Living Wage 'to benefit 3.7m women'
- Published
Some 3.7 million women - nearly three in 10 employees - will receive a pay rise by 2020 owing to the new National Living Wage, research suggests.
At the same time, 2.3 million male workers will benefit, the Resolution Foundation report says.
The majority of employees would see their earnings rise in line with the minimum but some would gain from a "ripple effect" of wage rises, it said.
The National Living Wage of £7.20 an hour comes into force in April 2016.
It will only apply to workers over the age of 25. The national minimum wage is currently £6.50 an hour, which will rise to £6.70 next month.
"Because of their concentration among the low paid, women will account for the majority of the winners," said the think tank's policy analyst, Conor D'Arcy.
"This will have a positive - though modest - effect on the gender pay gap, and will particularly help those working part-time."
Regional effect
Analysis by the Resolution Foundation found that six million people - almost a quarter of all employees - will get a wage rise by the end of the decade, worth an average of £1,210.
A further 2.8 million employees already being paid the new minimum would gain as firms maintained pay gaps between different workers, the report said.
Workers in areas including Yorkshire and the Humber, Midlands and Wales were expected to be among those benefiting most from the higher wage, it suggested.
Earlier in the week, the government outlined plans for tougher penalties to be imposed on employers which fail to meet the National Living Wage requirements.
The plan for the wage, outlined in Chancellor George Osborne's Budget, has received support, but the CBI said it was a "gamble" to place politics into the setting of a minimum wage level.
TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady said: "The TUC has long argued that Britain needs a pay rise, and the new supplement to the minimum wage is a welcome step forward.
"Despite the pay gains, many of the lowest paid workers will still be left poorer overall because of steep cuts to their tax credits."
- Published1 September 2015
- Published1 April 2016