Comment & Analysis
The government’s introduction of a National Living Wage is an important topic for the engineering sector to contemplate. While the arrival of this legislation, which requires companies to pay all employees at least £7.20 per hour from April 2016, will be a disturbing prospect for those that have traditionally paid poorly, it will make no difference to companies like igus, which has always paid its employees a fair salary.
It’s our belief that if you pay a reasonable wage in the first place, you can expect a greater contribution and more loyalty from that person. An employer can reap great rewards by showing commitment to its staff, and avoid uncomfortable feelings of resentment.
On the flipside, those who will now be raising wage levels to meet this minimum requirement are sending out a message that they would prefer to pay less but are obliged to pay more. Does that instil a sense of trust in the workforce? I would suggest not.
In engineering, perhaps more than many other industries, we rely heavily upon unity, determination and creativity. This applies not only to engineering roles but equally to support functions including sales, administration and customer support, all of whom can have a huge influence on the success of our business.
One of our youngest members of administrative staff at igus was sufficiently resourceful to completely rethink the process by which her tasks were completed. She was so effective in doing this that her role became effectively unnecessary and she was able to pursue a sales role. Another began producing CAD drawings during his evenings at home to assist in his daily work, and now he works in our CAD team.
Surely we should be doing our utmost to encourage that kind of self-motivation. A reasonable wage is one of many things that help promote these values.
However, the part of the National Living Wage debate that troubles me most is the exemption of young people aged between 16 and 25. We cannot discriminate against older people so why should younger people be treated any differently?
I accept there are issues around employment of young people in this age bracket, but I’m not sure that exempting them from the National Living Wage is the right answer to that problem.
In my view, if a young person is good enough to command a reasonable salary then they are also old enough.
Not only is this a moral imperative it is also a practical priority, particularly for those considering a career as a professional engineer. At a time when this industry urgently needs to attract more young people into the engineering profession, it is incumbent upon employers to think beyond the basic requirements of the National Living Wage.
Almost two years ago, the Perkins Review on engineering predicted that, by 2020, the UK economy would require 830,000 professional scientists, engineers and technologists – primarily to replace those retiring from engineering practice. That equates to more than 100,000 new professionals being recruited into the industry every year. Consider also the additional support roles that will be associated with these engineering jobs.
Of course, there are lots of measures that need to be accelerated to help meet this need – from greater collaboration between employers and academic institutions to development of a better understanding among young people of what a career with an engineering company looks like. However, the salary prospects of young people entering into this industry must be competitive too.
The introduction of the National Living Wage raises important questions for the UK’s engineering sector and I’d be interested to hear the views of my peers.