I read an article recently that highlighted that some Scottish football clubs were paying their ground staff below the living wage of £7.85 per hour. They quote a minimum wage (£6.50 per hour) as well which is 21% lower than the living wage. I suppose all countries have a figure they use as the benchmark to keep employers in line, but what varies is where that line is drawn and it got me thinking about our own minimum wage level. I am certain that making this comparison is flawed and I will get flack from some quarters, but I reckon - what the hell! Let's give it a go.
Adopting the most simplistic approach, I took the Scottish minimum wage benchmark of £ 6.50 per hour and converted it to Rands (roughly R18 to the £), multiplied by 172 (hours per month) and called that the equivalent in Rands. For those who aren't highly numerate or who don't have a calculator at hand that comes out at R 20,124 for the minimum wage and R 24,303 for the living wage. Now, how does South Africa compare?
After a bit of Googling I learned that the minimum wage - we don't seem to have a living wage - isn't a single figure but differs dependant on the industry, region and job, which I found strange. Does this mean that someone working as a labourer needs less money in order to live compared to say, an artisan? Clearly an artisan is more qualified and should earn more, but I think a minimum wage should be sufficient to support a family. We all want children who need food, clothes, an education and a safe home. OK, so how does a hospitality worker in a large company get by on a minimum wage of R 2,900 per month? Even when one looks up the ranks a bit I wonder how an artisan survives on R 5,376 per month, or how an assistant manager in the retail sector gets by on R 5,934.07 (I'm sure the 7 cents makes all the difference)?
The term minimum wage gives me no reason to believe that a person, let alone a family is able to live on that wage. Even if we adopted the 21% increase on the minimum wage, similar to the Scottish example to arrive at a living wage, I still cannot see how a family can ever hope to thrive let alone survive. Growth and progress needs a surplus; companies grow when they make a profit and have surplus cash to fund growth, similarly families thrive when they have surplus cash to invest in their growth. Just having enough will ward of starvation but there must be a surplus in order to grow. Why shouldn't South Africans be given the chance to grow?
So, lets get back to the Scottish football clubs who are under fire for paying less than the living wage of R 24,303 to their staff. I'm sure that in their context that is an issue which needs to be debated and dealt with, but wouldn't our workforce just love to earn a Scottish living wage? I am not an economist or statistician but when our minimum wages differ by a multiple of 4 with the Scottish living wage, I feel comfortable saying South African workers are not getting a fair deal.
I can see that the solution to this stand-off will not be found easily, but I cannot imagine that the Scottish economy is so different to ours that a wage differential of 4 times can exist. I suggest that the solution lies in a transparent and honest restructuring of the wage hierarchy to bring the lowest levels up to the point where they too can live. I am aware that the highest earners may feel threatened by this and perhaps even be forced to inconvenience themselves and their families by downsizing or even worse moving to a country where the weather sucks and they have no friends - my heart bleeds. Surely we have enough intellectual capital in South Africa to deploy an Economic CODESA as suggested by Clem Sunter on numerous occasions and crack this nut? There must be a way to slice the cake differently without wasting everything. I am afraid that if we don't we might have no more nuts left to crack. (or cakes to slice).
Come on - have a heart South Africa!