That’s a great way to get employers to ignore younger applicants
As it should be, I don’t see why people should get paid less because of their age.
Particularly in minimum wage jobs, where the positions aren’t *generally* ones that require a lot of experience in the role.
And if a lot of experience is needed, why the hell is it minimum wage?
This is one of those things that in principle I completely agree with, but that might end up having negative impacts on the people it’s intended to help.
Perhaps there is a happy medium of bringing the rates closer together, or reducing the age to get the max wage – without doing away with the principle altogether?
100% and all earning over the threshold should pay tax.
“No, no, we must pay young people less, it’s for their own good, honest.”
That seems to be the only argument I’m hearing against paying them properly.
Should be the case. But, sadly, the SNP can’t actually implement it (even in Scotland, because even if its not technically reserved then Westminster will just veto it).
You should be able to claim unfair hiring practices if you can’t get hired in basic roles because of your age.
Would this not screw over young people?
Why would an employer hire a young person (with no/less experience) over someone older who probably has experience
I don’t understand why so many “this will screw young people over” comments are met with “yeah fuck young people right? Who needs money”? In a sarcastic way. They’re not saying young people deserve less money, they’re just pointing out that there’s a point to it and it will actually screw them over.
If I had to choose between a 17 year old or a 37 year old to work for me for the same wage, I’d probably go for the 37 year old.
I remember being 17 myself. Can’t wake up early, completely unreliable, and rather drink a bottle of vodka with mates. The incentive of getting young people in the job market was that they were paid less.
“This will screw over young people” is completely logical. It’s not the same as saying “this is bullshit. They should be paid less”. No one is saying that. But it does make sense.
Edit: fuck me. We really are doomed.
Age is a protected characteristic and so having different wages for different ages is literally contradicting thier own laws. Its bs and needs scrapping asap.
Also ffs dont but into this young peole are lazy narrative because its fuckinf ridiculous.
A classic SNP policy. Sounds good, is stupid.
The national minimum wage isn’t set randomly, its statistically analysed.
Some facts: 1 in 10 younger people get the lower rate. Most get paid relative to the position.
There is something called the scarring effect too, every year you dont work from 18, the maximum wage you’ll get goes down.
So the lower national wage for young people is to protect those that cannot compete in the job market for whatever reason. By allowing a lower rate for younger people you can incentivise employers hiring these young people they would not hire at the full rate. This gets these people into work!
The Low Pay Commission do actually research this stuff. They didn’t just say “fuck young people”.
So we can agree that minimum wages is the same for all as is a starting point.
Then if ‘older people are more experienced and deserve to be paid more’ they go above minimum wage. Wages are and have been a joke for too long.
[deleted]
Oh god, please! As a chef, I’m fucking tired of dealing with 16< year old running my food and being generally shit because management wants to keep wage costs down.
I’ve been calling for this for years but every time I open my mouth some idiot tries to make the argument that “Then why would an employer higher a young person with no experience over someone with loads of experience for the same of money?”
Oh I dunno…. SUPPLY AND DEMAND?!?!?!?!
As it should be. Segregated pay based on age never made sense to me. If you do the same work, you should get the same pay, regardless of who you are. It’s just ageism to assume that younger people get more support outside of work.
There’s some terrible arguments in here against this, many of which are nonsensical. They also seem to focus on 18 year olds; *maybe* you can make arguments about them somehow not being worthy of being paid as much – although of course people are going to work less hard if they’re paid like shit – but what’s the excuse for the “21 to 22” bracket? If you’re an adult, you should have the same minimum wage, it is that simple.
To play devils advocate, what motivation do I have as a recruiting manager to recruit people just starting out in the work force then?
At least with the current system I can sell it to the business as a cost saving by taking a monumental gamble on a kid. If there’s equalisation I wouldn’t even attempt to make the argument.
It’ll just take kids today back to how it was when I was a teenager. Have fun working for free at charity shops so you don’t look entirely like a massive recruitment risk and can try blag helping Doris and Irene at Oxfam as real work experience.
I agree, my first job at 18 after college was in a call center and I was on (albeit) a bit less than the older lot, being a newer starter and tech savvy I picked the job up fairly quickly, also being a new starter I had training on another system so people in the same area as me even on the same table would pass the call to me for this other system and I would have no choice but to take it because they weren’t trained on it so I had more knowledge but because of my age I didn’t get paid the same for no other reason other than why should we
I’ll repost my comment from r/Scotland
For me, and I assume many others, this is a moral issue. I hear the arguments that it removes an incentive for businesses to hire young people and I get that, but there should never have been an incentive whose burden was shouldered by the workers anyway. Same job, same pay.
Minimum wage fucks me off many employers (retail) use it as an all round pay regardless of experience. They really need to realise that it’s in the title. Minimum. You’re allowed to go above. You’d get more applicants and more job satisfaction hell more productivity. But that would be in a perfect world.
At 19 I had the same bills that I had at 25 give or take. I still had to pay rent, bills, food, and if anything, it cost more because my car insurance cost a shit ton more at 19.
I was probably a better employee at 19 too, more energy, less complacent, a lot more willing.
Please please please. Just turned 16 and part time work is almost impossible to find and places that do hire don’t pay much at all.
It’s like that for a reason why would any company hire someone 16/17 with no Exp in any work over someone 25 who had eco working and in life in general if going pay same wage.
Can we also see apprentice wages improve. In my experience employers simply grind out apprentices as disposable employees because they can get away with paying them piss poor wages. If we put apprentice wages on par with the standard minimum wage, employers will be forced to actually make an effort into retaining them instead of disposing them when the contracted term ends and then hiring another 17-20 year old for 13-15k a year (that’s full time)
I will never forget my first job where they made me re-sign the contract when they realised I was 16 not 18 so they could get away with paying me less for the exact same work. I should have told them to shove it, in hindsight.
How about MP’s on min wages
That be a good start
(Yes i know most of them are millionares)
It should be raised for younger people.
When I was 19, I was being taken advantage of. The boss didn’t think I was even allowed to be paid minimum wage.
Even as a British born minority, I felt like I might as well have been an immigrant. That’s how I was treated. Like someone who didn’t matter and could be used and thrown away easily, threatened with the police over something illegal the boss was doing to a young person who never had a fucking job before. Young people are easily taken advantage of and that’s what they don’t want to tell you. Yet the same stereotypes of lazy comes up because “yeah they’re this age”.
These commenters want to assume young people don’t need money for whatever reason they want to say.
Right…because some of us don’t want to escape our abusive and toxic households? Some of us aren’t young parents who have to start providing for our children? We don’t have siblings, parents and grandparents to care for? (Yes despite them being toxic and abusive, some of us see it as our duty to look after our own. Shocking.)
Right…
Some of us don’t even have parents that can afford to buy us clothes and shoes so…wanting money to buy a new pair of shoes doesn’t sound like these young people don’t need money.
Do these judgemental lot really not know what it’s like to be those young people?
They might think they don’t need money, what they spend it on might not seem necessary but I don’t think anyone is even capable of knowing others so easily.
Yes, employing a school leaver should **cost a business less** than employing a time-served professional
No, that shouldn’t mean said school leaver is **paid less** than minimum wage
The tax payer can pick up whatever proportion of the kid’s wages we’d be paying them to sit at home on the dole, playing Assassin’s Creed in their underwear
29 comments
That’s a great way to get employers to ignore younger applicants
As it should be, I don’t see why people should get paid less because of their age.
Particularly in minimum wage jobs, where the positions aren’t *generally* ones that require a lot of experience in the role.
And if a lot of experience is needed, why the hell is it minimum wage?
This is one of those things that in principle I completely agree with, but that might end up having negative impacts on the people it’s intended to help.
Perhaps there is a happy medium of bringing the rates closer together, or reducing the age to get the max wage – without doing away with the principle altogether?
100% and all earning over the threshold should pay tax.
“No, no, we must pay young people less, it’s for their own good, honest.”
That seems to be the only argument I’m hearing against paying them properly.
Should be the case. But, sadly, the SNP can’t actually implement it (even in Scotland, because even if its not technically reserved then Westminster will just veto it).
You should be able to claim unfair hiring practices if you can’t get hired in basic roles because of your age.
Would this not screw over young people?
Why would an employer hire a young person (with no/less experience) over someone older who probably has experience
I don’t understand why so many “this will screw young people over” comments are met with “yeah fuck young people right? Who needs money”? In a sarcastic way. They’re not saying young people deserve less money, they’re just pointing out that there’s a point to it and it will actually screw them over.
If I had to choose between a 17 year old or a 37 year old to work for me for the same wage, I’d probably go for the 37 year old.
I remember being 17 myself. Can’t wake up early, completely unreliable, and rather drink a bottle of vodka with mates. The incentive of getting young people in the job market was that they were paid less.
“This will screw over young people” is completely logical. It’s not the same as saying “this is bullshit. They should be paid less”. No one is saying that. But it does make sense.
Edit: fuck me. We really are doomed.
Age is a protected characteristic and so having different wages for different ages is literally contradicting thier own laws. Its bs and needs scrapping asap.
Also ffs dont but into this young peole are lazy narrative because its fuckinf ridiculous.
A classic SNP policy. Sounds good, is stupid.
The national minimum wage isn’t set randomly, its statistically analysed.
Some facts: 1 in 10 younger people get the lower rate. Most get paid relative to the position.
There is something called the scarring effect too, every year you dont work from 18, the maximum wage you’ll get goes down.
So the lower national wage for young people is to protect those that cannot compete in the job market for whatever reason. By allowing a lower rate for younger people you can incentivise employers hiring these young people they would not hire at the full rate. This gets these people into work!
https://minimumwage.blog.gov.uk/2020/03/09/why-do-young-people-have-lower-minimum-wages/
The Low Pay Commission do actually research this stuff. They didn’t just say “fuck young people”.
So we can agree that minimum wages is the same for all as is a starting point.
Then if ‘older people are more experienced and deserve to be paid more’ they go above minimum wage. Wages are and have been a joke for too long.
[deleted]
Oh god, please! As a chef, I’m fucking tired of dealing with 16< year old running my food and being generally shit because management wants to keep wage costs down.
I’ve been calling for this for years but every time I open my mouth some idiot tries to make the argument that “Then why would an employer higher a young person with no experience over someone with loads of experience for the same of money?”
Oh I dunno…. SUPPLY AND DEMAND?!?!?!?!
As it should be. Segregated pay based on age never made sense to me. If you do the same work, you should get the same pay, regardless of who you are. It’s just ageism to assume that younger people get more support outside of work.
There’s some terrible arguments in here against this, many of which are nonsensical. They also seem to focus on 18 year olds; *maybe* you can make arguments about them somehow not being worthy of being paid as much – although of course people are going to work less hard if they’re paid like shit – but what’s the excuse for the “21 to 22” bracket? If you’re an adult, you should have the same minimum wage, it is that simple.
To play devils advocate, what motivation do I have as a recruiting manager to recruit people just starting out in the work force then?
At least with the current system I can sell it to the business as a cost saving by taking a monumental gamble on a kid. If there’s equalisation I wouldn’t even attempt to make the argument.
It’ll just take kids today back to how it was when I was a teenager. Have fun working for free at charity shops so you don’t look entirely like a massive recruitment risk and can try blag helping Doris and Irene at Oxfam as real work experience.
I agree, my first job at 18 after college was in a call center and I was on (albeit) a bit less than the older lot, being a newer starter and tech savvy I picked the job up fairly quickly, also being a new starter I had training on another system so people in the same area as me even on the same table would pass the call to me for this other system and I would have no choice but to take it because they weren’t trained on it so I had more knowledge but because of my age I didn’t get paid the same for no other reason other than why should we
I’ll repost my comment from r/Scotland
For me, and I assume many others, this is a moral issue. I hear the arguments that it removes an incentive for businesses to hire young people and I get that, but there should never have been an incentive whose burden was shouldered by the workers anyway. Same job, same pay.
Minimum wage fucks me off many employers (retail) use it as an all round pay regardless of experience. They really need to realise that it’s in the title. Minimum. You’re allowed to go above. You’d get more applicants and more job satisfaction hell more productivity. But that would be in a perfect world.
At 19 I had the same bills that I had at 25 give or take. I still had to pay rent, bills, food, and if anything, it cost more because my car insurance cost a shit ton more at 19.
I was probably a better employee at 19 too, more energy, less complacent, a lot more willing.
Please please please. Just turned 16 and part time work is almost impossible to find and places that do hire don’t pay much at all.
It’s like that for a reason why would any company hire someone 16/17 with no Exp in any work over someone 25 who had eco working and in life in general if going pay same wage.
Can we also see apprentice wages improve. In my experience employers simply grind out apprentices as disposable employees because they can get away with paying them piss poor wages. If we put apprentice wages on par with the standard minimum wage, employers will be forced to actually make an effort into retaining them instead of disposing them when the contracted term ends and then hiring another 17-20 year old for 13-15k a year (that’s full time)
I will never forget my first job where they made me re-sign the contract when they realised I was 16 not 18 so they could get away with paying me less for the exact same work. I should have told them to shove it, in hindsight.
How about MP’s on min wages
That be a good start
(Yes i know most of them are millionares)
It should be raised for younger people.
When I was 19, I was being taken advantage of. The boss didn’t think I was even allowed to be paid minimum wage.
Even as a British born minority, I felt like I might as well have been an immigrant. That’s how I was treated. Like someone who didn’t matter and could be used and thrown away easily, threatened with the police over something illegal the boss was doing to a young person who never had a fucking job before. Young people are easily taken advantage of and that’s what they don’t want to tell you. Yet the same stereotypes of lazy comes up because “yeah they’re this age”.
These commenters want to assume young people don’t need money for whatever reason they want to say.
Right…because some of us don’t want to escape our abusive and toxic households? Some of us aren’t young parents who have to start providing for our children? We don’t have siblings, parents and grandparents to care for? (Yes despite them being toxic and abusive, some of us see it as our duty to look after our own. Shocking.)
Right…
Some of us don’t even have parents that can afford to buy us clothes and shoes so…wanting money to buy a new pair of shoes doesn’t sound like these young people don’t need money.
Do these judgemental lot really not know what it’s like to be those young people?
They might think they don’t need money, what they spend it on might not seem necessary but I don’t think anyone is even capable of knowing others so easily.
Yes, employing a school leaver should **cost a business less** than employing a time-served professional
No, that shouldn’t mean said school leaver is **paid less** than minimum wage
The tax payer can pick up whatever proportion of the kid’s wages we’d be paying them to sit at home on the dole, playing Assassin’s Creed in their underwear