To feel a bit upset I won't be getting the new National Living Wage?(52 Posts)
This new National Living Wage will come into effect this Friday. However, it only applies to those aged 25 and over, and because I'm only in my early 20s I don't qualify for it. I'll be stuck in my shitty minimum wage retail job for the foreseeable future until my luck changes. Only two people at work will be getting a pay rise as a result of this National Living Wage - the big bosses decided not to increase the supervisor/manager wages accordingly
because they don't value their staff , which means the supervisors at my work will only be getting £1 more than new NLW . For all the extra responsibilities involved in their role I think that's pretty insulting.
I just feel that whichever government people thought this up didn't think it through very well. Personally I think it should apply to those aged 21 and over - think of the age of a very large number of graduates, who've gone to uni at 18 and thus are 21/22 upon graduation. I have more responsibilities than one of my colleagues who will be entitled to this pay rise, yet because of when I was born I'll be paid less for it . AIBU to think this is just a tad unfair?
I was paid well below some of the older staff because I was 16/17 and they were a couple of years older even though I had a house to run (after being homeless) and most of them lived at home!
The budget before last was a complete, total and utter kick in the face for younger people. I'm really sorry - it is really unfair and there's no justification for it.
YANBU. Me and my colleague do the same job at the same standard. She is older than me and will be paid more than more. She lives rent free with her parents. I'm paying bills, rent, childcare, looking after my own home and child. Sucks.
TBH I think it should apply to anyone doing a paid job, regardless of age. You can see how insane it is that a 26 year old doing the exact same job as a 24 year old is entitled to a higher wage- surely in that case you can see how ridiculous it would be for a 22 year old to get paid more than 20 year old for the same work?
I have never understood why different ages were entitled to different minimum wages. It's not like rents and bills and groceries are discounted for younger people. It's daft.
I think the NMW (I refuse to call it a living wage - it isn't) should be paid regardless of age. Do a good job, you get paid money, is the only fair way in my mind. I think a lot of places are going to have a problem with erosion of differentials between the troops and supervisors. Who is going to want the added stress and hassle for an extra few quid a week?
I'll declare an interest here as I think a friend is about to get stitched up with a night shift and team leader allowance. Or lack thereof.
Wouldn't someone with a lot of responsibility be on more than the living wage anyway? Tbh I worry that it will make over 25's less attractive candidates for nmw positions.
I don't think we should have different 'bands' of minimum wage at all.
It is inexcusable that young people are paid less the slightly older people for DOING THE SAME JOB!
What a kick in the teeth.
I totally sympathise. It is completely immoral that my colleagues doing the same job as me get paid less because of their age. If it was an older worker, or a woman, getting paid less, because of who they were people would be really upset.
If I am totally honest, my 24 year old colleagues are much better at moving heavy crates of chilled food up flights of stairs than I am aged 40. The fact they are paid less is a total travesty.
Come and work for IKEA - they're paying it to all hourly paid workers regardless of age (£8.25 outside London/£9.40 inside) I've never understood why companies differentiate pay based on age when people are doing exactly the same job.
I think one of the problems is that the minimum wage has become 'the' wage which everyone is on. One might expect staff in senior position to be paid accordingly but the problem is with stingy employers not wanting to pay appropriately so they end up on slightly more than the minimum wage. The introduction of the new minimum wage this week will quite probably mean that those in less senior positions that are older will be paid more.
Yeah ikea is fab for pay as is aldi.
I'd like a pound more though, I was put up to supervisor last month and I get an extra 30p which hasn't even gone through yet for more work
To be fair its not always a case of employers not valuing their staff or being stingy. The minimum wage increase is quite big proportionately and way above inflation and for some businesses is more than they could reasonably pass on to our customers.
We pay all staff at the same grade the same regardless of age, and we paid all staff more than minimum wage and more than the typical market rate here - I'm talking an entry level role generally done by younger people so many are earning quite a bit less than our staff. We're putting their wage up to be the same amount over minimum wage as they were before. But we're a new business and we can't afford to increase the wages of all of our higher grade staff by a corresponding percentage. The money isn't there yet, and the customers would be very reluctant to swallow a fee hike. It's a business which should grow year on year but we worked out initial running costs and made the decision to open based on one set of figures and our cost base is very salary driven. Doesn't mean we are stingy or don't value our staff
Yanbu at all. The age limit is offensive and is generally a pis stake anyway (ie the idea that it is actually a "living wage")
because the under 25's should be living at "home" ie parents or in a bedsit/shared house.
should be same pay for same work.
There's been more than a bit of upset on here about how people's Nursery Fees are going up. However, if the Nursery's wage bill is going up 20% ish, then the owners still have to balance the books. No business can lose money each week/month and survive - the costs have to be passed on to the customers.
What I'd like to see is some kind of a link between the highest and lowest paid in any company...... maybe that no-one is allowed to be paid more than 10x (?) 20x (?) the lowest paid employee. That would give the chief executives something to think about when negotiating their contracts.
My DS was called into a meeting and was told that because of the new minimum wage (I refuse to call it a Living Wage because it's not a wage you can live on without another wage coming in or claiming WTCs) they will no longer be paying night shift workers a higher hourly rate. It'll backfire because they find it hard to recruit night workers as it is.
Forgot to finish my post! The upshot is that while the day shop workers will be getting a wage increase, the night workers will see a wage decrease. It's unfair.
Clarence Night workers should be getting their own seperate higher wage anyway and i mean ALL night workers.
Night workers are more likely to have to fork out for taxis at more expensive times if working odd shifts.
More likely to get woken up mid morning by some inconsiderate cunt with an angle grinder or wood chipper!
More likely to have to sit up all day after having worked all night waiting in for a gas safety check because the landlord wont specify a time or will only do them between 9 and 5.pm.
and then the engineer doesnt turn up so you have to do it AGAIN Its because of shit like this that night workers should be paid extra.
I used to work nights 15 years ago so i know what its like We were paid the same as the days but £6 an hour was worth more back then,
the difference between twenty and twenty-five is five years. the "foreseeable future" comment is a bit dramatic.
keep looking, keep your resume current and be prepared to change jobs if someone offers you a bit more.
When this was announced it was intended to be paid for out of the profit margins. The theory was that the government was done massaging profits through tax credits.
From everything I have heard, and am experiencing through DHs workplace, businesses are doing everything to protect their profit margins, and it is still the joe public getting shafted.
11 people were laid off last week in DHs work. It is looking like he is going to take a pay cut. The supervisors aren't being moved up. The company is pleading poverty, but their accounts are 20% up on last year.
I think that the government needs to reiterate the purpose of this, and monitor it somehow, but they won't. They want to be seen to be doing something, without actually pissing off big business.
I have never agreed with age brackets in pay. But now I feel at a disadvantage were I to apply for a job, as they could hire someone younger, and therefore cheaper.
Yadnbu! It hits the young by insulting them and giving them less money and hits older people in low paid jobs by making them less 'employable'.
If you're doing the same job and earning the same money for your boss you should get the same wage.
Nights being different for the reasons Helena stated and more. Nights screen with your bodies sleep, digestive and immune systems and people who work nights long term are more likely to retire younger due to ill health and are more likely to be ill.
If the government (and I'm not being partisan here) had the balls to ignore the business community on this one issue and set a real living wage, as in enough to live on without tax credits or other government help, all employees would have more disposable income, would spend more and this would lead to the economy recovering, protectionism has been proven repeatedly not to work.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.