The Morning Star`s editorial rightly asks the pertinent question about who is putting the "working class first", whilst also, again correctly, criticising Miliband`s bribe to employers to pay a living wage, rather than making such payment compulsory. But, as a letter in today`s Guardian points out, even that may not be enough.Let`s face it, what would many employers and companies do, if forced by law, to pay the living wage, currently £7.45, and £8.55 in London? In order to ensure neither their profits nor bonuses were reduced, many would employ more part-time staff, and place more workers on zero-hours contracts! If £7.45 an hour was the level of pay, but only 20 hours worked, for example, many employees could well be worse off.
One solution, as the letter suggests, is to have a living income, rather than an hourly figure, as the target, calculated by the writer, as £298 a week, or £15,596 a year,£342 and £17,784 for London. This would certainly provide a clearer picture of the treatment of workers in this country, especially as it would make it easier to compare workers` incomes with those of the bosses, and also strengthen the argument for any political party, should there be one, which is contemplating taxing the rich in an effort to restore an element of fairness into our society; not holding my breath on that one!