Introduction

Individualised employment relations formed a key pillar of the shift to neoliberal economic policy in the 1980s, complementing other dimensions of orthodoxy deployed across governments, public administrations and central banks in the same time. In the neoliberal narrative, market forces would ‘naturally' and justly compensate labour for its contribution to productivity, like any other input to production. Consequently, redistributive institutions empowering workers to win more adequate wages and conditions (through minimum wages, Awards, unionisation, and collective bargaining) were dramatically eroded, or discarded entirely. Combined with welfare state retrenchment, this restructuring of labour market policy increased the pressure on people to sell their labour, and under terms over which workers wielded little influence. Since then, forms of insecure, non-standard work have proliferated globally, and employment relations have been increasingly individualised. Now, most workers in Anglo-Saxon market economies, and a growing proportion of workers in European and Nordic nations, rely on individual contract instruments (underpinned only by minimum wage floors typically far below living wage benchmarks) to set the terms and conditions of employment. Wages have stagnated, the share of GDP going to workers has declined, and inequality and poverty (even among employed people) has intensified. More recently, after years of this employer-friendly hegemony in workplace relations, successive crises (first the GFC and then the COVID-19 pandemic) have more obviously shattered traditional expectations of a natural linkage between economic growth and workers' living standards.After a generation of experience with this individualised model of employment relations, and with the human costs of that approach becoming ever-more obvious, there is renewed concern with reimagining policies and structures which could support improvements in job quality, stability, and compensation. Important policy dialogue and innovation is now occurring in many industrial countries, in response to the negative consequences of neoliberal labour market policies. In those conversations, institutions like collective bargaining have returned to centre stage.

Employer perspectives on the living wage and minimum wage during Covid: evidence from New Zealand

New Zealand is a relatively low wage economy but living costs are high and rising. One government response has been to accelerate the Minimum Wage (MW) which is now converging on the Living Wage (LW) rate. This paper explores employer attitudes and practices regarding the LW, in the context of the rising MW and Covid disruption, based on a survey of over 600 organisations. Motivation for adopting the LW simultaneously derived from ethical considerations of fairness, especially given higher living costs, and prospective returns such as better recruitment, retention and motivation in the context of tighter labour markets. Implementing the LW had mixed employment effects with benefits more likely to accrue to larger organisations. However, difficulties relating to wage differentials were also more acute in larger firms. Where affordability inhibited the full restoration of wage differentials, which were narrowing in many organisations due to the higher MW or adoption of the LW, this resulted in a perceived inequity for relatively higher paid employees. The findings highlight how perceptions of ‘fairness' may vary. This could limit the wider adoption or potential gains arising from the LW, and employment relation processes need to be configured to defuse such potential indirect effects.

Employer perspectives on the living wage and minimum wage during Covid: evidence from New Zealand

New Zealand is a relatively low wage economy but living costs are high and rising. One government response has been to accelerate the Minimum Wage (MW) which is now converging on the Living Wage (LW) rate. This paper explores employer attitudes and practices regarding the LW, in the context of the rising MW and Covid disruption, based on a survey of over 600 organisations. Motivation for adopting the LW simultaneously derived from ethical considerations of fairness, especially given higher living costs, and prospective returns such as better recruitment, retention and motivation in the context of tighter labour markets. Implementing the LW had mixed employment effects with benefits more likely to accrue to larger organisations. However, difficulties relating to wage differentials were also more acute in larger firms. Where affordability inhibited the full restoration of wage differentials, which were narrowing in many organisations due to the higher MW or adoption of the LW, this resulted in a perceived inequity for relatively higher paid employees. The findings highlight how perceptions of 'fairness' may vary. This could limit the wider adoption or potential gains arising from the LW, and employment relation processes need to be configured to defuse such potential indirect effects.

A Rights-Based Approach to Youth Inclusion in Public Health Policy

YOUTHS' RIGHT TO HEALTH-AFFIRMING SOCIAL CONTEXTS People are embedded within neighborhoods, communities, political atmospheres, and economic systems;these contexts determine living conditions such as access to quality education, employment with living wages, adequate and appropriate health care, affordable healthy food and physical recreation, and community support. Yet youths have inherent rights to health, enumerated by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.2 Among these are the rights to "the highest attainable standard of health" (Article 24), and to "a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development" (Article 27). SOCIETY'S NEED FOR POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT Aligned with the social determinants of health framework, which situates individuals' health outcomes within social contexts, PYD regards human development as a product of youths' internal assets functioning in tandem with their environmental resources and supports.4 As a strengths-based perspective, PYD maintains that all youths have internal and external assets that make their individual development and their contributions to society unique.5 Aligned with the UN Convention on the Rights ofthe Child, PYD insists that society is responsible for fostering environments where youths have the resources they need to thrive and, importantly, for involving youths as partners in shaping their world, as contribution is both a means and an end to PYD.5 Although favorable environmental contexts are essential for positive development, Yeager identifies four internal drives that help youths develop through adolescence5: (1) to stand out: o develop a personal identity;(2) to fit in: to develop a sense of connectedness;(3) to measure up: to develop competence and find ways to achieve;and (4) to take hold: to make commitments to particular goals, activities, and beliefs. "10 In response, Maine's Department of Health and Human Services announced the establishment of the Office of Population Health Equity (OPHE) within the Maine Center for Disease Control (MCDC) to collaborate within and beyond the MCDC to achieve health justice.11 The MCDC prioritizes youth participation through its funding to the Maine Youth Action Network (MYAN), which is composed of community-based, PYDguided programs that engage youths on issues of public health education, research, and policy.

Pandemic or Not, Worker Subjective Wellbeing Pivots About the Living Wage Point: A Replication, Extension, and Policy Challenge in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Recent pre-pandemic research suggests that living wages can be pivotal for enhancing employee attitudes and subjective wellbeing. This article explores whether or not the present COVID-19 pandemic is impacting pivotal links between living wages and employee attitudes and subjective wellbeing, with replication indicating robustness. Twin cohorts each of 1,000 low-waged workers across New Zealand (NZ), one pre- (2018), and one present-pandemic (2020) were sample surveyed on hourly wage, job attitudes, and subjective wellbeing as linked to changes in the world of work associated with the pandemic (e.g., job security, stress, anxiety, depression, and holistic wellbeing). Using locally estimated scatter-point smoothing, job attitudes and subjective wellbeing scores tended to pivot upward at the living wage level in NZ. These findings replicate earlier findings and extend these into considering subjective wellbeing in the context of a crisis for employee livelihoods and lives more generally. Convergence across multiple measures, constructs, and contexts, suggests the positive impacts of living wages are durable. We draw inspiration from systems dynamics to argue that the present government policy of raising legal minimum wages (as NZ has done) may not protect subjective wellbeing until wages cross the living wage Rubicon. Future research should address this challenge.

Raising Revenue for Good Social Public Policy

COVID-19 and its resultant economic decline have underscored inequities faced by women and people of color. In the United States, policymakers pursued different paths when attempting to recover: Some, like state lawmakers in Georgia, chose to cut funding for programs and services. Other policymakers invested dollars where the need is greatest. Moral investments that put the needs of people first, by creating jobs that pay living wages and help people afford necessities, and equitable policies that ensure everyone pays their fair share of taxes are needed to create a system where everyone can recover and thrive.

The Demographics and Economics of Direct Care Staff Highlight Their Vulnerabilities Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic.

An estimated 3.5 million direct care staff working in facilities and people's homes play a critical role during the COVID-19 pandemic. They allow vulnerable care recipients to stay at home and they provide necessary help in facilities. Direct care staff, on average, have decades of experience, often have certifications and licenses, and many have at least some college education to help them perform the myriad of responsibilities to properly care for care recipients. Yet, they are at heightened health and financial risks. They often receive low wages, limited benefits, and have few financial resources to fall back on when they get sick themselves and can no longer work. Furthermore, most direct care staff are parents with children in the house and almost one-fourth are single parents. If they fall ill, both they and their families are put into physical and financial risk.