Economic equality

Economic Equality

building a community of activists

CLAIMING OUR FUTURE DECEMBER 2016

Introduction Achieving income equality was one of the priority policy areas agreed for Claiming Our Future at its inaugural event in 2010. Priority was given to this theme right from the start. A further deliberation event was organised in Galway speciďŹ cally on achieving income equality in 2011. This was to deepen debate and positioning on the issue and to build an engagement on the issue through Claiming Our Future.

The deliberation explored issues around high incomes and low incomes, in that income equality strategies needed to address both ends of the spectrum.

In looking at high incomes ideas around maximum incomes and setting a ratio or proportion between the highest and lowest income were explored. Progressive taxation was seen as the most appropriate mechanism to address high incomes. In looking at low incomes ideas around setting a minimum adequate permissible level of income were explored. There was interest expressed in seeking an independent body to set the level for a minimum income as well as the establishment of a High Pay Commission.

Campaigns to get a focus on wage differentials in companies were suggested.

An Income Equality Working Group was established in 2012 to further develop this work. This was convened by Paula Clancy and involved people who had been mobilised on the issue through the Galway event. The working group developed a background evidence document pulling together academic, activist and policy work on the various elements of income inequality. This resource emphasised the growing gap between minimum and maximum incomes in Ireland. While there were campaigns for minimum wages and living wages, there was little focus in Ireland on maximum wages.

This led the working group to explore and promote the idea of a maximum wage and the concept of a fixed ratio between high and low incomes.

Two Swiss activists were invited to Ireland to explore the Young Socialists in Switzerland 1:12 campaign for a maximum wage of 12 times the minimum wage.

This campaign had led to a national referendum on the issue in Switzerland which was ultimately defeated. Florian Vock and Fabian Molina came to Dublin in July 2014 to present their work on this campaign. They ran a workshop for the working group members and spoke at a public meeting in Dublin attended by over 100 people.

The campaign sought that no one in a company could earn more in one month than the lowest paid employee earned in one year. Thirty years ago the ratio between lowest and highest paid worker in a typical company in Switzerland was 1:6. This had risen to a 1:56 ratio. The campaign secured almost 35% ‘yes’ votes in the referendum, while it did not gain the necessary majority. Since the referendum the issue of income inequality

and, in particular, a maximum income has been on the public agenda. This visit inspired and motivated Claiming Our Future to explore what could be done in Ireland on the issue of a maximum wage.

Another initiative was organising a visit by the veteran US campaigner for income equality, Sam Pizzigati. He runs the US campaign ‘TOO MUCH’ and has, for decades, campaigned for a maximum wage and for legislation to force public disclosure and accountability about wage ratios in public companies. He too ran a workshop for the working group and presented at a well attended public meeting in Dublin.

Sam Pizzigati works with the Washington, D.C. based Institute for Policy Studies. He set out why we need a ceiling on annual incomes and outlined what a ‘maximum wage’ life might be like. He suggested new strategic directions for moving ahead in an income-capping direction and challenged the lack of belief in the possibility of change around such an issue.

The working group convened cross-sectoral meetings of key organisations campaigning on economic equality issues. This was to exchange knowledge, discuss and develop more coherent understanding of what could be done to generate support for greater economic equality and to popularise some key policy agendas. A large part of the focus was on tackling austerity, sharing arguments for alternatives to austerity, and developing common platforms and strategies in annual budget campaigns. Claiming Our Future brought a focus on maximum incomes into these exchanges.

Research It became clear that research was needed to progress policy demands on issues of a maximum wage and wage ratios. Claiming Our Future commissioned TASC to examine Irish wage ratios in 2014. This identified that “an income of €75,000 will place someone in the Top 10% of income earners. Revenue data show that there are fewer than 200,000 ‘tax cases’ (out of 2.1 million) that have an annual gross income over €75,000”. It grouped these people into ‘high’, ‘very high’, and ‘extremely high’ income categories: •

“Annual individual incomes of between

•

€75,000 and €200,000 can be identified as ‘high’ income in Ireland. This allows a much higher than average level of luxury in people’s lifestyles, compared to the large majority of society, including the possibility of owning a more expensive private dwelling. These income levels, while on the upper end of the income distribution scale, are not so high as to allow people to disassociate from the rest of society”.

“An income over €200,000 is defined as ‘very high’. Unlike perhaps some in the €75,000 - €200,000 category, it is likely that anyone with an income over €200,000 can afford to live in substantially superior material

•

conditions to the rest of society.

Based on Revenue data, an estimated 19,000 people have incomes over €200,000”, “10,000 have incomes of €275,000”, and “1,544 individuals have incomes above €400,000”. “€1 million per annum is suggested as a threshold to consider that someone has an ‘extremely high’ income. Data on the number of employees with incomes of over €1 million is difficult to find. It is plausible, based on the average income of the top income group, and on the numbers affected by the High Income Earners Restriction, that there could be roughly 300 to 600 individuals in Ireland with gross incomes of over €1 million”.

The research looked at pay ratios in Ireland but was hampered in this for lack of data. Civil servant pay scales allowed the pay ratio in this sector to be established at 10 to 1, “based on the lowest pay point for cleaners (€18,996) compared to the top salary payable to Secretaries General of €185,350”.

Irish company law does not require companies to publish pay ratios and doing so is not established practice. It was possible to identify ratios between CEO pay to the Minimum Wage in six companies that ranged from 68 time to 512 times, and ratios between CEO pay to the Living Wage in the same companies that ranged from 51 times to 385 times.

A Community of Activists The working group identified the need to support the development and emergence of a community of activists on economic equality issues. This would broaden the range of activists engaged in these issues and deepen their capacity to promote and argue core messages on issues of economic equality in public debate. ‘Cap the Gap was devised and implemented as a training programme for those activists from across the different sectors in civil society interested in playing some role in promoting greater economic equality.

Over eight weeks in 2015, 25 such activists from around the country, came together to explore policy agendas around economic inequality and to develop skills for campaigning and communicating about these issues. The training course was devised by Mary Murphy and coordinated by Deirdre Quinlan. It gave the participants a chance to: explore economic equality issues; develop a capacity to engage with these issues; and build campaigning work in this field.

The eight training days addressed: 1. An introduction to political economy. This explored what is political economy, how some political economies generate more

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

equality than others, and measuring income inequality. It was delivered

by Mary Murphy and Nat O’Connor.

An introduction to equality.

This explored approaches to and definitions of equality, arguments for equality, intersectionality and income equality, mechanisms for progressing equality, and issues of diversity. It was delivered by John Baker and Niall Crowley.

An introduction to income policy.

This explored incomes policy and wages, social welfare issues, work and welfare issues, and basic income.

It was delivered by Mary Murphy, John Baker, and Rory Hearne.

An introduction to art activism.

This explored concepts of art activism, creative action, creative campaigning, art intervention, and creative citizenship with a practical focus on issues of economic equality.

It was delivered by Nora Furlong.

An introduction to taxation policy.

This explored corporate taxes and business taxes, income taxes, financial transaction tax, and environmental taxes. It was delivered

by Nat O’Connor and Rachel Mullen.

A working day on developing audiovisual ‘Future News’ pieces with a focus on economic equality. It was delivered by Nina Sachau.

A working day on campaigning.

It was delivered by Siobhan O’Donoghue.

A working day on where to from here, how to sustain a community of activists, and an evaluation of the

initiative.

A highly participative methodology was pursued. The agenda was always open as to how the learning generated would filter back into activism. Some of the participants formed themselves into a ‘Cap the Gap Income Equality’ group and set up a Facebook page. They commissioned a logo and produced a leaflet for the General Election in 2016.

This was titled “16 Questions for ‘16” and set out points for people to put to candidates. It was distributed at a Right2Water protest in Dublin and other venues. This was followed up with a blog on income equality. Some meetings took place but keeping the group going proved difficult. Many of the activists were heavily involved in other campaigns.

Plans have also been explored to host the course in other parts of the country.

Learning There is a need and an interest in building economic expertise among those involved in a range of civil society sectors including the community, global justice, trade union, environmental and cultural sectors. The demand for the course was high from across these sectors and not everyone could be included. The interest in holding the course in other areas of the country was significant.

There were high levels of satisfaction expressed with the course.

The economic dimension to

transformative change is often left to a handful of people with economics training within civil society. They devise the policy positions and they articulate and defend these in the public arena.

While they do a very good job of this, effecting change requires that a wider spectrum of activists is enabled to be involved in this work. Economic change is at the heart of the transformations sought by civil society and needs a much greater and broader drive behind it if people are to convinced of the arguments for this change in what is a sensitive and complex area.

The concept of a community of activists was seen to be relevant in addressing this issue. A community of activists allows people to learn and develop skills together. It enables mutual support for people in applying this learning and implementing these skills. It facilitates cross sectoral coherence in the pursuit of change.

A cross sectoral community of activists was forged through this initiative. This was most evident in the Cap the Gap Income Equality group that continued to meet after the training period. The relationships were developed through the training and the methodology of the training was designed to facilitate this.

These relationships will continue into the future.

The initiative was less successful in working out how a community of activists might best be operationalised. Group

formation, joint initiatives, and repeating the experience at a local level were the main ideas pursued. These proved hard to sustain given the demands on people.

A more complex strategy that is more integral to the day to day work of those involved is required. This remains to be imagined.

This pamphlet was drafted by Tom O’Connor, Mary Murphy, and Niall Crowley.

The publication of this pamphlet was made possible by support from St Stephen’s Green Trust Fund and Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.