Abolition of wages councils and threat to the lower paid

council.

This fact was highlighted in a ''Food for Thought'' survey carried out

for the pay unit by Roy Wood, senior lecturer at the Scottish Hotel

School in Strathclyde University.

The report comes at a time when the Government is intent on pushing

through Parliament legislation which will abolish the 26 wages councils

still in existence.

Wages councils were established in 1909 with the support of Sir

Winston Churchill who told the Commons it was required to protect

low-paid workers from unscrupulous employers.

But the present Government denies the lower paid require this

protection. Michael Forsyth, Minister of State at the Department of

Employment, who is responsible for the Trade Union Reform and Employment

Rights Bill which covers the abolition of the councils, wrote in a

letter date December 10: ''There is no good reason to believe that the

abolition of wages councils will lead to widespread reductions in pay .

. . It is of little help to workers to saddle employers with

bureaucratic requirements which do nothing to encourage enterprise and

initiative.''

The letter went on: ''Most of the workers covered by wages councils

are not poor; many work part-time and live in households with two or

more earners.'' Mr David Stark, the recipient of the letter, and an

official of the Transport and General Workers Union, however does not

agree with the Minister.

He said: ''Unfortunately there are a number of unscrupulous employers

who will take advantage of the absence of wages councils to cut wages.''

The author of the survey, Mr Roy Hood, said: ''I believe wages will

decline. Some employers will cut the hourly rate and there will also be

a general decline in the real value of wages over a period of years.''

The Scottish Low Pay Unit believes that existing evidence does not

back up Michael Forsyth's assertion. It points to numerous workers who

are not covered by wages council rates and who earn even lower than the

average of just over #3 an hour set by the councils.

It has examples of security guards who earn #1.70 an hour and have to

work 100 hours a week to earn a wage. It points to young receptionists

who are paid as little as #1.50 an hour, and the worst example of low

wages which the unit has on its file is that of a third-year apprentice

car mechanic who is paid #1 an hour.

Morag Gillespie, of the Scottish Low Pay Unit, said: ''There is

considerable evidence which suggests that once wages councils are

abolished wages will indeed be cut. The latest checks show that one in

10 workers covered by wages councils are underpaid. Take away the

protection of the councils and the wage levels could plummet even

more.''

More than 200,000 Scottish workers are covered by wages councils

including those in hairdressing, retail trades, hotels, and restaurants.

Wage rates set by councils vary between #100.81 for a 39-hour-week in

the button manufacturing industry to #120.90 in tailoring.

David Stark, who is a member of the aerated waters wages council,

explained how the councils operate. He said: ''The councils are made up

of equal numbers of employers' and workers' representatives plus three

independent members who are appointed by the Secretary of State for

Employment. Both sides put their case for a new wage rate to the

independent members then retire to separate rooms. ''Independent council

members can call either side back in and ask for further information.

The independent chair then puts their proposals to the full council and

it is voted on by both sides. This means that the new rate is set by the

independent members.''

At the recent aerated wages council of which David Stark is a member,

the council agreed an 11p hourly increase giving new hourly wage rates

of #3.08 -- #123.20 for a 40-hour week. He said: ''We are fortunate that

in this industry most of the large companies have trade union agreements

and the council rate is only a benchmark. But in many other industries

where there are no union agreements employers will exploit the absence

of the council.''

Michael Forsyth does not agree. In his letter he writes: ''Without the

councils, wage rates will adjust to suit local economic circumstances .

. . businesses themselves are best able to judge what they can afford

and what levels of pay are necessary to recruit and retail suitable

employees.'' The Government expects to guide the legislation through

Parliament within the next nine months and be in a position to abolish

the councils a few weeks later.

The Low Pay Network, which is campaigning to save the wages councils,

believes it is a contradiction for Mrs Gillian Shepherd, Employment

Minister, to have overall responsibility for this legislation when she

also has responsibility within the Cabinet for women's issues.

It points out that the industries covered by the councils ''tends to

employ significant proportions of women especially on a part-time

basis.''

Winston Churchill, in his capacity as President of the Board of Trade,

was responsible for introducing wages councils and had this to say on

the subject. ''. . . where you have what we call sweated trades, you

have no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is

undercut by the bad, and the bad undercut by the worst . . . where these

conditions prevail, you have not a condition of progress, but a

condition of progressive degeneration.''

But then Sir Winston always was a renegade!