Poverty wages
Thursday, 01 November 2007 16:19
"Wages are so low and the cost of living so high, she finds it very hard to make ends meet. At 18, she is the only earning member of her family of three. She is an only child and both her parents are jobless. She spends almost 40% of her income on the rent of a one bedroom house. When told that companies check that workers should get at least the minimum wage set by the government, which they all do, she said that 'if they think this is enough , they should all try to live on this amount for a month and decide if it is OK." - Interview with a Pakistani worker
Wages throughout the industry are so low that few workers earn enough to cover the basic needs of themselves and their families. When prices paid to suppliers are cut by brands and retailers it is wage costs that are the first to be reduced. This has meant that wages paid to workers have decreased in real terms. In many cases garment workers earn less that the national poverty levels set by governments and international organisations.
When challenged by workers, consumers and campaigners on the wage issue most companies claim that workers in their supply chains should be paid the minimum wage or the industry standard in that country, whichever is the higher. But this isn't enough. Minimum wages, usually defined by governments, are set in the context of ferocious competition between countries for clothing trade and consequently and often fall well below these governments' own poverty thresholds and well below what is required for a living wage. Worse still, research indicates that many suppliers do not even pay this legal minimum.
An additional problem exists for the millions of piece-rate workers and homeworkers in the global garment industry. Paid by the number of garments they produce, not the number of hours they work, the rate per piece often makes it impossible to earn a living wage in a normal working week, but when the issue is raised, managers will simply argue that they should work faster. Employed informally and further removed from the brands, they are more vulnerable to seasonal variations in work. Informal workers also lose out on other payments such as social security, pension, health insurance and redundancy pay, meaning their overall wage is even less.
Workers also report that wage payments are often delayed, meaning they have to borrow money and are often in debt. It also means they are unable to leave their job or speak out about conditions without risking the loss of wages already owed to them.
Often workers may receive different rates of pay depending on which order they work on, overtime hours, length of service and bonuses. Yet pay slips often fail to show clearly what the different payments are for and many workers report that they are unable to work out how much they are earning and for how many hours they have been paid.
It's not just garment workers themselves who suffer, but their families too. Young people who have traveled from the country often need to send back money to unemployed or poor parents before they can look after themselves in the city. The garment workforce is 80% female, and those who are not looking after their parents often have children to support.
LBL believes that workers are entitled to be paid a living wage - one which enables workers to meet their needs for nutritious food and clean water, shelter, clothes, education, health care and transport, as well as providing a discretionary income. It should be enough to provide for the basic needs of workers and their families, to allow them to participate fully in society and live with dignity. It should take into account the cost of living, social security benefits and the standard of living of others nearby. Finally, it should be based on a standard working week, before overtime, and should apply after any deductions. Overtime hours should be paid at an overtime rate and be properly and clearly recorded on wage slips.
For more on living wages see the article in the 'workers rights' section.
