to be redressed with the well-researched benefits for everyone.
Actually it did happen when the minimum wage was introduced.

We are always hearing about how food prices have increased. The costs of goods and services rise continually and the number of young people without a job is the highest it's been for a long time.

Employers will not take on young, unskilled people with no experience if they are forced to pay too high a wage.

Where they have to pay a higher wage, this impacts on the price of the end product or service.

Your reasons for this being a party politics issue is that politicos make it their issue. They shouldn't. When Government gets involved in business it only makes things worse. If the government butted out, the market would decide.

I don't buy into this class war issue either. We should celebrate the rich, not vilify them. They are the people who create the jobs and pay the wages in the first place. When they reap the benefits of their initial capital outlay, ideas and hard work we shout, "Tax the rich, Make the rich pay!"

But that's another story.

Minimum wage: I could demand my boss pays me 10, 15 or 20 pounds an hour, but where does that money come from? The cost of the goods we produce would have to go up to compensate. My wage packet would be a lot better but my outgoings would rise to a point where I am no better off.

That happened when the minimum wage was first brought in and it's happened every time it's increased.

That's why people are now demanding a 'living wage'. And when that doesn't work, they'll demand something else and the spiral will continue.
[quote][p][bold]Timefor[/bold] wrote: Goodness me and at the risk of seeming aggressive, the same arguments were used when the minimum wage was being introduced and, know what, it didn't happen. Mind you, if you can point me to any evidence of where, "businesses and economies (have been) destroyed" or "workforce(s put) out of a job" I'd be happy to have a look. I'm struggling to understand how you've arrived at a conclusion that "this isn't . . . a party politics issue"? Seems to me that our 3 main parties regularly and repeatedly demonstrate that it is and that all 3 are clearly aligned to business. In short, they and their supporters are furthering this class war on a daily basis and, guess what, we the ordinary people, the majority, are losing. I can agree that the market should decide wages and the sooner we realise the strength we have and exercise it, the sooner this will happen and the appalling, unsustainable inequality in incomes will begin to be redressed with the well-researched benefits for everyone.[/p][/quote]Actually it did happen when the minimum wage was introduced. We are always hearing about how food prices have increased. The costs of goods and services rise continually and the number of young people without a job is the highest it's been for a long time. Employers will not take on young, unskilled people with no experience if they are forced to pay too high a wage. Where they have to pay a higher wage, this impacts on the price of the end product or service. Your reasons for this being a party politics issue is that politicos make it their issue. They shouldn't. When Government gets involved in business it only makes things worse. If the government butted out, the market would decide. I don't buy into this class war issue either. We should celebrate the rich, not vilify them. They are the people who create the jobs and pay the wages in the first place. When they reap the benefits of their initial capital outlay, ideas and hard work we shout, "Tax the rich, Make the rich pay!" But that's another story. Minimum wage: I could demand my boss pays me 10, 15 or 20 pounds an hour, but where does that money come from? The cost of the goods we produce would have to go up to compensate. My wage packet would be a lot better but my outgoings would rise to a point where I am no better off. That happened when the minimum wage was first brought in and it's happened every time it's increased. That's why people are now demanding a 'living wage'. And when that doesn't work, they'll demand something else and the spiral will continue. BuckoTheMoose
  • Score: 0

4:46am Fri 4 Apr 14

Timefor says...

I don't think that we are going to get anywhere with this conversation. As far as I can see, and you have not pointed towards any, there is no evidence to support your statements. What you describe are fears and statements put out by those who already benefit and hope to benefit further in the future. I am truly sorry that you cannot see how we, as ordinary people, are being made to pay in terms of wages and living conditions for the lifestyles and follies of those with the power.

Having said this, I do have some sense that we may have some point of similarity in terms of the sustainability of wages and profits - or should that be lack of? Anyways, what I mean is that the huge profits and wealth being developed and banked by corporations and a minority of individuals is essentially "dead" money ie it will be put to no use other than to build a balance sheet and is, therefore, useless. In short the search for "growth" by companies and individuals is pretty pointless. I could happily support a system where profit is used for community benefit in its widest sense providing the massive excesses of a few were dealt with along the line.
I don't think that we are going to get anywhere with this conversation. As far as I can see, and you have not pointed towards any, there is no evidence to support your statements. What you describe are fears and statements put out by those who already benefit and hope to benefit further in the future. I am truly sorry that you cannot see how we, as ordinary people, are being made to pay in terms of wages and living conditions for the lifestyles and follies of those with the power. Having said this, I do have some sense that we may have some point of similarity in terms of the sustainability of wages and profits - or should that be lack of? Anyways, what I mean is that the huge profits and wealth being developed and banked by corporations and a minority of individuals is essentially "dead" money ie it will be put to no use other than to build a balance sheet and is, therefore, useless. In short the search for "growth" by companies and individuals is pretty pointless. I could happily support a system where profit is used for community benefit in its widest sense providing the massive excesses of a few were dealt with along the line. Timefor
  • Score: 0

7:20am Fri 4 Apr 14

BuckoTheMoose says...

Timefor wrote:
I don't think that we are going to get anywhere with this conversation. As far as I can see, and you have not pointed towards any, there is no evidence to support your statements. What you describe are fears and statements put out by those who already benefit and hope to benefit further in the future. I am truly sorry that you cannot see how we, as ordinary people, are being made to pay in terms of wages and living conditions for the lifestyles and follies of those with the power.

Having said this, I do have some sense that we may have some point of similarity in terms of the sustainability of wages and profits - or should that be lack of? Anyways, what I mean is that the huge profits and wealth being developed and banked by corporations and a minority of individuals is essentially "dead" money ie it will be put to no use other than to build a balance sheet and is, therefore, useless. In short the search for "growth" by companies and individuals is pretty pointless. I could happily support a system where profit is used for community benefit in its widest sense providing the massive excesses of a few were dealt with along the line.
You're right, we're not going to agree. It's been insightful talking to you though.

As to evidence, the comments section is a little limited to write more than a few paragraphs, but my beliefs are based on the hard evidence I've seen. Let's be honest, you haven't supplied any either, we only have the space to say what we believe and only a short summary at that.

I'll leave you with this thought. If profit was used for community benefit rather than going to the people who created the company or the investors who helped it grow, nobody would create companies of invest in them.
[quote][p][bold]Timefor[/bold] wrote: I don't think that we are going to get anywhere with this conversation. As far as I can see, and you have not pointed towards any, there is no evidence to support your statements. What you describe are fears and statements put out by those who already benefit and hope to benefit further in the future. I am truly sorry that you cannot see how we, as ordinary people, are being made to pay in terms of wages and living conditions for the lifestyles and follies of those with the power. Having said this, I do have some sense that we may have some point of similarity in terms of the sustainability of wages and profits - or should that be lack of? Anyways, what I mean is that the huge profits and wealth being developed and banked by corporations and a minority of individuals is essentially "dead" money ie it will be put to no use other than to build a balance sheet and is, therefore, useless. In short the search for "growth" by companies and individuals is pretty pointless. I could happily support a system where profit is used for community benefit in its widest sense providing the massive excesses of a few were dealt with along the line.[/p][/quote]You're right, we're not going to agree. It's been insightful talking to you though. As to evidence, the comments section is a little limited to write more than a few paragraphs, but my beliefs are based on the hard evidence I've seen. Let's be honest, you haven't supplied any either, we only have the space to say what we believe and only a short summary at that. I'll leave you with this thought. If profit was used for community benefit rather than going to the people who created the company or the investors who helped it grow, nobody would create companies of invest in them. BuckoTheMoose
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree