After a grim, drawn-out exam period, followed by a hectic May week, students will begin to assemble their belongings, pack their bags and head home. If we’ve got time, we’ll pick up some chocolates for the staff who have helped us through the ups and downs of another year and leave them a quick thank you note. But is this really enough?

Far too many Cambridge employees aren’t even afforded the basic dignity of a wage on which they can live. On top of the gradual rise in low pay rates since the 1970s, huge cuts to benefits last April and the maintenance of an insufficient minimum wage have meant that many workers are finding it difficult to make ends meet. Indeed, in-work poverty has risen by 20% over the last decade, as people are increasingly unable to meet basic costs such as housing, food, or fuel.

Yet there is an alternative. A ‘living wage’ provides staff with a means on which they can live, rather than survive. Research conducted by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has shown that this growing trend could be tackled if employers gave their workers £7.45 an hour, outside of London. It would, as Chris Clarke (the Senior Porter at King’s) said, ‘make workers feel valued, give them dignity and raise their self-esteem’. Nor is this the only form of justice that the living wage would achieve. Since far more women than men are working in low-paid jobs, it will also go some way to combatting the enduring gender pay gap. It is for these reasons that the Cambridge Universities Labour Club has made the living wage our priority for two years running.

But what of the economic consequences? Setting aside its fundamental moral benefits, sceptics have often argued that a living wage would be economically disastrous. Yet this is far from the truth. A growing political consensus on its national economic benefits has emerged with Ed Miliband calling for ‘living wage zones’ to spring up and David Cameron arguing that it is ‘an idea whose time has come’. Its appeal lies in the way in which it can lift people out of poverty and simultaneously reduce public spending. Indeed, for every pound spent paying the living wage, the Treasury would save 50p by not needing to pay in-work benefits and tax credits.

Nor is it financial suicide for employers. In fact, when the Greater London Authority and IPPR looked into the living wage’s effects on institutions that have adopted it, they found that it led to increased productivity levels, an improvement in the company’s public image, and decreased training costs as a result of higher retention levels. And these financial benefits seem set to improve as Labour proposes to give firms tax breaks in return for paying this rate. Clearly, the future looks bright for those that dare to ‘go living wage’.

But now let’s turn to Cambridge. For while a few colleges have adopted the living wage, the University and the majority of colleges are lacking. The provisional graph above gives an indication of this, but even these figures may be too optimistic; neither Queen’s nor John’s have disclosed how many casual staff are earning below £7.45/hour. Cambridge is the wealthiest university in Europe and yet other universities have been far more willing to provide for their staff. UCL, LSE and SOAS have all adopted the higher London rate of £8.55 and the Universities of Manchester and Huddersfield, where living costs pale in comparison to Cambridge’s, are also living wage employers. So to say that Cambridge can’t afford it beggars belief.

The same goes for individual colleges, many of which sit on endowments that entire universities can only dream of. Despite actively enforcing the idea of ‘community’ upon their student bodies, colleges paradoxically neglect a vital part of this community: their non-academic staff. Let’s take King’s as an example. On questioning why a ‘Kitchen Fixed Charge’ has been imposed on all of its students, college is quick to remind us of the importance of communal eating and ‘coming together’. But at the same time, they pay a wage that puts a significant proportion of its own staff in conditions of relative poverty. And when questioned, college reassures us that the ‘benefits’ they give more than make up a living wage. Free meals, pension schemes and (I kid you not) uniforms have all been cited as such benefits. Yet the majority of staff aren’t entitled to the free meals and can’t afford to set aside part of their income to participate in a pension plan. It would seem that the bitter reality is a far cry from the ‘progressive’ image that King’s loves to project.

It's time to wage war. With CULC’s leadership, the Cambridge living wage campaign is trying to change this and we need you to get involved. Firstly, if your JCR hasn’t already passed a motion, you can lobby them to back the campaign. Each college works differently but creating a JCR-run ‘working group’ or even co-opting someone onto the executive to deal specifically with the living wage can be great ways of kicking off the campaign in college. From then on, talking with staff, union reps and the bursars will help raise awareness and move it forward. Secondly, for those interested in campaigning across the whole university, CUSU is in the process of securing funding and creating a new living wage executive. It’ll be up and running by next term so email livingwage@cusu.cam.ac.uk if you’re interested. Finally, a task for all those sat in the library, trying their best to avoid revision. Just sit where you are, click on this link, and sign the petition:

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-university-of-cambridge-pay-your-staff-a-minimum-living-wage-of-7-45-per-hour

You know you want to. 

Varsity Platform is a new series intended to allow campaigns and organisations in Cambridge to defend their causes. If you would like to participate, email comment@varsity.co.uk and give a voice to your campaign. 

The previous parts of this series are available here and here.