to think that £4.92 per hour is ridiculous?

[Chocolocolate]

My DSil has recently completed her NVQ in childcare and works full time in a nursery.

She is 19. My DBro is 21. They pay all of their bills etc between them.

Their rent is £500 per month for a rubbishy little flat (although they have made it their own).

DSil told me over Christmas that she only gets paid £4.92 per hour - the national minimum wage for 19yos. AIBU to think this is very low? Not just for her - the national minimum wage is low.

Why is it less for a 19yo than a 21yo? They have all of the same responsibilities etc of an older couple.

If she wasn't with my DBro (who gets paid barely more than the national minimum wage himself) how could she afford a place to live?

They are both v. hardworking people, as are many who get national minimum wage, should this not be higher?

Sorry to bang the same drum again but in childcare/early years the nursery grant has a big part to play in the low wages.

I'm a 32 year old with many years exp and NVQ4 working on my Early Years degree and I am paid a few pence above minimum wage because that is all that can be afforded once the overheads of the building and materials are bought.

I was going to say the same as fake plastic trees. My nanny would have been in the same situation as the OP's DSIL many years ago but now earns more than the national average salary. It's well worth OP sucking it up for a few years and then moving into nannying.

Re the question about discriminatory NMW age bands. As I understand it the thinking is this: when it was first mooted a lot if employers complained that it didn't discriminate for experience, and claimed that if it had a flat age structure no employer would ever choose to employ a wet-behind-the-ears teenager when they could get an experienced adult for the same money. The fear was that non-graduate teens would never get picked for jobs, and would just rot on the dole for the rest of their lives, because they'd never get that first job. Add that to the fact that most teens live with parents so have lower living costs and there you have it - it's meant to incentivise employers to give teens their first jobs. May or may not be correct, but it makes some sense.

Remember there are other benefits with certain jobs though, eg a nursery worker may well qualify for a heavily subsidised place for her own children (not relevant to your SIL at age 19 but could well be in future). That can mean that in terms of take home pay, the nursery worker is better off that many of the mums using the nursery who are paying the full rate for several kids out of their net pay!

People go into jobs for many different reasons, eg i have a lot of friends who are teaching assistants, and love it because the hours are short, they only work term time and dont have to carry any of the heavy responsibility. They could earn several times more as a teacher, but would then have to spend several years getting qualifications, probably travel further for work, work far longer hours, use childcare, have work in the evnings....

I agree min wage seems low but you have to look at the reasons and also the prospects and perks of that particular job. and supply and demand too; no doubt there are hordes of girls of similar age who would do the job if she didn't want it

I think it is disguting that kind of blatant ageism happens in this country. She should start looking for soemwhere that will pay her for what she is capable of not for how little they can get her for.

There could be a great deal of difference between a 19 yr old and a 21 yrs old - the 21 year old could have gone to uni or have at least 2 extra years experience. Perhaps that was the logic behind the min wage.

She's only 19 with no degree and little experience so wont have a mass earning potential yet - the more she educates herself coupled with experience the more she will earn in future. People just dont walk into high paid jobs as a teen - unless they are related to somebody that pulls strings!

Glitterknickaz Mon 03-Jan-11 00:42:11
YANBU.
Mind you, £2.24 an hour for being a carer isn't that great either...

can't be the carers allowance as that is 17p an hour.

Shes only just starting out with work and only just qualified. No or very little experience. At such a young age they are really learning on the job still. I have worked in/used many care settings and actually the best carers are mostly the older ones who have a bit of life experience behind them and may have had kids themselves. This is not always the case though but actually many of the teenager care workers i know need a quite good amount of direction still. There are also a number who fell in to training at college but have no interest in children really and little work ethic - so see the job as an easy option. However childcare is a very important job and it takes a while for workers to suss out the quality workers (of any age).

I'm earning minimum wage working at a cinema, because they're the only people who wanted me. I've applied for a job using my sign language skills, and it'd pay £25/hr. Of course, I haven't heard anything back from them. :(

HappyMum - no-one is saying they should walk into "high paid" job - just that she gets paid a decent minimum wage.

And if £12334 (full time minimum wage for an adult) is a high wage - well then I give up

Helena - off topic (sorry OP) but have you tried seeing if theres some sort of freelance register for sign language interpreting? I know for most languages, there's a national register of public service interpreters - the police/hosptials contact them if they need someone to interpret. The interpreters are self employed and the amount of work you get isn't consistant, but might be worth finding out. (The register insists on certain level of qualifications though, for most languages it's degree level in your non-native language at least, rare ones they'll take lower level quals)

You are correct Riven. It does. But a high minimum wage would cost the state more as employers sack staff they can no longer afford and/or don't take people on whom then must be given full benefits rather than a few.

Baqoq, I didnt say full time min wage was a high wage - the OP was complaining re her DIL's wages but at 19 with no uni behind her then min wage is usually the starting point. If the starting point was a decent wage with no experience then employers simply wouldnt be able to employ people as those with experience would be on silly amounts.

Her SIL obviously wanted to work in childcare, would have known the entry level wage and choose to do it. She can always study at night, get more experience, move jobs etc in the future. She was obviously happy with her choice otherwise would have chosen a different path in life, she also must have felt ok with the wages as choose to leave home whilst still technically a teen.

Whether or not the min wage should be higher i'm not sure. There will always need to be entry level jobs for those starting out or are unqualified etc. However, the down side to the min wage is that people choose not to work and live on benefits instead - however I dont believe highering the min wage would see our benefit claims drop as people either have a work ethic or they dont.

Far better we lower taxation and drop tax credits so that people keep more of their salary so the more hours they work or the more they work their way up the ladder the more they get to keep. Rather than the current system where many work the bare min possible knowing that other tax payers will subsidise the rest.

Niceguy - that is correct in some sense.

However - did you read where I said that on the current minimum wage level (adult one) working 40 hours a week a single mother with 3 children would receive MORE in benefits/top-ups than their gross pay. (and that's before the childcare element is included).

you're missing the point HappyMum - if she had gone into ANY other minimum wage job she would still have been earning £2000 a year less than her equally unqualified 21yr co-worker. The nature of the minimum wage/entry level pay doesn't change for the job - its £4.92 regardless if you're under 21yrs old.

Lets just forget the current level of the adult minimum wage and ask whether it's fair that someone that has an unqualified/low qualified 19yr old should have the same entry level pay as a 21yr old that is also unqualified.

Well it's a weigh up of what would she prefer...more money or job satisfaction. It's a life lesson that we all have had to learn at some point, if she wants more money then get a different job.

I remember graduating and getting a job on 22k straight away, then again I had an overdraft to clear which I don't think you can rack up doing something as simple as an NVQ.

I have to say that in childcare many some employers exploit the minimum wage regs and impose levels of responsibility that in no way reflect the lowly pay scale. In a private nursery I know the manager responsible for the day to day running and staffing was paid under £5.00 per hour due to her age and let go once she reached 21.

OpenToLawSuits - if she goes to another minimum wage job she'll still get the same minimum wage she gets now and if the OP's SIL lives anywhere like I do its case of you either have a minimum wage job.........or you have a decently paid professional job for which you need specific qualifications. There is almost no middle ground. You get jobs where wage is "above mimimum wage" - but in reality that usually means you're getting 20p an hour more than minimum wage.

Why am i missing the point? A 19 year old will not have gone to uni whereas a 21 year old could have, the 21 year old is statistically likely to either be higher educated or have more working experience than a 19 year old so should expect a little more than somebody straight from college. Unless the 21 year old has been sat on benefits for 5 years from school then they are more qualified than a 19 year old - be it educationally or experience wise.

As Open says, just doing a simple NVQ at college will mean entry level with no student debt. What she earns afer gaining experience is up to her.

Here, here. I thought I too was missing the point. But hurray, someone agrees.

Agree opentolawsuits, that to a large extent its swings and roundabouts.

Up to the age of about 24 I was significantly worse off than ANY working 19 year old, because I was studying for a degree , higher degree and then professional training which I had to fund myself (loan and small savings). During the early part of my career I didn't earn much, and when children came along, my salary only covered childcare.
Fast forward 25 years and I earn a high salary ( and work hard for it !)
But that's due to the investment at the start of my career.

The op's SIL has moved out by age 19 and is earning which many teenagers cant do.

If she was studying full time to improve her prospects, she certainly wouldn't be on as much money. As I say- swings and roundabouts

and what if the 21yr old hasn't been to university? What if she only has an NVQ done at college? What if they BOTH Have the same qualifications and experience? Why should the entry level wage be less for her than the 21yr old starting out at the same level of experience/qualification etc?

You could argue the same for any age in a "no experience/qualifications" needed job - a 31 year old has more life experience than a 29yr old. Should the 29yr old earn less because of that?

I don't think it's fair to pay those under 21 less than older employees when all other conditions are the same.

I'm not sure that the minimum wage is responsible for this though. I worked summer holidays in a factory age 16 pre-minimum wage and pay then was tapered by age. Workers who were 18 were paid nearly twice as much as 16 years olds irrespective of experience. It was production line work, so you would be sat next to someone doing exactly the same job at exactly the same rate except they were being paid a lot more to be there.