TUC wants a minimum of pounds 4.26 per hour
Unions v the Labour Party: Frontbencher dismisses resolution at Blackpool as Blair's call for ballot in post dispute is spurned
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.In defiance of the Labour Party and warnings from the Tories of a million job losses, the TUC yesterday carried a motion backing a minimum wage of pounds 4.26 an hour.
Better news for Labour however came from the CBI, which although arguing that the TUC figure would cause 100,000 redundancies, agreed to serve on the Low Pay Commission envisaged by Tony Blair, which would take evidence and advise the government on a minimum.
The resolution passed by the TUC at its annual congress in Blackpool yesterday was dismissed as "predictable" by Labour's employment spokesman, Ian McCartney.
In order to lessen the embarrassment to Mr Blair, the TUC also passed a resolution in support of a minimum rate of pounds 4 as "reasonable". A third decision means no figure would be recommended by the TUCuntil after the election.
There were appeals for unity and calm during a heated debate as unions expressed their support for the two figures.
John Edmonds, of the GMB, which supported the pounds 4 figure, said that despite unprecedented support among voters and businesses for a minimum wage, the unions were embarking on a "dangerous" row.
"They are nervous people, these politicians on the eve of an election. If we over-reach ourselves we know what will happen," Mr Edmonds said. "The party leadership will rubbish our figure, some of the Labour movement will cry betrayal and not only will we damage our chances of getting a decent minimum wage, we might even damage the Labour Party's chances in the next election."
A rapturously received Arthur Scargill, leader of the Socialist Labour Party and president of the NUM, who supported a figure of pounds 4.26, said the TUC had become known as the "fudge factory". "I'm fed up to the back teeth with people telling us not to rock the boat before a general election . . . let's exert our independence and go for pounds 4.26," he said. That figure was also supported by the fire brigades union and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers.
Gwen Macleod, a machinist for Pretty Polly paid between pounds 4.20 and pounds 4.30 an hour, accused union leaders of "testing their virility".
Before both motions were overwhelmingly carried, John Monks, TUC general secretary, stressed that the TUC was not attempting to impose a figure on the Labour Party.
The Prime Minister said a minimum wage would "hurt the people it is meant to help".
People on low pay: Who gets what
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES EARNING LESS THAN . . . (1,000s)
MEN
Full-time Part-time All
pounds 2.50 248 149 397
pounds 3 434 185 619
pounds 3.50 788 269 1057
pounds 4 1313 324 1637
WOMEN
Full-time Part-time All
pounds 2.50 245 416 661
pounds 3 474 780 1254
pounds 3.50 831 1524 2355
pounds 4 1271 2096 3367
ALL
Full-time Part-time All
pounds 2.50 493 565 1058
pounds 3 908 965 1873
pounds 3.50 1619 1793 3412
pounds 4 2584 2620 5004
PERCENTAGE OF WORKERS EARNING LESS THAN . . . (%)
pounds 2.50 pounds 3 pounds 3.50 pounds 4
RETAIL TRADE 10.5 17.5 33.8 47.1
WAITERS 18.2 32.6 45.9 60.0
CLEANERS 8.4 16.7 41.9 48.4
Source: Richard Dickens & Steve Machin, The Centre for Economic Performance, LSE
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments