Living Wage Waterloo Region October 2016 EMPLOYEE SURVEY The Report is produced by the Evaluation Working Group:

Transcription

1 Living Wage Waterloo Region EMPLOYEE SURVEY 2016 Living Wage Waterloo Region is a recognition and support program for employers who join and make the commitment to achieve the objective of paying all their employees a living wage. Living Wage Waterloo Region is a member of the Ontario Living Wage Network. The Report is produced by the Evaluation Working Group: Social Development Centre Waterloo Region Aleksandra Petrovic Trudy Beaulne Living Wage Waterloo Region Staff Team Greg DeGroot-Maggetti Anne Coleman

2 EMPLOYER SURVEY 2016 LIVING WAGE WATERLOO REGION Executive Summary... 1 Introduction... 4 Employee Perspective... 5 Living Wage and Decent Work in Ontario... 5 Data Collection and Response Rates... 7 Data Analysis Part I Living Wage Awareness of the Living Wage Program Importance of Working for a Living Wage Employer Changes in Benefits Attitudes toward Current Work Environment Assessing Financial Situation Part II Decent Work Working Conditions Work-related Benefits Workplace Culture Discussion Appendix A Invitation Sent by to Employers Survey Appendix B Follow Up Interview Questions... 34

3 EMPLOYER SURVEY 2016 LIVING WAGE WATERLOO REGION Executive Summary This report presents the results of the first Living Wage Waterloo Employee Survey conducted to explore workers experience in the organizations that joined the Living Wage Employer Program in Living Wage Waterloo Region (LWWR) has steadily gained momentum since its launch in 2014 when 10 organizations made a commitment to pay their employees at or above the living wage rate. As of September 2016, there are 30 organizations in total that are, or are in process of becoming, a Living Wage Employer in Waterloo region. After their first year with the program, the initial employer cohort was surveyed to update data on their staff numbers and pay levels. These employers were also asked about challenges or benefits that had been experienced implementing the program in their organizations. At the end of that first year, the initial 10 organizations had 84 more employees paid at or above the living wage rate than when they had started the program. In comparison, the total number of staff had increased by only 61. Results from the 2015 Annual Employer Survey mirrored research done by other living wage programs in North America 1 and Europe 2. These studies report that paying a living wage increases staff retention and motivation, is a hiring incentive, and increases the value of the brand and benefits for different cross sections of an organization. These findings indicate the impact of a living wage goes beyond individual income and the immediate work environment. The 2016 Employee Survey explores worker experience in those 10 organizations that had first joined the Waterloo Region Living Wage Program. Employees were asked about their pay level as well as questions that reflect a broader concept of decent work 3, the latter to get the employee perspective on what employers had identified in the 2015 Employer Survey. Invitations to take part in the survey and a follow up interview, were sent by to employees through their employer on two separate occasions in May and again in July A total of 152 employees completed the survey and follow up interviews were done with two (2) employees who had worked for their respective employer since before the Living Wage Employer Program. An equal number of employees participated from for-profit employers and non-profit employers. Most participation was from small non-profits with fewer than ten 10 employees, large nonprofits and large for-profits with more than 50 employees. That many organizations had paid their employees at or above the living wage rate before joining the Living Wage Employer Program is evident in the finding that 87% (N=127) of the employees 1 Fairiss, D. (2007). The Effects of Living Wages on Workers and firms: Evidence from the Los Angeles Ordinance in Policy Matters: A quarterly Publication of the University of California, Riverside, V 1 (3). 2 National Living Wage: Employee Attitudes Survey, January 2016, retrieved from 3 International Labour Organization, Decent Work Agenda, 2015 consulted on the web at 1

4 surveyed were paid a living wage before November Seventeen respondents (11.18%) reported their wages increased after the employer joined the program. This group comprises 44% of the initial 39 employees who were not paid living wage before November 2014 when the employers first joined the initiative 5. Five respondents reported they had been hired since 2014 and are currently not paid the living wage rate. No surveys were completed by employees who had worked for their employer before joining the program and whose pay rate had been, and still is, below the living wage rate. As most of this group of employees are students or contract staff, they may not be working two years later for that same employer. Or, these workers may not have work s or access to Internet at work so did not receive the survey invitation. The majority of survey respondents (59%) stated it is very important to work for a living wage so as to be able to cover the rising costs of living and to work for a socially responsible employer who values their work and quality of life in general. Some respondents made a strong case for the living wage being paid in organizations that do anti-poverty work. A large segment of employees (34%) said working for a living wage employer is somewhat important. Although this group said they support the concept in principle and believe workers should be paid fairly, some lack enough information about the impact of the living wage on the employer. Further, some express concern about implementing living wages, such as staffing expenses, unequal benefits for staff across an organization and the feasibility of non-profits paying a living wage rate. In addition, a small number of employees surveyed (N=7) deem working for a living wage employer is not important and this group as well raise questions about the trickle-down effect on customers, the community and the economy. The 2016 living wage rate calculated for Waterloo Region is $16.05 an hour per employee. The reference household for the calculation 6 of the living wage in Waterloo Region is a four-member family with two adults and two children. The living wage rate is the amount both adults would need to earn to jointly cover the expenses of this hypothetical reference household. This approach follows the Canadian Living Wage Framework. 7 Most survey respondents report they are able to cover their basic monthly expenses because of the combined income of all earners in their family. This supports the assumption underlying the living wage rate calculation as based on a two income family. Furthermore, the employees surveyed were asked to report on their ability to cover different types of expenses, which diminishes progressively from paying basic expenses to saving for the future: 5 Refer to the unpublished Annual Employer Report, Living Wage Waterloo Region, October Calculating a Living Wage for the Waterloo Region, Leona Brujins and Lyndsey Butcher, October 2014 consulted at 7 Canadian Living Wage Framework: A National Methodology for Calculating the Living Wage in Your Community, Living Wage Canada, consulted online at 2

5 78% can always cover basic monthly expenses; 46% can always pay additional expenses; 39% can always put money aside. No pattern of responses is found across the different wage level groups in general satisfaction, motivation and loyalty toward their employers. Satisfaction and loyalty do not depend solely on wage rates and, as confirmed in follow-up interviews, the overall characteristics of the workplace relationships and workplace culture go hand in hand with the levels of remuneration. When profit is valued over people, employees reported, there is a tendency towards cut throat, micro-managed, punitive work culture resulting in less productive work, competitiveness, lack of motivation and respect for the worklife balance. On the other hand, respectful and responsible employers foster a positive and respectful environment that is important along with decent wages. From comments made on the survey and during the follow up interviews to explore these topics more fully, there surfaced a particular value for: meaningful work; having a process for sharing ideas; having advanced notice of work schedule and flexible hours; being able to work full-time for one employer; having paid sick days, opportunities for advancement, and work-life balance. When asked what work related benefits are valued, responses include paid drug and dental benefits, pension plan contribution and disability insurance. The comments suggest family benefits are important as well. The Living Wage calculation framework assumes a living wage rate should cover basic expenses (e.g. shelter, food, clothing, transportation) and some expenses that allow for social inclusion with family, friends and community (e.g. social outings, recreation and a modest vacation), and includes a modest contingency fund for emergencies and future plans. It does not account for loans or other debt, savings for retirement, owning a home, saving for children s education, cost of caring for family members, etc. As stated in the framework: The living wage gets families out of severe financial stress by lifting them out of poverty and providing a basic level of economic security. But it is also a conservative, bare bones budget without the extras many Canadians take for granted 10. The findings from the first employee survey affirmed the above assumption. Many who are paid at or even well above the living wage rate reported they likely would not meet basic needs if they did not have other household income earners. Not all life situations are covered by the reference household used to calculate the living wage rate. However, it is clear the calculated wage rate is modest and likely a low estimate for costs in many family situations. This survey has started an important exploration with one cohort of employees which may not be representative of every work environment. However, what has been learned is a good start to understanding the impact paying a living wage has on employees in Waterloo Region. 10 Canadian Living Wage Framework: A National Methodology for Calculating the Living Wage in Your Community, Living Wage Canada, consulted online at 3

6 Introduction The first Annual Employer Survey was conducted in the fall of 2015, one year after the first 10 organizations joined LWWR. At that point, the total number of employees and the number of employees being paid the living wage were updated (Table 1). Overall, in that first year, the number of employees increased by 61 and the number of employees being paid living wage increased by 84. The percentage of all employees who were paid a living wage increased from 93% in 2014 and to 97% in Employers can enroll in the living wage program and take progressive steps to getting all employees to a living wage level from: Friend, committed to raising all full-time employees to the living wage rate; to Champion, paying all its employees the living wage, including students and externally contracted staff 11. Table 1 Number of Employees Total number of employees Number of employees paid living wage 424 Number of employees not paid living wage 39 Total number of employees Number of employees paid living wage 508 Number of employees not paid living wage 16 Change in total number of employees Change in number of employees paid living wage +84 The first employer survey focused on the process of operational changes and adjustments made by the employers to accommodate the requirements of the Living Wage Employer Program, the challenges they faced making these changes and the initial perceived impact on the organization. The initial impact identified by the employers included: Living wage recognition has become an important incentive in the hiring process Being recognized as a leader in the industry and/or community Staff retention and knowledge kept in the organization resulting in greater efficiency Having motivated staff leads to greater productivity Strengthening the pride in the organization thanks to a deeper understanding of the guiding values and principles after going through a collective process Greater awareness and intentionality around the process of wage setting across departments and better communication, information exchange and consistency in operations. 11 Becoming a Living Wage Employer: Five Easy Steps to becoming a recognized Living Wage Employer in Waterloo Region, Living Wage Waterloo Region, consulted online at 4

7 The 2015 LWWR Employer Survey results mirror research done by other living wage programs in Canada 12 and the United Kingdom 13. The first 2016 Employee Survey is intended to explore workers experience in living wage organizations and, to add employee perspective to what is known from employers. Employee Perspective The Employee Survey explores the impact of the living wage as experienced and perceived by the employees of the first cohort of organizations joining Living Wage Waterloo Region Employer Program. Since there are strong indicators from research in North America 14 that the impact of the living wage goes beyond individual income and the immediate work environment, the survey includes questions related to a broader concept of Decent Work 15. Overriding questions guiding the employee exploration: What are the stories told by the employees as their companies join the living wage initiative? How do employees understand the living wage? Are they experiencing material and motivational boost with their employers implementing living wage policies? Would employees corroborate the findings from their employers regarding the initial impact of adopting a living wage? What can we learn from employee stories to further adjust the direction in which we calculate the Living Wage in Waterloo Region? What are employees saying that can inform the current Decent Work 16 & Changing Workplace Review in Ontario 17? Living Wage and Decent Work in Ontario Since 2014, the Ontario Government has undertaken a series of consultations regarding the review of the labour laws which increased interest in Decent Work and spurred greater activity of the Living Wage movement across the province. By fall 2015, the Ontario Living Wage Network was 12 How living wage benefits Employers, Living Wage for Families Fact Sheet, consulted online at 13 The Business Case for a Living Wage, Living Wage Foundation 2016, consulted online at 14 Business Case for Living Wage, Living Wage Canada retrieved from and Fairiss, D. (2007). The Effects of Living Wages on Workers and Firms: Evidence from the Los Angeles Ordinance in Policy Matters: A quarterly Publication of the University of California, Riverside, V 1 (3). 15 International Labour Organization, Decent Work Agenda, 2015 consulted on the web at 16 Mowat Centre, Change Work: Valuing Decent Work in the Not-for-Profit Sector, 2015 consulted on the web at 17 Ministry of Labour, Changing Workplaces Review Special Advisors Interim Report, 2016 consulted on the web at 5

8 launched, four communities had started local employer recognition programs (Waterloo Region, Hamilton, Guelph and Windsor) and 24 municipalities were engaging in the living wage conversation. As this report was being written, the Government of Ontario was collecting responses to the Interim Report of the Special Advisors for the Ministry of Labour on the Employment Standards Act 2000 and Labour Relations Act The report refers to the International Labour Organization s Definition of Decent Work: Decent work sums up the aspirations of people in their working lives. It involves opportunities for work that is productive and delivers a fair income, security in the workplace and social protection for families, better prospects for personal development and social integration, freedom for people to express their concerns, organize and participate in the decisions that affect their lives and equality of opportunity and treatment for all women and men. 18 The Special Advisors conclude that decent work relates to minimum acceptable employment standards, linking social inclusion to economic growth, personal dignity, public benefit and community stability. At the same time, they say that decent work remains beyond the scope of the review and that it is outside labour standards laws to legislate decent work 19. The advisors refer to but do not define living wage or decent income which, if they did, could prevent putting vulnerable workers at risk in material ways including all the undesirable aspects of life that go hand-in-hand with insecurity, poverty and lower incomes 20. In their report Change Work: Valuing Decent Work in the Not-for-Profit Sector 21, the Mowat Centre, and its collaborators, reiterate that the most prominent aspect of decent work is fair income, including not only the living wage but health and social benefits ensuring income security into retirement. Beyond fair income, decent work can also encompass meaningful work that includes opportunities for professional growth and advancement. Living Wage Waterloo Region and its counterparts from the Ontario Living Wage Network agree that living wage is only one of the tools towards ensuring decent work and that the conversation about labour standards needs to broaden and join complementary initiatives to consider including job-related benefits, working conditions, and retirement security. 18 ibid., p Ibid., p ibid., p Mowat Centre, Change Work: Valuing Decent Work in the Not-for-Profit Sector, 2015 consulted on the web at 6

9 Data Collection and Response Rates From May to July 2016, two separate invitations for survey participation were made by through the first cohort of employers who joined the Living Wage Waterloo Region prior to November The survey questions were divided into two sections, the first, referring to the living wage and the second, to decent work. The only self-identifying questions asked of the employees were if they worked in a non-profit or for-profit organization, and if they worked in a small, mid-size or large organization. The invitation letter and the survey questions can be found in Appendix A. 152 responses, response rate estimate 29% based on the overall number of employees in fall 2015 (Chart 1) In total, 152 surveys were completed through an online survey (software was Survey Monkey). The overall response rate was 29% of the 524 employees in the 10 organizations reported in October Overall survey response distribution (Chart 2) Similar numbers of employees participated from for-profit organizations as from non-profit organizations. Chart 1 - Overall Response Rate 29% Number of employees Nov 2015 Survey respondents Jul 2016 Chart 2 - Sector Response Distribution Employees working for non-profits 76 (50%) Employees working for for-profits 74 (49.68%) Not sure 2 (1.32%) This representation is consistent with the number of employees reported in the 2015 Employer Survey (Table 2). for-profits non-profits not sure Table 2 Representation by sector in organizations in and the survey Number of Non-profit employees 2015 Number of Non-profit respondents 2016 Estimated sector representation % Number of For-profit employees 2015 Number of For-profit respondents % 7

10 Response rate from organizations from different sectors The 2015 Employer Survey is used as the baseline for the numbers of employees working in organizations of different sizes in the two represented sectors: non-profit and for-profit sector. Both sectors are equally well represented in the Employee Survey responses (Chart 2). Table 3 Representation by sector and size of organizations Size of the non-profit organizations Number of Corresponding number of Response rate survey respondents employees recorded in 2015 employer survey Small (fewer than 10 employees) (55.55%) Medium (11-50 employees) 5 23 (21.73%) Large (more than 50 employees) (27%) Size of the for-profit organizations Number of Corresponding number of Response rate survey respondents employees recorded in 2015 employer survey Small (fewer than 10 employees) 22 2* 0 N/A Medium (11-50 employees) 5 70 (7.14%) Large (more than 50 employees) (35.82%) Table 2 shows that the most responses are from the small and large non-profit organizations and from the large for-profit organizations. Fewer surveys are completed by employees from the medium sized organizations (non-profit or for-profit). 2 interviews, response rate 1.38% (Table 3) Of the 152 respondents, there are 144 employees who had worked for their employers before their employer joined LWWR two years prior to the survey (see Table 4). These employees were invited to participate in a follow-up interview to provide more in-depth answers to some of the survey questions and specifically to ask the participants to compare their current work experience to that prior to their employer joining the living wage program. Two (2) employees agreed to take part in an in-depth interview, which were conducted by telephone in August Both of these interviewed employees had earned a living wage rate before their employer joined LWWR. Table 4 Interview Response Rate Survey respondents 2016 Number of survey respondents who Interviewees 2016 worked for the employer in According to the 2015 Employer Survey, no for-profit organizations had less than 10 employees. It is possible that since the survey in 2015, there was a decrease of employee positions in one of the for-profit organizations or it was an incorrect estimate made by two employees regarding the size of the organization where they work. 8

11 Due to the small number of interviews conducted, the information collected was incorporated into the survey analysis and is not presented in a separate section of this report. The interview questions can be found in Appendix B. 9

12 Data Analysis Even though the survey response rate was relatively high (29%), the number of responses for all questions was not sufficient to conduct more than descriptive analysis and qualitative analysis of open ended responses. Survey Monkey reporting and analysis features were used for the descriptive statistics and to compile responses to closed questions. Excel was used for the coding process in deductive analysis of the open ended question responses. The two interview transcripts revealed themes that aligned with some of the survey response themes and were integrated with results from the corresponding survey questions. Part I Living Wage The first part of the following analysis is based on the questions pertaining directly to the employee experience of the process through which their employer adjusted, as needed, to being recognized as a living wage employer. Six employers already paid their employees at or above a living wage rate and the other four made payroll and organizational changes. The employee survey asked: If employees were aware that they worked for a living wage employer If working for a living wage employer was important Their attitudes regarding their current job If they received increases in wages or job-related benefits since the employer has joined the initiative and Their ability to cover basic monthly expenses, and if they would be able to cover additional costs and set aside some savings. All answers were divided by the status of the employees into four categories: Employees paid living wage rate prior to November 2014 Employees whose wages increased since November 2014 when their employer joined the Living Wage Waterloo Region Employer Program Employees whose wages did not increase since November 2014 since their employers joined the Living Wage Waterloo Region Employer Program Employees who are not paid living wage and have joined the employer after November 2014 Table 5 shows the distribution of the four types of employee categories. No respondents had worked for the employer longer than two years and were not paid living wage at the time of the survey. Reasons could be that they opted out of the survey or that in their jobs they do not use or do not have access the Internet at work. 10

13 Table 5 Pay levels and length of employment Working for the employer before November 2014 Joined the employer after November 2014 Paid living wage Had the wage increased Not paid living wage 127 (85.23%) 17 (11.41%) 0 N/A N/A 5 (3.36%) 23 The majority of the employers of the first cohort were already paying their employees living wage, which fits with the finding that the majority of employee survey respondents reported were paid living wage since before the employer joined the initiative. Particular attention in the survey is given to the employees who had their wages increased after their employer joined the Living Wage Employer Program and those who are not currently paid living wage. These two subgroups would be expected to be most affected by their employer adopting a commitment to paying a living wage in their organization. Awareness of the Living Wage Program Ninety-eight percent (98%) of survey respondents report they are aware their organization is a living wage employer. Table 6 Awareness of the Living Wage Program Aware of the program before the Not aware of the program before the No response survey survey The five (5) respondents, who did not know if their organization was a living wage employer or who had skipped this question, come from large organizations. Four (4) were paid living wage before October/November One (1) has started working in the last two years and is not paid living wage. When answering about the importance of working for the living wage employer, these four respondents said it was somewhat important. As expected, it is very important for that employee who is not paid living wage. This employee also said it is a challenge to be working for a living wage employer and not be paid living wage, even when they understand that it can be a step-wise process. 23 In the survey, we have made reference to the headline living wage rate of $16.05, asking the employees to identify if they are paid the living wage rate or not. They may not be aware that if they receive employer paid benefits, the hourly rate of pay could be lower and still meet the living wage threshold. 11

14 Importance of Working for a Living Wage Employer This section continues exploration of responses regarding the perceived importance of working for a living wage employer. Table 7 shows the distribution of answers given by the surveyed employees. Table 7 Importance working for a living wage employer Very Important Somewhat Important Not very important No answer 91 (59%) 52 (34%) 7 (4.67%) 2 (1.31%) As suggested, a special focus is given to the respondents in two subcategories, those who saw their wages increase through the LWWR program and those who are not paid at or above the living wage rate. Wage Increase Group (17) All 17 respondents whose wages were increased in the last two years are from large organizations. Only one said working for a living wage employer is not very important because their living expenses were covered by the combined household income of all working family members. Eight (8) respondents out of the 17 who commented, mention financial instability and the rising cost of living. Those working in non-profits (3) stated the importance of a living wage to alleviate the stress working with low-income members of the community. Not Paid Living Wage Group (5) Out of the five (5) employees who said it is either very or somewhat important, two refer to the cost of living and two to the fact that living wage shows the value employers put on their employee`s work and overall quality of life. Following is a review of the themes that emerged from the 63 comments associated with this question. The themes are presented for each of the three main response groups: very important, somewhat important and not important. Very Important - 91 respondents (59%) ; 48 comments The responses explain why it is important to work for an employer who pays living wage and fall into one or more of the themes: Being able to cover the cost of living (basic needs, school debt, etc.) 19 comments refer to the need for wages to cover at least the basic costs of living. Cost of living and cost of family life is expensive. Regular minimum wage doesn't come close to offering enough financially to fulfill what a household needs to survive. 12

15 Value of a socially conscious employer 16 comments reflect the theme where an employer who walks the talk about its values and the business model it promotes: Demonstrates the commitment of the organization to helping with a systemic issue. We need to set an example for others to follow. It is difficult to advocate for a Living Wage if you are not paying that yourself. In a number of comments there is a sense of pride expressed to be working for a living wage employer and a core alignment of personal and business values. It is particularly important for nonprofit employees who work to alleviate poverty, that their employers must walk the talk. Employee work and quality of life are valued 13 comments reflect that employers demonstrate that they appreciate the work done by the employees and have their best interests at heart. Some respondents not earning living wage at the moment still value this in their employer. The employer cares about the compensation of the staff and healthy living with certain wage to support self and family and community as a whole. Fairness and human rights issue 10 comments reflect this theme It is a human rights issue and also a social justice issue for me. Minimum wage is a wage that does not provide workers with an income that pays for their living expenses. Benefit to the organization 5 comments reflect the importance of living wage in retaining talent and knowledge in the organization and for organization s sustainability. It shows integrity and it is a great benefit for retaining and attracting talent. Good for the broader community 4 comments reflect this theme The local community and industry is something that we need to continue to grow and foster. 13

16 Somewhat Important - 52 respondents (34%) left 12 comments A majority of respondents (43 out of 52) had already been paid living wage when their employer joined the Living Wage program. The comments shared by the employees in this group have a different flavour when compared to the group who believes it is very important to work for a living wage employer. Some respondents did not know about the living wage until they started working for the current employer or stated they do not have enough information about the impact of the program to the employer and the business bottom line. Even though a few said they are proud or happy that such a program exists and that workers should be paid fairly, it is not necessarily a deciding factor for choosing an employer or a measure of the value an organization brings to the community. There were a few concerns raised regarding the implementation of the program in general. *Implementation concerns raised in the responses: Staffing expenses are the highest cost for an employer and living wage has to be fair to the employer too Impact on employees who have been with the organization longer and did not see the immediate benefit (validated in the interview process too) Non-profits are not funded in a way that allows them to provide a living wage. Some of the previously identified themes were mentioned by this group too: Fairness Pride in working for a socially conscious employer High cost of living Not important - 7 respondents (4.6%) left 3 comments All the employees who said that working for a living wage employer is not important are being paid living wage and 6 out of 7 have been paid living wage since before the employers joined the initiative. There was a concern expressed what impact wages increased this way would actually have on customers or people living in low-cost areas. *Comments made: - It should be an average market compensation, not the cost of living that determines the pay - Living wage is not based on sound economics - Not being a low wage employee and not working in a low wage industry makes living wage less relevant - If living with the parents, living wage is not that important 14

17 Changes in Benefits Since living wage calculation includes benefits and other employer contributions besides the pay rate, employees were asked if there were changes made in the process of implementation of the living wage that brought increases in other areas. Table 8 gives a general overview of the responses: Table 8 Increase in other Benefits No Changes Not Applicable Yes No Answer 98 (66.22%) 37 (25%) 13 (8.78%) 4 (2.63%) Most of the employees have not seen any other changes in compensation. One quarter of respondents thought this was not applicable to them since they started working after the living wage was implemented or that their employer was already a living wage employer. All 13 employees who have seen the increases are paid a living wage rate. Further these employees are from sector organizations other than small non-profits. Six (6) employees out of thirteen (13) provided the following examples of benefits: Employee and Family Assistance Program benefits Extended health and wellness benefits Additional spending allowance to increase health coverage Matching RRSP Critical Illness Program Addition of EAP program Increased employee profit sharing program Cuts in benefits Nine (9) of the respondents, who indicated that there were no increases to their benefits, provided information about decreases in benefits that occurred in the period since the introduction of the living wage in the organizations. Two are specific, one saying their health benefit coverage and other their dental benefits had decreased from 100% to 80%. These decreases happened in both for-profit and non-profit environments. However, it is not possible to conclude these changes were a direct consequence of the implementation of the living wage in those organizations. Attitudes toward Current Work Environment Employees were asked questions to help understand attitudes toward their jobs, work conditions and work environment. All but one respondent answered this question. Table 9 shows the overall distribution of the responses. 15

18 Table 9 Rating the Statements Regarding Current Work Environment Statements Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree I feel motivated to do my job 115 (76.16%) 35 (23.18%) 1 (0.66%) I am likely to stay with my employer for the next 3-5 years I have opportunities for education and training I am eager to go to work every day 93 (62.42%) 49 (32.89%) 7 (4.70%) 85 (58.22%) 55 (37.67%) 6 (4.11%) 83 (56%) 60 (40.54%) 5 (3.38%) The response variations are similar in all the wage level subgroups, those who have always been paid living wage, those who have had their wages increased and as well as those who do not earn living wage. This suggests that attitudes towards the work environment are associated with far more than wages and benefits alone. The statements that pay is not the most important motivation for the work seem particularly true for the cohort of employees working for organizations who are the early adopters of the living wage. However, the in-depth interviews, when a minimum wage workplace is compared to living wage work environment, the overall characteristics of workplace relationships and workplace culture are seen to go hand in hand with the level of remuneration. When profit is valued over people, there is a tendency towards cut throat, micro-managed, punitive work culture resulting in less productive employees, competitiveness, lack of motivation and lack respect for the work-life balance. On the other hand, respectful and responsible employers do tend to foster a more positive and respectful environment in addition to paying decent wages. Assessing Financial Situation Basic monthly expenses (rent, groceries, utility bills, clothes, hygiene, medication, child care) Additional expenses (movies, socializing, culture, car expenses, repairs) Saving for Emergencies and future plans (vacation, savings, household item replacement) An assumption made by tying the living wage rate calculation to the actual cost of living in Waterloo Region is that workers should be earning enough to cover all their basic expenses (shelter, food, utilities, clothing, and hygiene and health costs). The survey asked employees if being paid living wage allows them to cover those basic expenses on a regular basis. Since the majority of the employees surveyed had been paid living wage for more than two years, a reasonable expectation is that all of this group of employees would be able to cover their basic expenses. 16

19 The Living Wage Waterloo Region calculation includes a number of additional expenses other than the basic expenses listed above (car expenses, entertainment and recreation). Since the majority of surveyed workers earn at least the living wage rate, it is expected they would be able to cover these additional expenses over and above basic expenses notwithstanding individual needs and spending behaviour. As presented in Table 10, this is not the case. Table 10 Assessing Financial Ability to Cover Monthly Expenses Statements Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never Basic Expenses 113 (77.93%) 28 (19.31%) 3 (2.07%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.69%) (145 answers) Additional Expenses 66 (45.52%) 37 (25.52%) 33 (22.76%) 8 (5.52%) 1 (0.69%) (145 answers) Putting Money Aside (148 answers) 58 (39.19%) 26 (17.57%) 34 (22.97%) 24 (16.22%) 6 (4.05%) These results show a decreasing ability across all respondents to cover different types of expenses as these become more discretionary % are always able to pay basic expenses 45.52% are always able to pay for additional expenses, 39.19% are always able to put the money aside and save. Basic monthly expenses At the time of this survey, 98.12% of respondents are paid at or above a living wage rate. Of the 121 respondents who were paid living wage before their employer joined LWWR, 80% report they always cover their basic monthly expenses, 17% reported they often did and 2.5% (3) did sometimes or never (Table 11). Table 11 Responses from employees paid living wage longer than two years regarding Basic Expenses Statement I can cover basic monthly expenses (121 responses) Always 97 (80.16%) Often 21 (17.35%) Sometimes 2 (1.65%) Never 1 (0.82%) * reference to living expenses plus student debt 17

20 Wage Increase Group (17) Table 12 shows the distribution of answers given by employees who had their wage increased to the living wage level during the two years since their employer joined the Living Wage Employer Program. Of these employees, 59% reported always covering their basic monthly expenses, 35% say they often do and only 1 reported sometimes being able to do so. Table 12 Responses from employees whose wages increased in the last two years regarding Basic Expenses Statement I can cover basic monthly expenses Always 10 (58.82%) Often 6 (35.29%) Sometimes 1 (5.88%) Never 0 (0.00%) Not Paid Living Wage Group (5) Table 13 shows distribution of answers given by the five participating employees who are not paid living wage and joined the employer in the last two years. Eighty percent (80%) reported they always covered their basic monthly expenses and 1 (29%) said they often do. Table 13 Responses from employees who are not paid living wage regarding Basic Expenses Statement I can cover basic monthly expenses Always 4 (80%) Often 1 (20%)) Sometimes 0 (0.00%) Never 0 (0.00%) Additional expenses & saving for emergencies and future plans In the general distribution of answers, responses to the follow up questions regarding additional expenses and ability to put money aside show diminishing purchasing and saving capacity of the surveyed workers (Table 10). This is mirrored by the distribution of answers from the subgroup of respondents that have been paid living wage longer than two years. 18

21 Table 14 Responses from employees paid living wage longer than two years regarding Additional Expenses and Saving Statement Additional Expenses (121 Savings (124 answers) answers) Always 60 (49.58%) 54 (43.54%) Often 29 (23.96%) 23 (18.54%) Sometimes 26 (21.48%) 27 (21.77%) Rarely 5 (4.13%)) 15 (12.09%) Never 1 (0.82%) 5 (4.03%) Wage Increase Group (17) As presented in Table 15, fewer employees who had their wage level increased during the previous two years, report being able to pay for additional expenses (59% compared to 74% of the employees paid at or above the living wage before two years). As for putting money aside, 35% compared to 62% of those who had been paid at or above a wage rate increased prior to their employer joining the living wage program. Table 15 Responses from employees who had their wages increased to a living wage level since 2014 Statement I can pay for additional I can put money aside expenses Always 5 (29.41%) 4 (23.52%) Often 5 (29.41%) 2 (11.76%) Sometimes 4 (23.52%) 3 (17.64%)) Rarely 3 (17.64%) 7 (41.17%) Never 0 (0.00%) 1 (5.88%) Not Paid Living Wage Group (5) Five (5) employees are not paid a living wage rate, as summarized in Table 16. None state they can always pay for additional expenses (100% report being able to do so often or sometimes) and fewer can put money aside (80% report they can do so often or sometimes). One (1) reports they are rarely able to put money aside. 19

22 Table 16 Responses from employees who are not paid living wage Statement I can pay for additional expenses I can put money aside Always 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) Often 3 (60%) 1 (20%) Sometimes 2 (40%) 3 (60%) Rarely 0 (0.00%) 1 (20%) Never 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) As discussed further in the next section, these findings need to be put into a broader context of an employee`s total household income. Overall comments regarding financial situation A total of 15 additional comments were provided, mostly by employees who have been paid the living wage for longer than two years (13). Seven (7) out of eight (8) respondents who answered all three questions regarding their ability to pay expenses and save for the future with Always, referred to spouse s income as a major contributing factor of being able to cover for all the expenses. In all, there are ten (10) references to the importance of partner s income. One respondent reported earning the living wage rate, but also has to work a second job to supplement their pay. The Living Wage rate is an estimate based on the scenario of a family of four with two parents both working full time. A number of respondents express doubt that if being a sole earner, $16.05 per hour living wage rate would not be enough to cover the basic monthly expenses. Many caution of the inability of wages to keep up with the fast increasing cost of living. Out of three (3) respondents who mentioned high cost of living that makes it difficult to cover all the expenses even when working for the living wage, two (2) referred to student debt being borderline impossible to repay with little money left for basic expenses. These comments are a reminder that family context is important to understanding the actual purchasing power of any one individual wage earner (e.g. living with the parents, having a spouse who is not a low-wage earner, age and number of children). This suggests it is important to ask contextual questions in future surveys. This can suggest as well that the living wage rate based on the reference 20

23 family be periodically tested against other household types, particularly single adults, to make sure the rate approximates expenses for single adults or other family types. Part II Decent Work The Province of Ontario started a review of the Ontario Employment Standards Act in Many advocates, such as the Workers Action Centre 24 in Toronto or $15 and Fairness 25 campaign, have brought to the foreground work related issues such as the need for paid sick days, elimination of discrimination in the workplace, advanced work scheduling, fair wages and compensation, as well as universal drug and dental benefits for low-income workers who do not receive social assistance coverage and cannot afford to pay for basic health expenses. Additionally, based on the broader determinants of decent work allowing for social protection for families, better prospects for personal development and social integration 26, the Waterloo Region Living Wage 2016 Employee Survey included questions to assess the importance of working conditions, certain job-related benefits and certain elements of a workplace culture. Working Conditions All benefits listed in the survey questions, except telecommuting, are seen as important to some extent by at least 90% of respondents (Table 17). Meaningful work is important or somewhat important to 98% of respondents. The importance of meaningful work is validated by the follow up interviews. Table 17 Working Conditions Important for Decent Work (150 answers, multiple answers possible) Statements Important Somewhat Important Not Important N/A Having Meaningful Work 137 (91.33%) 12 (8.00%) 1 (0.67%) 0 (0.00%) Knowing Work Schedule in Advance Full-time work for one employer Paid Sick Days Assistance with Health/Special Needs Flexible Hours Telecommuting and working from home 125 (83.89%) 19 (12.75%) 2 (1.34%) 3 (2.01%) 122 (81.33%) 23 (15.33%) 2 (1.33%) 3 (2.00%) 116 (77.33%) 28 (18.67%) 2 (1.33%) 4 (2.67%) 109 (73.15%) 31 (20.81%) 3 (2.01%) 6 (4.03%) 100 (66.67%) 43 (28.67%) 7 (4.67%) 0 (0.00%) 40 (27.03%) 52 (35.14%) 43 (29.05%) 13 (8.78%) 24 Workers Action Centre consulted online at 25 $15 and Fairness consulted online at 26 Ministry of Labour, Changing Workplaces Review Special Advisors Interim Report, 2016 consulted on the web at 21

24 Ninety-seven percent (97%) of employees surveyed report it is important or somewhat important to know their work schedule in advance and to be able to work fulltime for one employer. Comments made One of the comments regarding the work-life balance to make allowances when person is experiencing personal or family challenges was strongly echoed in one of the follow up interviews. Some examples given are extended maternity leave, flex time for medical appointments and emergencies with children, vacation time to suit the family. Other comments express support for the advanced work schedule, working from home and being coached to think creatively through difficulties. Work-related Benefits All the respondents rated drug and dental benefits as important, as well as having a pension plan and/or RRSP contributions. Parenting benefits are rated low, probably because they may not have young children or any plans to have children. Their answers may have been different if the question was asked in a more general tone, as important to many, not just to the respondent. Table 18 Benefits Important for Decent Work (147 answers, multiple answers possible) Statements Important Somewhat Not Important N/A Important Employer paid drug and/or 131 (89.73%) 13 (8.90%) 0 (0.00%) 2 (1.37%) dental benefits Pension Plan or RRSP 129 (89.58%) 14 (9.72%) 0 (0.00%) 1 (0.69%) contribution Disability Insurance as part 102 (70.34%) 38 (26.21%) 2 (1.38%) 3 (2.07%) of a benefits plan Employer paid training 91 (63.19%) 47 (32.64%) 4 (2.78%) 2 (1.39%) and development opportunities Life insurance as part of a 80 (54.79%) 57 (39.04%) 7 (4.79%) 2 (1.37%) benefits plan Maternity/ 55 (38.46%) 35 (24.48%) 29 (20.28%) 24 (16.78%) Parental leave top up Workplace childcare 16 (11.11%) 33 (22.92%) 62 (43.06%) 33 (22.92%) Comments made: - Part time workers and contract employees are not eligible for the benefits - Top up parental leave and workplace child care - Mental Health Days are needed alongside/with sick days for those working in helping professions. 22

25 - Vacation time is also an important benefit and when older employees change employment places -- the vacation should be tied to age of employee rather than to years of service with the new agency. Workplace Culture Consistent with the high importance of meaningful work when it comes to working conditions, a process of sharing ideas is deemed important by all the employees. Table 19 Workplace culture characteristics important for decent work (149 responses, multiple answers possible) Statements Important Somewhat Important Not Important N/A 125 (84.46%) 23 (15.54%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) A process for sharing ideas Opportunities for 117 (78.52%) 29 (19.46%) 3 (2.01%) 0 (0.00%) advancement Reimbursement for 69 (46.31%) 44 (29.53%) 23 (15.44%) 13 (8.72%) professional association fees Annual bonuses 67 (44.97%) 46 (30.87%) 31 (20.81%) 5 (3.36%) Staff volunteerism during work hours Subsidy for transit/parking/car-sharing 37 (24.83%) 73 (48.99%) 34 (22.82%) 5 (3.36%) 35 (23.65%) 38 (25.68%) 57 (38.51%) 18 (12.16%) Comments made: Another comment made regarding work-life balance: Recognizing that employees are people with lives, not just means of productivity. Facilitation of active transportation, including safe and covered bicycle parking, is mentioned by two respondents. Two respondents, each from a different sector, do not support volunteerism during work hours. 23