SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY:
BECOMING THE FIRST
LIVING WAGE UNIVERSITY IN CANADA
Michael McCarthy Flynn
with foreword by
Dr. Marjorie Griffin Cohen
Produced by First Call: BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition
with the collaboration of the SFU Living Wage Campaign
November 2012
livingwagesfu.wordpress.com
1
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
3
Foreword
4
1
Summary
6
1.1
Methodology
9
2.
The Living Wage for Families Campaign
11
2.1
What do we mean by a Living Wage?
12
2.2
How is a Living Wage Calculated?
13
3.
Working Conditions at SFU
14
3.1
SFU as a Direct Employer
14
3.2
Auxiliary Employment at SFU
15
4.
Low Wages and Living Wages at SFU
19
4.1
Demographics
19
4.2
Working Conditions
20
4.3
Effect of Low Wages on Health and Family
21
4.4
The Impact of a Living Wage
23
5.
SFU: A Living Wage University?
25
5.1
What would it mean for SFU to become a Living Wage Employer?
27
5.2
How much will it cost?
29
5.3
Making it happen- Committing to dialogue
33
6.
Conclusion
34
Appendixes
36
References
47
2
Acknowledgements
Many people were involved in bringing this report together including: Dr. Marjorie Griffin
Cohen, John Bannister of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) 3338; the
Graduate Student Society of SFU (GSS); Shahaa Kakar of the Simon Fraser Public Interest
Research Group (SFPIRG); Karen Dean, Carina Nilsson & Connor Moffatt of the Teaching
Support Staff Union (TSSU); Kathy Bergman of the B.C Government and Service Employees’
Union (BCGEU).
Special thanks to Hyuna Choi, Mandy Gill, Joan Zhou and Magdalena Lim who undertook the
bulk of the fieldwork for this report.
Most importantly thank you to all the workers at SFU who agreed to be interviewed and share
their experiences with us.
3
Foreword by Dr. Marjorie Griffin Cohen
This study of low-wage work at Simon Fraser University (SFU) was undertaken so that our
University community will understand the need to adopt a Living Wage Policy. Too many
people at SFU work for wages that are below what is calculated to be sufficient earnings to
modestly support a small family in the Vancouver area. It is a rate that is calculated on the
basis of two adults working full-time, full-year.
Those of us who are directly employed by
SFU as faculty and staff have decent wages
and working conditions.
Over the years we
have collectively worked hard to have features
of equality, community responsibility, and
social justice form a central part of the core
vision
of
our
University.
This
ethical
framework shapes relationships within SFU
and with the wider world, and while we can all
point
to
areas
where
there
are
still
deficiencies, the intent of being aware of and
responsive to social issues is an important
vision for us to uphold.
Poverty is one social issue that can be addressed within our community. British Columbia
(B.C.), largely because of its low-wage public policy, has had the highest poverty rates and
the highest child poverty rates of any province in Canada. The surprising part of this is that
the majority of poor people have paid employment and about one-half of children living in
poverty live in families where at least one person works full-time, full-year. SFU has people
working within our institution who, because of low wages, are living at or near the poverty line.
As this study shows, for some categories of workers, their average wage at SFU falls below
the provincial average for this type of work.
4
The reason we are less aware of low-wage work at SFU than we should be is because many
of these people work for SFU under a different type of employment relationship than most of
us do.
Many low-wage workers work for companies that receive contracts from SFU to
perform certain types of work. Contracting-out employment is done because it can be more
efficient than providing a service in-house.
This makes sense when it is an occasional
service (pest control), or a service that requires a specialized workforce (legal training), but
too often what is considered efficiency is based on the contractor paying low wages. When
SFU, for example, contracts out regular jobs for cleaning and food services, it needs to make
sure that costs are not lower because the company pays wages that are lower than if the
workers were directly hired by SFU.
Not all classes of workers are treated in the same way and this too can lead to great disparity
within work situations. Research assistants (RAs), for example, are usually hired directly by
professors and often are paid reasonably. But as this report documents, many receive low
hourly rates or work excessive hours for no additional pay. By becoming a Living Wage
Employer, these kinds of practices could be targeted and eliminated.
The following document will explain how becoming a Living Wage Employer could work at
SFU. It also shows, through interviews with low-wage workers, just how necessary a living
wage is. Many universities in the United States and the United Kingdom are Living Wage
Employers. SFU could make an important difference in Canada by being the first Living
Wage University in this country.
5
1. Summary
Families who work for low wages face
impossible choices — buy food or heat
the house, feed the children or pay the
rent. The result can be spiralling debt,
constant anxiety and long-term health
problems. In many cases it means that
the adults in the family are working long
hours, often at two or three jobs, just to
pay for basic necessities. They have little
time to spend with their family, much less
to help their children with school work or
participate in community activities.
With the publication of the 2008 report “Working for a Living Wage” the Living Wage for
Families Campaign has been raising awareness about the negative impact of low wage
poverty on families and communities. The campaign has also advocated that workers should
be paid a living wage. Simply put, this is a wage that covers families’ basic living expenses.
This community-based collaborative research report assesses the extent and nature of low
wage poverty experienced by people working in Simon Fraser University (SFU) and explores
the options open to SFU to address this issue.
SFU is well placed to take a leadership role in this area. For almost 20 years SFU has been
ranked by respected national surveys, including the MacLean’s Annual Survey, as one of
Canada’s top three comprehensive Universities. In one study SFU is rated as one of
Canada’s top employers in terms of physical workplace, work atmosphere, financial benefits
and compensation, health and family friendly benefits, time off, employee engagement, skill
development, as well as community involvement (Leung & Yerema, 2011). In addition to
being an excellent academic hub and an organization that has been recognized for its positive
employment practices, SFU also aims to have a positive influence on the wider community in
terms of its commitment to community engagement and environmental sustainability.
6
However these positive assessments of SFU’s role do not fully take into account the
experiences of an important section of the SFU community. Large universities like SFU need
more than educators, administers and managers to function. They depend on cleaners,
security staff, food service workers, childcare workers, as well as research assistants to make
sure they can deliver high standards of education for their students. This section of the SFU
community is usually hired as auxiliary contracted workers. Auxiliary contract workers are not
directly employed by an organization but are contracted to provide their labour to perform a
defined service through a third party contracting agency. This can often result in reduced
employee benefits and more precarious working conditions. Contracting out work is usually
justified as a mechanism for reducing costs. In reality it often transfers costs from the main
organization to the contracted worker.
This report documents and assesses the working conditions of these auxiliary workers who
work in SFU. At a most basic level we seek to ascertain whether these workers are being paid
enough to live on; we ask whether they’re paid a living wage.
Our research found that the majority of the workers we surveyed were part of the working
poor. We found that:

The vast majority of workers surveyed (73%) earned less than a
living wage

57% of workers reported having to work extra unpaid overtime
hours, in some cases up to 12 hours per week

Only half of respondents reported getting any benefits as part of
their employment.

39 % of respondents incurred out of pocket expenses as a result
of their employment
The number of working poor in B.C. has risen over the last number of years and has been a
key contribution to the ongoing crisis of child poverty in B.C.: For most of last decade, our
province had the highest child poverty rate in Canada. At 14.3% BC currently had the second
7
highest Child Poverty rate in the country. Low wages are one of the key reasons for Child
Poverty in B.C. For example:
43% of the poor children in B.C. – 41,300 children – live in families
with at least one adult working full-time, full-year (First Call, 2012).
This report argues that this situation provides SFU with an opportunity to become a pioneer in
addressing low wage poverty by becoming the first Living Wage University in Canada.
SFU produces world-leading research and is well-respected for the quality of its teaching;
adopting a “Living Wage Policy’ at SFU is an opportunity for the University to become a
leader in another way: a leader of social change. SFU teaches students how to become
leaders of social change, and has openly committed to building an ethical society. By
adopting a Living Wage Policy, SFU would be leading by example. It would inspire not only
8
students, but other Universities and organizations to change society for the better. A Living
Wage Policy at SFU would demonstrate that the University not only speaks of building an
ethical society and modeling best practice, but is truly committed to acting on these promises.
Moreover, adopting a Living Wage Policy at SFU would fulfill many commitments outlined in
the University’s Strategic Vision. Specifically, the Strategic Vision promises to “seek to build
and sustain a work environment that is equitable, supportive, rewarding, and enjoyable” and
to “pursue ecological, social and economic sustainability through its programs and
operations.” The Strategic Vision also commits to enhancing the well-being of local
communities and creating solutions for public issues (SFU Strategic Vision, n.d.). A Living
Wage Policy at SFU would fulfill these commitments while providing a practical and
meaningful remedy for poverty; it would cause an immediate and substantial positive effect on
the lives of members of the University’s community.
SFU has recently extended its ethical framework to include workers in the developing world
by becoming a Fair Trade Campus. We call on SFU to extend this ethical framework to
ensure that all workers on all three campuses receive a living wage as well. By adopting a
Living Wage Policy, SFU will join 22 out of the top 25 universities in the United States (U.S.)
(as ranked by U.S. News and World Report 2011), as well as 13 higher education institutions
in the United Kingdom (U.K.) who have already implemented a Living Wage Policy.
1.1 Methodology
This report is based on a community and action-oriented research project that involved
student organizations and trade unions at SFU. The research was undertaken in collaboration
with the community-based organization, the “Living Wage for Families Campaign” under the
direction of Michael McCarthy Flynn, Campaign Organizer. The Campaign is hosted by First
Call: BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition (First Call). Support in drawing up the research
parameters was provided by Dr. Marjorie Griffin Cohen, Professor in the Departments of
Political Science and Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies at SFU. This research
methodology has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Research Ethics on behalf of
the Research Ethics Board in SFU.
9
The main purpose of this research is to understand the extent and the impact of low-wages
on the lives of auxiliary workers at SFU. These workers included cleaning staff, catering staff,
childcare workers and research assistants. Many of these workers are in trade unions, but an
attempt was made to also survey non-unionized workers.
The research:
 Documented the pay and working conditions of a variety of low
wage workers on SFU’s Burnaby Campus;
 Investigated the impact these working conditions have on workers’
health and family life;
 Asked workers to speculate about the impact being paid a living
wage would have on their lives

Explored the constraints and possibilities for adopting a Living
Wage Policy at SFU.
Secondary data was examined through a literature review and analysis of existing information
on wages and working conditions at SFU and in B.C. The literature review also examined how
Living Wage Policies have been implemented in educational institutions in the U.S. and the
U.K.
Primary research involved 33 auxiliary workers at SFU. 15 workers filled out an online
questionnaire, while the remaining 18 workers were interviewed face to face using the same
format as the online questionnaire. Primary research took place between January and March
2012. The interviews were undertaken by Baccalaureate Nursing Program Students from
Vancouver Community College (VCC) who were on placement with First Call.
The makeup of participating workers was as follows: 17 Research Assistants, 3 Cleaners, 7
Childcare Workers and 6 Food Service Workers. While this cohort is on the low side, the
findings of this report provide a good snapshot of what life is like for a low wage worker in
SFU. We faced many difficulties in engaging with low wage workers on campus, including the
10
fact that one of the unions representing low wage workers didn’t have the capacity to provide
us with support. It was also extremely difficult to engender the trust of low wage workers in
the short time scale of this research project. Many of the workers we contacted were
extremely fearful of being interviewed or even been seen with the researchers as they felt that
they would face recriminations from their employer or even be fired.
Collaborators on the research were:
John Bannister, CUPE 3338
Mike Soron and Christina Batstone, SFU Graduate Student Society
Shahaa Kakar, Simon Fraser Public Interest Research Group (SFPIRG)
Connor Moffatt, Carina Nilsson, Karen Dean, SFU Teaching Support Staff Union (TSSU)
2. The Living Wage for Families Campaign
Families who work for low wages face impossible choices — buy food or heat the house, feed
the children or pay the rent. The result can be spiralling debt, constant anxiety and long-term
health problems. In many cases it means that the adults in the family are working long hours,
often at two or three jobs, just to pay for basic necessities. They have little time to spend with
their family, much less to help their children with school work or participate in community
activities.
With the publication of the 2008 report “Working for a Living Wage” the Living Wage for
Families Campaign has been raising awareness about the negative impact of low wage
poverty on families and communities. The campaign has also advocated that workers should
be paid a living wage. Simply put, this is a wage that covers families’ basic living expenses.
11
2.1 What do we mean by a Living Wage?
In contrast to a provincially legislated minimum wage, a living wage is a social and economic
benchmark whose primary purpose is to enable working families to pay their expenses and lift
themselves out of poverty. It is calculated based on what it costs to live in a specific
community, so living wage amounts vary across the province as living expenses vary. In
summary a living wage is the hourly rate of pay that enables wage earners living in a
household to:

Feed, clothe & provide shelter for their family

Promote healthy child development

Participate in activities that are an ordinary part of life in the community (like being able
to afford to us community facilities)

Avoid the chronic stress of living in poverty
12
A living wage is high enough that families can weather a temporary crisis without falling into
poverty, but very modest compared to community standards. So it does not include:

Saving for retirement

Owning a home

Debt servicing

Saving for children’s future education
In developing this calculation methodology the Living Wage for Families Campaign worked
with the Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP) at the University of British Columbia
(UBC), independent social policy consultants, the Victoria Social Planning Council, the United
Way of the Lower Mainland, First Call, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the
Hospital Employees Union. The methodology was reviewed by the First Call Living Wage
Roundtable, low income parents, as well as a Vancity-organized employer focus group, as
part of the development of the 2008 report “Working for a Living Wage”.
2.2 How is a Living Wage Calculated?
This hourly Living Wage rate is calculated based on the living expenses of a family of four
with two children aged four and seven, with both parents working full-time (35 hours/week
each). In BC 85 percent of families are headed by couples and 62 percent have two or more
children (Statistics Canada, 2006c ). The model family is not meant to be representative of all
working families, but it does represent the most common type of family unit in BC.
Furthermore, the Living Wage is based on basic working conditions, 70 hours of work per
week between two people, and already incorporates government transfers (e.g. the Canadian
Child Tax Benefit) and deductions (e.g. taxes, E.I. and CPP premiums.)
And while the actual Living Wage calculation is focused on two-parent families with young
children, the intent is to ensure that the wage is adequate for single parents, and also that it
provides an adequate income throughout one’s life cycle so that young adults will not be
discouraged from having children and older workers will have the means to support aging
parents.
13
The expenses included in this Living Wage calculation include food, clothing and footwear,
shelter, and transportation, based on the Market Basket Measure (MBM) 1. Additional
expenses include child care, provincial Medical Services Plan (MSP) premiums, non MSPcovered health expenses, limited education amounts for parents, and a contingency amount
to provide a two-week cushion in the event of job loss, illness, etc. Based on this methodology
the Living Wage rate for 2012 in Metro Vancouver is $19.14 per hour.
3. Working Conditions in SFU
SFU is a Canadian Public Research University with three campuses. SFU's main campus
was established in 1965 and is located atop of Burnaby Mountain. Another campus is located
in Downtown Vancouver and a third in Surrey. The UniverCity urban village, a community that
began to be developed in early 2000 is located adjacent to the Burnaby campus.
SFU is a public University; in other words, the majority of funding comes from taxpayers and
the remaining from tuition fees and donations. SFU offers over 100 undergraduate and over
45 graduate programs that operate on a year-round tri-semester schedule. SFU has over
30,000 students (local/international), almost 3000 faculty and staff, and over 100,000 alumni.
It also houses a sizable number of auxiliary workers who are contracted to provide services
such as cleaning or food service.
3.1 SFU as a Direct Employer
SFU has the reputation as one of the best employers provincially and nationally. In 2011, it
was recognized as one of BC’s Top 40 employers, Canada’s Top 100 employers, and among
the nation’s Top 25 family-friendly employers (Yerema, R. & Leung, K., 2011).
In an employer review undertaken by Yerema and Leung (2011), SFU claims that its financial
benefits are very competitive compared with other Universities. SFU offers a benefit pension
1
An index of expenses developed by Human Resources & Social Development Canada to provide a perspective
on low income
14
with employer contributions (up to 12.7% of salary), a defined contribution plan with employer
contributions (up to 10% of salary), life and disability insurance, and retirement planning
assistance. In terms of vacation and time new employees receive three weeks of paid
vacation after their first year and vacation increases after ten years on the job.
In terms of health and family benefits, employees who work 35 or more hours a week receive
coverage and the waiting period for new employees is 90 days. Employees receive full family
coverage on the health benefits plan; retiree coverage with no age limit; routine dental,
restorative dental, orthodontics; eye care; traditional medicine coverage, alternative medicine
coverage, massage therapy, medical equipment and supplies; homecare; employee
assistance plan; and travel insurance. Family-friendly benefits include paid maternity leave,
paternal leave, and parental leave for adoptive parents; health benefits during maternity and
paternal leave; off-site daycare subsidy to $1,816 per child; and subsidized onsite daycare.
Additional family-friendly benefits include compassionate top-up payment (Yerema & Leung,
2011).
However it is important to note that some direct employees in SFU have different terms and
conditions and not all of them receive all or any of the benefits listed above.
3.2 Auxiliary Employment in SFU
It is difficult to conclusively identify how many low-wage, contracted or auxiliary workers are
employed in SFU. However from our investigations we can estimate that they are at least a
few hundred in number.
Unlike those reviewed above that have been hired directly by SFU, auxiliary workers exist in a
totally different employment bracket in terms of pay and conditions. In fact you could argue
that they exist in a totally different world. Most of them earn low wages and have precarious
working conditions.
15
Yet the “SFU Contracting of University Services Policy” states that SFU is committed “to
uphold the highest standards of fairness and equity in tendering of services” (SFU, 2007).
Similarly, “The SFU Ethical Procurement Policy” states that “SFU is committed to engage all
our communities in building a robust and ethical society” and that “the University is seeking to
do business with organizations that manage their affairs in a manner consistent with the
University’s values and commitment” (SFU, 2005). The institution of a Living Wage Policy at
SFU would be a significant step towards the University meeting these self-identified goals.
Janitors
There
are
approximately
100
workers
employed by Best Facilities who provide
janitorial services to the SFU Campus in
Burnaby and Surrey. These workers are
represented by CUPE 3338.
They are the one of the most vulnerable
workers on the campus and are one of the
lowest paid at SFU. The cleaners start at
$13.43 per hour and the only benefit they
receive is having their M.S.P paid for. They
have the little job protection and have no
job security (CUPE 3338, 2010).
Food Service Workers
There are more than 100 food service workers employed by Chartwells on the SFU campus
and are represented by UNITE HERE Local 40. Chartwells have been contracted by SFU to
operate a number of food service outlets such as Tim Hortons, White Spot, Mackenzie
Cafeteria, Residents Dining Hall, the DAC and C-store on campus. The average wage of a
Chartwells worker is approximately $15.00 per hour; health and dental coverage is provided
for Chartwells employees (Unite Here Local 40, 2011).
16
Research Assistants
According to 2011/2012 enrolment figures, there were 2195 Masters students at SFU, 1301
PhD students, and 729 Graduate Diploma and other types of graduate students attending
SFU, for a total of 4225 graduate students. Research Assistants (RAs) are difficult to “track”
because they are contracted by faculty members (often through funding from external grants)
and are not considered SFU employees in the eyes of the University (SFU, 1992). However
the exact nature of RA’s employment status is controversial. There have been several recent
Union certifications of RAs in Canada, the decisions for which resulted in determinations that
RAs are, indeed, employees of their university, despite their institution’s assertion to the
contrary. At SFU, RAs are not unionized and there are no policies at the university
standardizing RA pay or working conditions. RAs do not have access to many of SFU’s
employment support mechanisms including the VP Research’s Office and SFU’s Human
Resources (HR), even though RA pay is processed through payroll at HR.
A Graduate Student Society survey completed in 2011, indicates that graduate students
working as RAs (both MAs and PhDs) receive an hourly compensation that ranges from well
below minimum wage up to $30. This can be complicated when RAs view their wages as
“funding,” i.e. when a graduate student’s research for their dissertation is directly related to
the research that they are conducting for a professor as a Research Assistant. Additionally,
RAs may be encouraged to view their wages as compensation for the completion of particular
projects or research milestones, rather than as wages per hour of work. This can result in
uncompensated overtime or the student’s average hourly rate getting dragged well below
minimum wage. RAs can receive health and dental benefits if their grant holder (i.e. faculty
member) agrees to pay for a portion. RAs do not receive any other benefits unless they
directly negotiate for them, (GSS Survey 2011),
Given all of these areas of complexity, it was beyond the scope of this research to determine
exactly how many and which types of RAs fall into the “low pay” bracket. What is clear is that
as individually contracted, non-unionized employees at the University, Research Assistants
are susceptible to receiving low-pay and no benefits, as well as vulnerable to exploitation.
17
Childcare Workers
The
SFU
Childcare
Society
presently
has
60
employees and operates eleven programs out of the
Childcare Centre. The center provides full and part
time care to approximately 240 children, ranging from
the age of three months to twelve years. These
workers are represented by the BCGEU. The rate of
pay for a casual worker is $14.62 per hour; for an early
childhood educator, the wage begins at $17.38 per
hour and can increase up to $18.25 per hour; and for a senior early childhood educator, the
wage begins at $19.40 per hour and can increase up to $20.39 per hour. Some of the benefits
for child care workers include paid vacation pay, extended health and dental services, life
insurance, as well as coverage of parking costs necessary for regular full time staff (BCGEU,
2012).
Other Retail staff (non-unionized)
There are many retail units on campus that hire non-unionized food service and retail
workers.
These units vary in number of employees and hourly wage. Employees at
Renaissance Cafe start at the minimum wage but they can progress up to $16.50 per hour.
The Plum Garden Noodle house has six employees and who average $12 per hour. The
owners of the Noodle House have two other stores on campus: Bamboo garden has seven
employees with an average of $14 per hour; and, Donair Town has five employees and they
average $12 per hour. In summary, food service workers at SFU typically start from minimum
wage and can increase to up to $16 per hour2 (See Appendix 1 for details on wages).
2
This data was ascertained from interviews with managers at the aforementioned establishments.
18
4. Low Wages and Living Wages at SFU
As part of this research report we held detailed interviews with 33 auxiliary workers about
their working conditions and how it affected their health and family life.
4.1 Demographics
The majority of respondents were female (64%). This gender breakdown is consistent with
other research that indicates that low wage work in B.C. is predominantly a female occupation
(Townson, 2009). 72 percent of respondents were Canadian Citizens, with the rest almost
equally divided between Permanent Residents and Student Visa holders. However 65 percent
of respondents identified themselves as being part of a visible minority, including Indian,
Korean, Iranian, Spanish, Chinese, Nigerian, Armenian, Afghan and Lebanese.
This
breakdown is also consistent with research that tells us that a disproportionate amount of lowwage workers are members of visible minorities (Morissette & Picot, 2005).
A little over half (52%) of respondents had dependants at home. Two thirds of these
dependants were children and with the other third made up of other family members- usually
parents. Just under half (42%) lived with just their partner or spouse. Only six percent of
respondents lived alone. Yet nearly 60 percent of respondents were the single wage earner
for the family.
45 percent of respondents were aged between 26-35 years, with 36 percent between 36-66
years and 18 percent under 25 years. The highest number of respondents lived in Burnaby
(29%) followed by Vancouver (22%), Coquitlam (22%), Surrey (12%) and New Westminster
(6%).
19
4.2 Working Conditions
The majority of respondents (57%) had been in their jobs for more than two years with fifteen
percent in their positions longer than five years. 21 percent had held in their positions for less
than six months.
30
25
20
less than $10
$10-$11.99
$12-$13.99
$14-$15.99
$16-$17.99
15
10
5
0
Wage levels of those
below a Living Wage (%)
The vast majority of workers surveyed (73%) earned less than a living wage. A large
proportion (42%) earned less than $14 per hour. This is a significant finding when coupled
with the fact that the majority of respondents are the sole income earner for their families and
over half of the respondents had other dependant family members.
The majority of respondents work full time (60%). However 57 percent of workers reported
having to work extra unpaid overtime hours, in some cases of up to twelve hours per week. A
small percentage (9%) reported having to work unpaid overtime of more than twelve hours
per week. Only half of respondents reported getting any benefits as part of their employment.
39 percent of respondents incurred out of pocket expenses as a result of their employment;
the most notably being parking expenses at $47 per month. Some workers can end up
actually losing money if the University is closed because of snow; they receive no payment if
20
their shift hasn’t started and only four hours pay if the shift has started. In these cases the
worker still has to pay for their transportation/parking costs.
When we asked participants how they felt
about their pay and conditions of work the vast
majority
of
responses
were
extremely
negative. Here is sample of what respondents
said:
“We don’t get paid enough for what we do.
Taking care of children is a huge responsibility
and we are not valued at all.” (Childcare
Worker)
“I feel that the pay is not adequate enough to
sustain a living. I literally live pay cheque to pay cheque and budget my finances to only meet
bare necessities.” (Food Service Worker)
“I feel that as a researcher who has completed an MSc with more than 2.5 years experience, I
am being paid too little. I also feel that my contract should include health benefits.”
(Research Assistant)
“The payment I receive barely covers 2/3 of my expenses. I don’t know how we are supposed
to live like this!!! Come on seriously…I can go and work outside of the university and get paid
10 times more.” (Research Assistant)
4.3 Effect of Low Wages on Health and Family
When we asked respondents “How do you think your working conditions affect the wellbeing
of your family life?”
72 percent of respondents said that their job and pay rate had a
significant negative effect on them. By far the most common issue raised was chronic stress.
An example of some of the responses is below:
21
“I feel stressed all the time having to worry about rent and insurance payments, as well as my
medical payments.” (Research Assistant)
This finding corresponds with the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, which
found that parents in households with low incomes are more than twice as likely as parents in
either middle-or high-income families to be chronically stressed. Not having enough money to
buy household essentials and feeling that unrealistic expectations were being placed on their
time are two of the primary sources of stress identified in the above research. These parents
are more likely to suffer from poor health and to be more expensive users of health care
services. Adolescents living with chronically stressed parents were more likely than other
youth to have a tough time socially and in school (Ross & Roberts, 1999).
Other respondents told us about the necessity of relying on a food bank as a reality for them:
“I feel like I can’t provide for my
family. I have to struggle to pay for
food, housing, electricity and phone
bills. Sometimes I have to go to the
food
bank
for
food.”
(Childcare
Worker)
While
another
respondent
emphasized the most obvious and
basic negative effect was not having
enough income to live on:
“On numerous occasions […] my family was unable to pay the rent, buy groceries, pay our
bills, student loans etc.” (Research Assistant)
Many respondents commented on the isolation they feel and the lack of any relationship they
have with their families due to having to work long shifts to make up for their low wages:
22
“I have been unable to take a summer break with my children and I have in many ways
become a stranger to them.” (Research Assistant)
“Well I don’t have a family life where I live.” (Food Service Worker)
These experiences of SFU low-wage workers confirm that families feel a direct negative
impact from their parents’ poor wages. Low parental income is the key reason for child
poverty. In B.C., which had the highest child poverty rate in Canada for eight years, 48
percent of poor children (55,700 children) live in families with at least one adult working fulltime, full-year (First Call, 2011).
4.4. The Impact of a Living Wage
Finally we asked respondents to talk
about what they felt being paid a living
wage would mean for them. Many
respondents commented that a living
wage would enable them to cover their
living expenses and be lifted out of
poverty.
At
its
most
basic
(and
profound) level this is what earning a
living wage achieves:
“It [being paid a living wage] would mean I could have more money for basics like food for my
children.” (Janitor)
“It would mean more money to spend in paying bills and rent.” (Childcare Worker)
“It would mean I won’t have to owe money to people.” (Food Service Worker)
23
A number of respondents emphasized that they didn’t feel that they had enough time to spend
with their children and that earning a living wage would greatly change this.
“Won’t have to work extra jobs to support family.” (Childcare Worker)
“I’d be able to work only one job, which means more time.” (Janitor)
“I would have more time with my family, more time to spend in the community participating in
events.” (Research Assistant)
When children live in poverty, or when parents are compelled to work multiple jobs to stay
afloat, parents have little opportunity and time to care and support their children at this
important developmental stage of their lives. Thus increasing parent’s wages has a
significant positive impact on childhood development.
A growing body of evidence tells us that growing up in an engaged, supportive environment is
a powerful lifelong determinant of a person’s health and general well-being. Children from
low-income families are less likely to do well at school, have lower literacy levels and are
more likely as adults to suffer from job insecurity, under-employment and poor health. In fact
80 percent of the factors that effect childhood development, as identified by the Chief Public
Health Officer, improve as family income increases (Chief Public Health Officer 2009). This is
a significant consideration for an educational institution like SFU, because, as the above
general research indicates, children of low wage workers will face more barriers to becoming
students at University, due to issues related to low wage poverty.
One of the most shocking responses we received related to how earning a living wage would
help the respondent take care of his sick wife:
“Well...to begin with my wife would probably be able to finally get the surgery she needs.”
(Research Assistant)
24
The respondent went on to emphasis that his wife would need to go on short term disability
for a time to recover from her operation and this wasn’t possible on the respondent’s current
wage. The way a living wage is calculated budgets for emergencies such as this.
Access to a living wage has a significant impact on health outcomes and costs. Low-income
families are more vulnerable to poor health and they are more costly users of health care
services, not because they use health services more frequently, but because they are sicker
when they do require care. Therefore, their hospital stays are longer and may involve more
costly treatment procedures. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives calculates the
annual additional health care costs in B.C. due to poverty to be $1.2 billion, while the BC
Health Living Alliance calculates the figure to be as high as $3.8 billion annually (CCPA,
2011).
5. SFU: A Living Wage University?
In Canada there is increasing support for living wages as a way to address the issue of child
and family poverty. In 2010 the City of New Westminster became the first municipality in
Canada to pass a Living Wage Policy, with other municipalities across the country, including
Hamilton, the City of North Vancouver and Pitt Meadows considering following suit. School
District 69 in Parksville/Qualicum recently became the first School Board in the country to
pass a Living Wage Policy.
25
Moreover, in Metro Vancouver, a growing number of leading corporate and non-profit
employers have seen the benefits of paying living wages. 28 organizations in Metro
Vancouver, employing over 5,000 workers and covering thousands more contracted service
workers, have been certified as Living Wage Employers. These include SAP–Vancouver (the
world’s largest inter-enterprise software company and the world’s fourth-largest independent
software supplier), Vancity (Canada’s largest credit union, with $14.5 billion in assets, more
than 417,000 members and 59 branches), the Canadian Cancer Society–BC and Yukon
Division, the United Way of the Lower Mainland and Eclipse Awards, the winner of Small
Business B.C.’s “Best Employer” in 2012.
In the education sector 22 out of the top 25 universities in the U.S. (as ranked by U.S. News
and World Report 2011) including all eight Ivy League schools, M.I.T., and University of
California at Berkeley, have passed a Living Wage Policy. While thirteen education
institutions in the U.K. have some form of a Living Wage Policy in place (See Appendix 2 and
3 for full details).
Outside Canada, living wage bylaws have been implemented in many Municipalities. Since
1994, 140 municipalities in the U.S. have passed Living Wage Policies/Bylaws. These include
many big cities such as New York, Chicago, Boston, Detroit, Cleveland, Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Oakland, San Jose and Miami. In fact, close to one half of the U.S. urban
population now live in cities covered by some kind of municipal Living Wage Policies/Bylaws.
The Greater London Authority in Britain also has a Living Wage Policy/Bylaw. The recent
summer Olympics in London in 2012 were the first Living Wage Olympics, where all 135,000
workers working on the event were paid a living wage!
All of these organizations have committed to paying a living wage to all of their direct staff and
contracted service staff, including janitorial, security and cleaning staff.
26
5.1 What would it mean for SFU to become a Living Wage Employer?
To be certified as a Living Wage Employer in Metro Vancouver an employer has to adhere to
the following conditions:

All employees (full-time, part-time and casual) must be paid the current Living Wage Rate
for Metro Vancouver. This is currently $19.14 per hour. If you pay non-mandatory benefits
to your employees, the Living Wage hourly rate will be reduced to take account of this.

Externally contracted staff that are not direct employees, but who provide services to your
organization on a regular ongoing basis, must also be paid the Living Wage.

Employees paid by incentive-based pay (tips) or commission can be paid less than a
Living Wage provided their total earnings (including incentive-based pay and/or
commission) equal or exceed the Living Wage.
27
Collective Agreements
Collective agreements are an integral part of labour relations for SFU. Becoming a Living
Wage Employer should not interfere with this. By becoming a Living Wage Employer the
University should not re-open existing collective agreements. Instead, the University would
commit to the principle that in all future collective agreements all direct staff will be paid at
least the Living Wage and that adequate scope for increases will be included in the
agreement to cover any living wage increases over the lifetime of the agreement.
Outside Contractors
Being certified as a Living Wage Employer means that an employer commits to insert a
legally binding living wage clause all in new and renewed contracts. This clause would
stipulate that all those working on the contract (including subcontractor workers and RAs) will
be paid the Living Wage. It is important that all potential contractors are properly informed of
the implications of an Employer’s Living Wage Employer Status and that appropriate material
is included in all collective bid documents. Faculty members who hire RAs with research
funding will also need to be informed about their responsibility to pay the Living Wage.
Contractors should be asked to sign a declaration that they understand their responsibilities in
relation to this Living Wage Clause. The University can ensure compliance by mandating that
all contracts give the University authority to audit service providers and subcontractors
(including pay stubs) upon a suspected breach of the policy being brought to their attention.
Likewise, an office on campus, such as the VP Research or the Dean of Graduate Studies,
could be empowered with the right to ensure and enforce the Living Wage for RAs.
Employee Benefits
The Living Wage rate can be reached by a combination of an hourly wage + non-mandatory
benefits. If an employer pays non-mandatory benefits to their employees, the hourly wage it
needs to reach the Living Wage rate will be reduced accordingly. Non-mandatory benefits
include employer contributions such as extended health/dental care, MSP premiums, child
care expenses, transport expenses, professional education development, enhanced vacation
and sick leave, etc. No reduction in the wage rate would occur for payments that an employer
28
is mandated by law to provide such as Employment Insurance and Canada Pension Plan
contributions.
The Living Wage for Families Campaign has developed a software tool, in partnership with
the software company SAP, to help employers calculate how their benefit package affects
their ability to pay the Living Wage- see http://livingwageforfamilies.ca/calculator.
5.2 How much will it cost?
This is one of the first questions any
employer
asks
when
considering
becoming a Living Wage Employer.
This is understandable, especially for
an institution like SFU which is a public
institution
funding
tuition
that
from
and
receives
significant
taxpayers,
students’
from
private
donors.
However, in costing a commitment to become a Living Wage Employer it is important to
include the economic and social benefits that will accrue to SFU and the wider community as
a result of this commitment.
It should be straightforward for the University to identify how many direct employees earn less
than the Living Wage and calculate the costs of bringing them up to a living wage rate. In
terms of contractors, they can be simply asked if their contracting costs will increase if a
Living Wage Policy is implemented. This is the approach that the City of New Westminster
took in estimating the potential cost of passing their Living Wage Policy. The estimated cost of
New Westminster’s ‘Living Wage Policy’ was 0.25 percent of the city’s annual budget. Studies
in the U.S. have shown that the contracting cost of Living Wage Policies are usually
overestimated and end up costing closer to 0.1 percent of the overall city budget. Of course
because SFU has a lot less service contracts than the average municipality, the costs for SFU
would be significantly lower than these estimates.
29
However, becoming a Living Wage Employer also brings with it benefits. There is now a large
body of research which documents the positive economic and social effects of paying a living
wage. There are many obvious benefits to workers who receive a living wage, especially
when it lifts them out of poverty, or for students when it helps them reduce their debt, but
there are also benefits for employers.
A. Decreased employee turnover; cost savings for staff hiring and training; lower
absenteeism

A study of employers in Los Angeles found lower rates of labour turnover, absenteeism
and overtime rates and higher rates of training amongst 75 living wage contractors when
compared to 210 similar non-living wage firms. Staff turnover rates at firms covered by
Living Wage Policies averaged 17 percent lower than at firms that were not (Fairris &
Reich, 2005).

A leading study of the San Francisco Airport by researchers at the University of California
found that after the airport boosted wages, turnover among contracted security screeners
plummeted from 95 percent to 19 percent. The airport saved thousands of dollars per
worker in new employee recruitment and training costs (Reich, Hall & Jacobs, 2005).

KPMG London halved its turnover rate after it introduced a Living Wage Policy for all its inhouse and contract staff. Other benefits were seen as well: “No one abused the new sick
pay scheme and absenteeism is very low. We get the benefit of reduced training costs and
increased staff continuity. It is a much more motivated workforce¨ Head of Corporate
Services, Guy Stallard (cited in SERTUC, n.d.: 6).
B. Improved job quality, productivity and service delivery

An investigation into the decision by Queen Mary University of London to bring its cleaning
service in-house and become a Living Wage Employer found that it stimulated
improvements in job quality, productivity and service delivery, with very little increase in
costs (Wills, Kakpo & Begum, 2009).
30

More than 80% of employers involved in the London Living Wage Program (LLW) believed
that the LLW had enhanced the quality of the work of their staff. Employees (almost 75%)
also reported increases in work quality as a result of receiving the LLW (London
Economics, 2009).
C. Benefits the broader economy by stimulating consumer spending

A 2009 Goldman Sachs report confirms that increasing the income of people with lower
wages has a proportionately larger stimulating effect on the economy than increasing the
income of those with high incomes. Low earners tend to spend more of their increased
income than those with much higher incomes, because those on low-incomes have more
essential spending needs to be met by any income increases. Higher income populations
deliver only three to five cents of increased spending per additional dollar of wealth
(Goldman Sachs, 2009).

Vancity emphasized the positive role that living wages play in the local economy when
they agreed to become a Living Wage Employer in 2011:
“We want to be part of a community that invests in the long-term prosperity of
individuals and the economy. Paying a living wage to our employees and service
providers will help make families stronger and communities healthier.”
Tamara Vrooman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Vancity.
D. Greater corporate social responsibility and organization reputation

Organizations are becoming increasingly aware that a commitment to corporate
responsibility is essential to their public image. Organizations are very conscious of their
“brand¨, but lofty mission statements mean little if the public becomes aware that they hide
the exploitation of low paid staff. This is especially true for an organization like SFU that
depends on the goodwill of donors for some of its funding and activities.

Eclipse Awards, a Living Wage Employer based in Strathcona, Vancouver was named
Best Small Business Employer in BC in 2012 partly because of their pioneering
commitment to being a Living Wage Employer.
31

70 percent of employers involved in the London Living Wage Program (LLW) felt that
being publicly recognized as paying a living wage had increased consumer awareness of
their organization’s commitment to being an ethical employer (London Economics, 2009).
A statement from KPMG London on why they became a Living Wage Employer states:
“Research suggests that most people want to work for a company whose values are
consistent with their own and that a majority of young people believe in the power of
responsible business practice to improve profitability. Thus corporate responsibility is
increasingly a key factor in attracting and retaining a talented and diverse workforce.
Our last annual People Survey showed that almost all of our people believe KPMG is
socially responsible and makes a positive contribution to the communities in which we
operate.”
It is also important to note that many of the low wage positions identified in this report were
once held in-house by SFU. Organizations like SFU who contract out these services justify
the decision based on cost savings. However in reality costs don’t magically disappear, they
are instead transferred to another agent, in most cases onto the backs of those who can least
afford them; low wage workers and their families.
Moreover once services are contracted out there is rarely any extensive cost benefit
evaluation of the outcomes of these measures. Negative externalities like the social costs of
low wage work aren’t factored into the equation. As Jim Stanford and Robert Dryden,
respected economists, have pointed out:
“Once the costs and benefits are examined more carefully and comprehensively, it
becomes clear that the ultimate cost savings from privatizing cleaning work will be
much smaller than suggested merely by the cost of received bids — if in fact there are
truly any bottom-line savings at all. Indeed, after taking into account all of the indirect
and spillover effects of outsourcing, including on public health, occupational health and
safety, social assistance and EI expenses, and the impact on general community
32
wellbeing, it is not far-fetched to imagine that outsourcing could produce no saving or
even net expenses, especially in the medium- to long-term” (Dryden and Stanford
2012).
5.3 Making it Happen- Committing to Dialogue
Becoming a Living Wage University is an
important undertaking for SFU and we are well
aware that it will not happen over night. The
first step the University has to take is to
honestly enter into a dialogue about this issue
with members of the SFU Living Wage
Campaign and other relevant stakeholders.
This is the most important, but also the easiest,
step to achieve.
Such a dialogue process would involve the following steps:
1. Identify what facts need to be ascertained for us to be able to proceed- i.e. what a Living
Wage Policy would cost (after factoring in the potential benefits as referenced above), who
would be affected by the policy etc.
2. Explore the options for implementing a Living Wage Policy based on the facts- what are
the options for funding the policy, what administrative infrastructure would have to be put
in place.
3. Based on the above, identify a potential implementation process and time scale to be
brought to SFU Board of Governors for consideration.
Yet SFU doesn’t have to start form scratch. The Living Wage for Families had worked with a
number of employers to assist them to become Living Wage Employers and can share
learning and tools to minimize the time the University has to spend on administration
changes.
33
6. Conclusion
“We’ll try to use our resources- physical, intellectual, and others- to try to work to create space
in which the community could come together and address serious issues” (Andrew Petter,
SFU President, 2012)
SFU produces world-leading research and is well-respected for the quality of its teaching.
Adopting a Living Wage Policy at SFU is an opportunity for the University to become a leader
in another way: a leader of social change. SFU teaches students how to become leaders of
social change, and has openly committed to building an ethical society. By adopting a Living
Wage Policy, SFU would be leading by example. It would inspire not only students, but other
Universities and organizations to change society for the better. A Living Wage Policy at SFU
would demonstrate that the University not only speaks of building an ethical society and
modeling best practices, but is truly committed to acting on these promises.
Moreover, adopting Living Wage Policy at SFU would fulfill many commitments outlined in
SFU’s Strategic Vision. Specifically, the Strategic Vision promises to “recognize, respect, and
value the essential contribution made by staff and faculty, and will seek to build and sustain a
work environment that is equitable, supportive, rewarding, and enjoyable” (SFU Strategic
Vision, n.d.). The Strategic Vision also commits to enhancing the well-being of local
communities and creating solutions for public issues. A Living Wage Policy at SFU would
fulfill these commitments while providing a practical and meaningful remedy for poverty: it
would cause an immediate and substantial positive effect on the lives of members of the
University’s community (SFU Strategic Vision, n.d.).
SFU has a long and proud history of fostering dialogue on important issues in our community.
In fact one of the core aims of the University is that it will become a “public square” to which
British Columbians might look for productive dialogue on important problems of the day.
Our report provides a stark picture of the experience of a sizeable part of the SFU community
and their families. It clearly shows that there is a population of working poor employed at the
University. We see them every day. They prepare our meals. They clean up after us. They
34
take care of our children. Yet we rarely think about how they and their families live when they
go home.
There are very few more important issues in B.C. at the moment than the issue of our
continuing high rates of child and family poverty. This report clearly shows that it is time that
SFU undertakes a serious dialogue about low wage work on campus, and commits to a
process to become the first Living Wage University in Canada.
35
Appendix 1: Comparison of BC and SFU Low Wage Sectors
Simon Fraser
British Columbia
University
Janitorial
Start: $14.48/hr
Average: $17.27/hr
Start: $ 13.43/hr
3
Average: $14.26/hr4
Start:$9/hr- $30/hr5
Research Assistants
Food Service Workers
Start: $10.25/hr
Start: $10.25/hr
(Non-Unionized)
(min.wage)
(min.wage)
Average: $12.60/hr6
Average: $12.00/hr7
Start: 14.45/hr
Start: 14.62/hr
Average: $16.46/hr8
Average: $17.01/hr9
Childcare Workers
3
http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/LabourIncome/Earnings/WageSalarySurvey/WageSalarySurveySummaryTables.aspx
(British Columbia
4
From communication with CUPE 3338
5
6
7
http://sfugradsociety.ca/downloads/Mega-Survey-Report-Dec-2-2011-ed..pdf
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/labr74o-eng.htm
SFU Food service workers wages were calculated from email responses we received from managers
8
http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/LabourIncome/Earnings/WageSalarySurvey/WageSalarySurveySummaryTables.aspx
(British Columbia)
9
http://www.bcgeu.ca/sites/default/files/03031912.pdf
36
Appendix 2: Living Wages in UK Universities
There are 13 higher education institutions that have committed to paying the London Living
Wage, including:
London Met University
Queen Mary University of London (QMUL)
London School of Economics
School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)
Birkbeck College
University of London Union
School of Hygiene
Institute of Education
Goldsmiths College
London Business School
University College London
University of East London
Kings College London
Further Education colleges are also beginning to commit to paying the London Living Wage,
including:
City and Islington College
Norlington Boys School
ARK Academy, St.
Charles 6th Form College.
UK Universities Living Wage Commitments
LW Universities
Who
Effects after LW
Date
Birkbeck College
Contract Cleaning staff
employed by Ocean’s
Cleaners
and catering staff,
UCU and Unite, the other
staff and student unions
have signed on the
campaign
According to professor David Latchmen, the master
of Birkbeck, they are having discussion with ULU
itself about extending the living wage to the ULUcontracted staff who provide our students and staff
bar services as their next step in their living wage
implementation (July 2011)
March 2007March 18th
2009
(Campaign
Victory)
Goldsmiths
College
All Contract workers and
own staff (includes
cleaners and caterers)
Senior staff have been persuaded of the financial, as
well as the ethical benefits of paying their low paid
staff the London living wage. As argued by Professor
Jane Willis, “once employers implement the living
wage, they can secure improvements in productivity
through enhanced worker morale, reduced turnover,
and additional managerial innovation. It reduces the
cost of implementation.”
Jan 2011
st
-1 higher
education
institution in
south London
to become a
LLW employer.
College has been granted the London Living Wage
Award. The College is the first higher education
institution in south London to become a London
Living Wage employer.
37
Institute of
Education
Contracted staff
Cleaners and Caterers
Kings College
London
private contracting staff:
London
Metropolitan
University
All contracted staffcleaners, caterers, and
agency security staff as
well as some in-house
staff, such as Library staff,
and casual bar staff
Professor Geoff Whitty, says “the Institute of
Education values the contributions of all colleagues
who help deliver a first rate student experience. Our
externally contracted staff are a part of our
community and moving to paying the living wage is
one way in which we can demonstrate our recognition
of their contribution. The living wage is a reflection of
our institutional values and as good business sense.”
June 2011
September
2011
“This represents a massive victory for the union, and
will ensure that London Met's most poorly paid staff
will soon receive a fair, decent living wage.”
As of August
1st 2011, all
directly
employed staff
of the
university will
receive at least
the London
Living Wage.
UNISON
"The Living Wage is about dignity in the workplace.
Nobody should be forced to survive in London on
poverty pay. We all know London is the most
expensive place to live in the UK. UNISON is
determined to close the widening pay gap at London
Met. This commitment to the Living Wage is an
important step in that direction.”
London School of
Economics (LSE)
All Staff
Cleaners
Implemented successfully
across the school
Professor Howard Davies, Director states that “the
LSE community is supportive of the living wage
commitment, which we have now implemented
successfully across the school.”
18 month
campaign
Success in
March 2007
Queen Mary
University of
London (QMUL)
Cleaning Staff employed
by KGB Office Cleaning
Services
(104 cleaners in total)
The college is cleaner and staff feels rewarded and
communities on and off campus fully backs the idea
of LW
2005-2008
In April 2006
agreed to
st
become 1 LW
campus in UK
UNISON
School of Hygiene
and Tropical
Medicine
Cleaning staff
The university has a strong commitment to
addressing disadvantage and reducing inequities in
health worldwide. Paying the cleaning staff a LW is
consistent with that commitment and they value their
role in keeping their environment safe and pleasant
for students and staff
School of Oriental
and African
Studies (SOAS)
Catering and Cleaning
Staff
Professor Paul Webley, principal, states “the School
of Oriental and African Studies is above all else a
community that celebrates diversity and is respectful
and collegial. Paying the living wage for catering and
cleaning staff is an important part of this as it ensures
that lower paid workers have a better standard of
living in one of Europe’s most expensive cities,
allowing them to care properly for their families.”
June 2008
University of
College London
Private Contracting Staff :
Cleaners
A spokesman for Citizens UK says that Professor
Grant "has clearly heard the arguments of the
campaign that a living wage is both the right thing to
do, and makes good business sense".
September
2010
38
University of East
London
Low-wage Staff
The announcement was made by Professor Patrick
Mcghee, Vice Chancellor, who said that “the
University of East London’s decision is in line with our
University strategy: An outstanding workforce:
professionalism, careers, flexibility.” The living wage
will make sure that all staff have the opportunity to
play a full role in the future, in which all staff will have
equal opportunities.
November
2011
University of
London Union
Private Contracting Staff:
Cleaners and Catering
Staff
Nizam Uddin and Mazdek Alizadeh, President and
Vice President of the University of London Union say
“the living wage embodies the principle of fair access
to education by ensuring that no child is prevented
from accessing higher education because of poverty.”
24 Sept 2010
University of
Manchester
130 employees, including
those working for
contractors are paid below
the £7.20 rate.
“The fact that the largest university in the country
agreed to pay a living wage is proof that campaigning
works, and that change is achievable through
agitation and organisation”
14Nov2011March 2012
“The living wage campaign is incredibly important,
firstly for the obvious benefits it gives to college,
university, and students’ union staff. It is also crucial
in terms of our responsibility to make sure the sector
remains at the forefront of ethical employment. The
living wage campaign is an amazing opportunity for
students to get involved in a campaign that really
changes people’s lives. While there are so many
campaigns which change lives for the better what
was so wonderful about working on the campaign in
Manchester was that we could see the gains that
people got right in front of us. We knew the people
who were to benefit, and that made it so powerful.”
39
Appendix 3: Living Wages in U.S. Universities
According to the Living Wage Campaign at the University of Virginia, 22 out of the top 25
universities in the U.S. (as ranked by U.S. News and World Report 2011) have a living wage
including all eight Ivy League schools, M.I.T., and the University of California at Berkeley
(http://www.livingwageatuva.org/faq/).
US Universities Living Wage Commitments
LW Universities
Who
Effects after LW
Date
Arizona State
University
Food service
workers on
campus
ASU finalized its food service agreement with new provider,
ARAMARK, who is committed to providing wages and
benefits packages that are more likely to allow their workers
to support their families.
Fall 2005 April 2007
(Campaign
Victory)
DePaul University
Campus dining
workers
employed by
Chartwells
Fully covered single-coverage health plan for 80 full-time
workers by the end of the contract; and only $85 per month
for full family coverage.
Oct 2010
Contract language that protects immigrants from employer
abuse, including clauses ensuring that the employees will not
be disciplined for Social Security no-match letters, that the
employer will limit immigration status checks to what I-9
forms require, and that employees have a 2-year window to
return to their job in the case of immigration problems.
Georgetown
University
All campus
workers
As soon as the spotlight faded away after the hunger strike,
administrators began breaking the promises they made to
workers in the policy.
2002 to March
2005
In fall 2005, the Living Wage Coalition launched a second
phase in their campaign, calling on Georgetown to require all
contractors to pretect campus workers’ right to organize
unions by any legal method. In August 2006, the janitors won
recognition of their union and started negotiating their very
first union contract, a step towards winning a real living wage
and decent healthcare (including a card check neutrality
agreement).
Harvard University
All workers on
campus
Johns Hopkins
University
All workers on
campus
Fall 1998 to
June 2002 and
ongoing
Since the sit-in, SLAC meets with the administration to
oversee the implementation of the living wage agreement, as
well as working on a tutoring program and organizing against
the use of sweatshop to produce university apparel.
March 2000
40
St. Thomas
University
Housekeeping
and grounds
maintenance
crews and may
be extended to
subcontractors
July 2007
Stanford University
All
maintenance,
grounds
keeping,
housing, food
services and
general
administrative
workers
Spring 2002 -
Swarthmore College
Workers on
campus
Implemented
in 2005-2006
budget year
Washington
University in St.
Louis
All subcontracted
service workers

Membership for the University in the Workers Rights
Consortium, which ensures factories producing clothing and
other goods bearing college and university names respect the
basic rights of workers,
The formation of a joint student-University
committee with SWA representation to improve University
policies so they "better meet the needs of lower-paid service
workers" which includes protecting freedom of association
and working towards living wages and benefits for all workers
who are directly and indirectly employed by the university.
April 2005

Wesleyan
University
Janitors and
other service
workers
Spring of 2000
In February 2012 University of Virginia students held a 13 day long hunger strike, and is
currently in the process of advocating for Living Wage policies at this university.
(http://www.livingwageatuva.org/2012/03/01/the-hunger-strike-ends-the-struggle-continues).
The following universities/colleges are also in the process of advocating for Living Wage
policies:Agnes Scott College (GA); American University; Brown University; Bucknell
University; Cornell University; Duke University; Earlham College, IN; Fairfield (CT) University;
Louisiana State University; Miami University of Ohio; Northwestern University; Oxford
University; Pennsylvania State University; Princeton University; Purdue University; Rhodes
College; University of Connecticut; University of Buffalo (NY); University of California, San
Diego; University of California, Santa Cruz; University of Connecticut; University of Georgia;
University of Illinois, Chicago; University of Iowa; University of Memphis; University of Miami;
University of Minnesota; University of Northern Illinois; University of Notre Dame; University of
Pittsburgh; University of Tennessee; University of Vermont; University of Virginia; Valdosta
State University, GA; Virginia Common Wealth University; Washington College of Law;
Western Michigan University
41
Appendix 4: Questionnaire
Worker Questionnaire
Date of Interview _______________
Interviewer ____________________
Location of Interview_____________
Time of Interview _________________
Questionnaire No.________________
*******************************
1. What is your job? _________________________________________________________
2. What is your Employer’s name (name of company)?______________________________
3. Where is your worksite on campus? ___________________________________________
4. How long have you been doing this job?
a. Less than 6 months
b. 6 months to 2 years
c. 2 years to 5 years
d. 5 years to 10 years
e. Over 10 years
[
[
[
[
[
]
]
]
]
]
5. What are your main responsibilities?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
6. How many hours are you contracted to work in a week?
a. Up to 10 hours
b. 11-20 hours
c. 21-30 hours
d. 31- 40 hours
e. Over 40 hours
[
[
[
[
[
]
]
]
]
]
7. How many extra hours, in addition to your contracted hours, do you actually work in a week?
a. Up to 3 hours
b. 4-6 hours
c. 7-9 hours
d. 9-12 hours
e. Over 12 hours
f. None
[
[
[
[
[
[
]
]
]
]
]
]
42
8. How much do you get paid an hour?
a. Less than $10hr
[ ]
b. $10-$11.99hr
[ ]
c. $12-$13.99hr
[ ]
d. $14-$15.99hr
[ ]
e. $16-$17.99hr
[ ]
f. $18-$18.81 hr
[ ]
g. Over $18.81hr
[ ]
If Over $18.81, please give hourly amount__________________________________________
9. What is the rate for overtime work? (Please specify details for different days and conditions if the
rate varies e.g. on Saturdays, Sundays etc)
a. No overtime rate
[ ]
b. Time and a half
[ ]
c. Double time
[ ]
d. Other
[ ]
e. None
[ ]
If Other please specify ____________________________________________________________
10. Do you incur any costs in terms of your employment (e.g. having to pay for uniform or equipment,
loss of pay due to unscheduled closure of University)? (Y/N)
11. If you are employed as a Research assistant (RA), what percentage of your paid employment is
spent on your own postgraduate research work?
a. None
b. Less than 10%
c. 10%-25%
d. 26%-50%
e. 50%-75%
f. Over 76%
g. Not Applicable
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
12. What benefits do you get, if any?
Sick Days/Compassionate Leave
Holidays
Pension
Extended Health
Transport Subsidy
Other
Y/N DETAILS
_____ _______________________________________
_____ _______________________________________
_____ _______________________________________
_____ _______________________________________
_____ _______________________________________
_____ _______________________________________
13. Are you a member of a Union? (Y/N)___________
13.1 If yes, which one?___________________________________________________________
14. How long does it take you to get to work?
43
a. Less than 15 minutes
b. 15-30 minutes
c. 31-45 minutes
d. 46 minutes—1 hour
e. 1 hour – 1.5 hours
f. Over 1.5 hours
[
[
[
[
[
[
]
]
]
]
]
]
15. Do you work in any other paid employment? (Y/N)__________
15.1 If yes, what is the job?________________________________________________________
15.2 How many hours do you work at this job?
a. Up to 10 hours
b. 11-20 hours
c. 21-30 hours
d. 31-40 hours
e. More than 40 hours
[
[
[
[
[
]
]
]
]
]
15.3 What is the hourly rate of pay?
a. Less than $10hr
[ ]
b. $10-$11.99hr
[ ]
c. $12-$13.99hr
[ ]
d. $14-$15.99hr
[ ]
e.$16-$17.99hr
[ ]
f. $18-$18.81
[ ]
g. Over $18.81hr
[ ]
If Over $18.81, please give hourly amount ______________________________
16. Who lives at home with you as part of your household?
(Please list the number of people in each category.)
a. Partner/spouse
[ ]
b. Children under 18
[ ]
c. Other family members
[ ]
d. Other
[ ]
If Other, please explain___________________________________________________________
17. Do any of the people who live with you as part of your household work in paid employment?
(Y/N)________________
If yes please answer the following questions, if no please go to question 18.
17.1 How many household members are in paid employment?_________
17.2 Are any of the people in your household that are in paid employment:
a. Children under 18
[ ]
44
b. Adults over 65
[ ]
17.3 On average, what is the hourly rate of pay for other members of your household in paid
employment?
a. Less than $10hr
b. $10-$11.99hr
c. $12-$13.99hr
d. $14-$15.99hr
e. $16.-$17.99hr
f. $18-$18.81
g. Annual salary over $18.81
h. Don’t know
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
17.4 If you ticked f, please indicate annual salary_______
17.5 On average, how many hours per week are other members of your household in paid
employment?
a. Up to 10 hours
b. 11-20 hours
c. 21-30 hours
d. 31-40 hours
e. More than 40 hours
g. Don’t know
[
[
[
[
[
[
]
]
]
]
]
]
18. Does your household have any other sources of income? (Y/N)________________
18.1 If yes, please indicate what this income is? _______________________________
19. Are you or any of your family a member of a group or organization (church, sports club, community
group etc.)? (Y/N)__________
19.1. If yes, can you name them?
20. How do you feel about your pay and conditions of work?
21. How do you think your working conditions affect the wellbeing of your family life?
22. If you earned a living wage of $18.81 an hour (wage + benefits) how do you think it would affect
you and your family?
23. Is there anything further you would like to tell us about your work?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
45
Personal questions
24. Are you:
a. Male
[ ]
b. Female
[ ]
C. Other
[ ]
25. What is your age?
a. Under 25 Years
[ ]
b. 26-35 Years
[ ]
c. 36-45 years
[ ]
d. 46-55 Years
[ ]
56-65 Years
[ ]
26. What is your nationality? ___________________________________
27. What is your Canadian immigration status?
a. Canadian Citizen
[ ]
b. Permanent Resident
[ ]
c. Temporary Foreign Worker
[ ]
d. Refugee
[ ]
e. Student Visa
f. Other
Holder
[ ]
[ ]
If other please explain____________________________________________________________
28. Which city do you live in? ______________________________________________________
If you want to enter our draw for $200 cash please enter your e-mail address below:
46
References
BC Government and Service Employees’ Union (2012). SFU Childcare Society. Retrieved
from http://www.bcgeu.ca/sites/default/files/03031912.pdf
BC Stats. (2006). 2006 Census Profile: British Columbia. Retrieved from
http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/cen06/profiles/detailed/59000000.pdf
BC Stats. (2010). Basic Income Assistance: Recipients as a Percent of Population,
September 2010. Retrieved from http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/lss/iaui/iaeim1.pdf
BC Stats and Stats Canada, (2009). BC wage & salary survey: provincial estimates by
occupation. Retrieved from http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/LabourIncome
/Earnings/WageSalarySurvey/WageSalarySurveySummaryTables.aspx
CCPA, (2011), The Cost of Poverty, (2011)
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/BC%20Office/2011/07/
CCPA_BC_cost_of_poverty_full_report.pdf
Chief Public Health Officer (2009) ‘Report on the State of Public Health in Canada-Growing
Up Well - Priorities for a Healthy Future’
http://publichealth.gc.ca/CPHOreport
Cohen, M., Klein, S., Littman, D., & Richards, T. (2011), Working for a Living Wage.
http://www.firstcallbc.org/pdfs/EconomicEquality/3-LW%20report.pdf
CUPE 3338 (2010), Support SFU cleaners’ campaign to make a living wage. Retrieved from
http://www.3338.cupe.ca/site/2010/12/support-sfu-cleaners-campaign-to-make-a-living-wage/
Dryden, Robert and Stanford, Jim (2012), The Unintended Consequences of Outsourcing
Cleaning Work, CCPA.
Fairris, D. and Reich, M. (2005) The impact of living wage policies: Introduction to the special
issue. Industrial Relations, 44, 1-13.
First Call, (2012), Child Poverty Report Card
http://www.firstcallbc.org/pdfs/EconomicEquality/First%20Call%20BC%20Child%20Poverty%
20Report%20Card%202012.pdf
Goldman Sachs US Global ECS Research, (2009) Are the rich all that matters for spending?
October 2009, cited in http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/the-wealthyspend-less-than-youthink/article1325828/
GSS Survey (2011), Retrieved from http://sfugradsociety.ca/downloads/Mega-Survey-ReportDec-2-2011-ed..pdf
47
London Economics, (2009), An independent study of the business benefits of implementing a
Living Wage policy in London.
Morissette, René and Picot, Garnett, (2005) “Low-paid Work and Economically Vulnerable
Families over the Last Two Decades” Analytical Studies Branch Research Paper Series,
Statistics Canada.
Reich, M., Hall, P. and Jacobs, K.,(2005) Living wage policies at the San Francisco airport:
Impacts on workers and businesses. Industrial Relations, 44, 106-38. (an earlier version of
this article can be found at
http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/research/livingwage/sfo_mar03.pdf)
Ross, David and Paul Roberts, (1999), Income and Child Well-Being: A New Perspective on
the Poverty Debate. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development. p. 4. Accessed at
www.ccsd.ca/pubs/inckids/l.htm.
SERTUC, The London Living Wage: A Working Guide for Trade Unions (London: Southern
and Eastern Regional Council of the TUC).
SFU (1992), Employment of Personnel Funded from Research,
http://www.sfu.ca/policies/gazette/research/r50-02.html
SFU (2011), A Year of New Beginnings: Simon Fraser University- Annual Financial Report.
Retrieved from http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/gre/docs/11/sfu.pdf
SFU (2007) Policies and Procedures: Contracting of University Services
http://www.sfu.ca/policies/gazette/board/B10-07.html
SFU (2005) Policies and Procedures: Ethical Procurement Policy:
http://www.sfu.ca/policies/gazette/administrative/ad11-21.html
SFU Strategic Vision ‘The Engaged University’ (n.d.)
:http://www.sfu.ca/content/dam/sfu/engage/StrategicVision.pdf
SFU Envision discussion paper (2011) http://envision.sfu.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2011/06/envision-discussion_paper-june_29-web.pdf
Statistics Canada. (2006c). Census, B.C. Data. Number of Children at Home and Census
Family Structure for the Census Families in Private Households of Canada, Provinces,
Territories, Census Metropolitan Areas and Census Agglomerations, 2001 and 2006
Censuses.
Townson, Monica (2009), Women’s Poverty and the Recession, CCPA
Unite Here Local 40 (2011). British Columbia’s union for hotel and hospitality workers: respect
our jobs. Retrieved from http://uniteherelocal40.org/detail.php?newsid=63
48
University of Virginia http://www.livingwageatuva.org/faq/
Wills, Jane with Nathalie Kakpo and Rahima Begum (2009), The business case for the living
wage: The story of the cleaning service at Queen Mary University of London. Queen Mary,
University of London.
Yerema, R. & Leung, K. (2011), Employer Review: Simon Fraser University. In eluta.ca.
Retrieved from http://www.eluta.ca/top-employer-sfu
49
First Call: BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition is a non-partisan, province-wide coalition of
organizations and individuals committed to promoting child and youth rights and well-being.
We focus on public policy, public awareness and mobilizing communities for BC’s children.
First Call hosts the Living Wage for Families Campaign.
Web:
Phone:
Email:
www.firstcallbc.org / www.livingwageforfamilies.ca
604.873-8437
info@firstcallbc.org / info@livingwageforfamilies.ca
The Living Wage SFU Campaign was formed in 2012 and aims to persuade SFU to become
the first Living Wage University in Canada. It is composed of the following organizations:

Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) 3338

Graduate Student Society of SFU (GSS)

The Living Wage for Families Campaign

Teaching Support Staff Union (TSSU)

Simon Fraser Public Interest Research Group (SFPIRG)

B.C Government and Service Employees’ Union (BCGEU)

UNITE HERE! Local 40
Web:
livingwagesfu.wordpress.com
Email:
info@livingwageforfamilies.ca
50