Your article (‘It’s sad’: is the UK real living wage under threat as Capita and BrewDog pull out?, 6 February) highlighted that both Capita and BrewDog are withdrawing from the real living wage scheme and queried if the underlying principle is sustainable.
The real living wage calculates the minimum that staff require to live on when working full-time. When a large employer refuses to pay its staff the real living wage, they are prioritising management bonuses and shareholder dividends over paying their staff enough to live on. Often this also leads to the taxpayer picking up the tab for the difference through tax credits. A better question might be why big businesses consider this an acceptable way to behave.
I own a small, award-winning bookshop in Edinburgh and pay staff above the real living wage, but use that figure to benchmark pay rises. It is correct that the 10% increase advised for the past two years has been uncomfortable for me as an employer, but to fail to pay it would be to ask my staff to accept a drop in their living standards in order to protect my profits. I find such an idea to be morally repugnant.
It continues to amaze me that the majority of UK employers are comfortable with a business model that guarantees profits, but leaves lower-paid staff unable to afford the basic necessities of life.
Marie Moser
Owner, The Edinburgh Bookshop
• Do you have a photograph you’d like to share with Guardian readers? If so, please click here to upload it. A selection will be published in our Readers’ best photographs galleries and in the print edition on Saturdays.
