The recent increase in Scotland’s Living Wage may be a mixed blessing.

The Scottish Government has uprated its view of what a living wage should be to £8.25 as of last week. Meanwhile, from April 1 2016, the UK government is imposing what it calls a national living wage of £7.20, although the way in which Chancellor George Osborne has reached this compulsory figure is unclear and critics say it doesn’t equate to a meaningful living wage.

The Scottish figure is effectively voluntary, with 390 Scottish firms having signed up to be accredited as living wage employers.

Both are challenging for employers, particularly those in areas notorious for low pay. Care homes are a key example, and the industry has warned that up to 9,000 establishments could go out of business by 2020 across the UK, under George Osborne’s plans.

But a survey of charities also found that meeting the chancellor’s NLW could cost the third sector more than £10m by next April, across the UK. That is without factoring in any need to maintain existing pay differentials between those on the bottom rung and better paid staff.

In Scotland, the expectation that charities will work towards the higher rate puts the squeeze on even more. I’ve been hearing that it could threaten job partnerships which help vulnerable people back into the workplace, and that some charities which have sought living wage accreditation may even seek to hand it back.

Meanwhile in sectors where part time and shift work is common, some workers have stated that they would rather have regular work at the minimum wage, than receive the living wage, but on zero hours contracts.

It would be wrong to assume this means most people are not supportive of the living wage in principle. Quite the opposite is true. But the figures and the deadlines involved have come as a surprise to some.

Firms, including charities, bidding for public sector contracts are now expected to pay employees the living wage, as part of a Scottish Government initiative on fair working practices.

Again, most people would support this. But we can expect some hugely difficult conversations between charities contracted to deliver services on behalf of councils about who should fund any increases.

In Glasgow not long ago, Glasgow Association for Mental Health, a living wage employer, lost out during a reconfiguring of services in the city, with work going instead to another charity which does not pay the living wage. They may not be the last to find themselves in such an anomalous situation.