Er...How does that work.

[skitzee2k]

OK, so the new Equality Law states that no-one can be discriminated against for..well pretty much anything...including AGE.

They also updated the minimum wage...

•£5.93 - the main rate for workers aged 21 and over
•£4.92 - the 18-20 rate
•£3.64 - the 16-17 rate for workers above school leaving age but under 18
•£2.50 - the apprentice rate, for apprentices under 19 or 19 or over and in the first year of their apprenticeship

So...let's recap, you cannot descriminate due to age...but you only have to pay a 17 year old £3.64 but have to pay a 21 year old £5.93..

...everyone is equal but a 21 yo is automatically worth 65% more that a 21+ person....

What a Novel concept of EQUALITY we have...

PS 16/17 year olds...get a job.

 

[conny]

Its tradition.

Young apprentices always get less, why change it?

 

[skitzee2k]

Its tradition.

Young apprentices always get less, why change it?

I actually support the apprentice rates, as long as they are being taught something, but I have hired 16 yos in the past for standard work (selling, warehousing etc) that knock the stripes off 30 yos, I don't see why we can exploit young people and then make a show of equality.

 

[conny]

Admittedly some 16/17 year olds will graft their knackers off but the reverse is also true.
I've known some 16/17 yr olds who, once gaining an apprenticeship, have thought they didn't need to do any more.

Personally if I was a businessman and employed an apprentice and a general 'dogsbody', both 16/17, if the dogsbody was a hard worker I'd reward him by paying him a higher rate than the 'appo'.

 

[skitzee2k]

The whole point of being an apprentice is that you are gaining useful experience, which is why you only get paid a small out. That concept is a good one (and I do not know why the age is limited for this.)

However ignoring the apprentice thing all together.

A shelf stack of 16 is going to have the same work out put as a shelf stacker of 21...or 65, in fact that 16 yo shelf stacker may be hoping his job will lead to a promotion, whereas people that are using it for pocket money to top up their mention, may not take it as serious..

I'm not arguing that 16/17 year olds are harder workers, but just in my experience they are not 65% different in worth and shouldn't be discriminated against because of their age.

I had to change my HR policy today to remind people that you cannot ask someone to retire...even if they are 90... and they are still worth 65%more that a 16/17 apparently.

 

[conny]

Agreed, 65% is a hell of a difference, especially to a youngster.
But you also have to think to yourself, if the 50-odd year old is only producing x amount of effort why am I employing them?
To my mind, if 2 people are doing a mundane job that requires little initiative then so long as they are both applying the same effort then they should be on equal pay and to hell with the minimum wage fiasco. If one is putting in less effort then they should be 'down-graded' to a lower rate and age is immaterial.

 

[kevplumb]

That concept is a good one (and I do not know why the age is limited for this.)

it ain't now

 

[geraint]

The whole point of being an apprentice is that you are gaining useful experience, which is why you only get paid a small out. That concept is a good one (and I do not know why the age is limited for this.)

However ignoring the apprentice thing all together.

A shelf stack of 16 is going to have the same work out put as a shelf stacker of 21...or 65, in fact that 16 yo shelf stacker may be hoping his job will lead to a promotion, whereas people that are using it for pocket money to top up their mention, may not take it as serious..

I'm not arguing that 16/17 year olds are harder workers, but just in my experience they are not 65% different in worth and shouldn't be discriminated against because of their age.

I had to change my HR policy today to remind people that you cannot ask someone to retire...even if they are 90... and they are still worth 65%more that a 16/17 apparently.

you talk absolute and utter bollards.....

 

[kevplumb]

yup and like you don't

 

[Beerlover]

Youth is not all it is cracked up to be - I mean them not the era.

A few years back needed dimlo workers X3 for a job in Belsize Park. I took on two 17 year old lads (friends boys) and a 23 year old who had played the wrong side of the tracks and had the record to match. Within two weeks, two had to be let go. Not the exconvict but the two mouthy, lazy, world owes me a living, idiots.

Prejudiced?

1st told customer, "I don't give a f**k I'm not living going to live here"
2nd could not get up in time to be collected from his front door even ignoring the phone calls to try and rouse him, rang back eventually on Friday morning to ask what wages he had coming!

Jail bird - Not with me now; running his own successful small plumbing and tiling business.

And just as a footnote: lawyers, broadcasters, journalists, etc. all work for free on internships to gain their positions

 

[kevplumb]

will pm you tomorrow

 

[big-all]

other things to remember no one under 18 can get any "out off work" assistance from the goverment[cant claim unemployment benefit]
there parents can continue to get child tax credits and child benefit iff they attend a full time training course the youngster also recives up to £30 a week for attending education

a 16 or 17 year old will not in general have the maturity or by law be off an age where they can work shifts or take responcibilitys for others
they will also be at the begining off there work related learning curve requiring in general more supervision

having said that if someone shows a good work aptitude and general good ability at there job an employer would be stupid and short sighted not to offer a better rate to keep the employee

the situation is much better than 15 years ago when the job centre could insist a grown man with children a wife and a mortgadge should apply for a job at £3.20p an hour

 

[HERTS P&D]

All apprentices get paid sh1t money and have to clear up the sh1t,..................... I'm still doing it.


Andy

 

[maltaron]

This is a "minimum" wage, there is no reason not to pay more if someone is worth it.

 

[skitzee2k]

This is a "minimum" wage, there is no reason not to pay more if someone is worth it.

not the point is it. If you had a law that said the minimum wage was 65% different from black people to white people... is that ok? After all you don't HAVE to pay them less