Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6

Original poster

to think that £4.92 per hour is ridiculous?

149 replies

Chocolocolate · 03/01/2011 00:03

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?

OP posts:

lisad123isasnuttyasaboxoffrogs · 03/01/2011 11:52

if shes in a day nursery, which with those wages i think she is, tell her to look into LA jobs, they pay loads better. I was earning £9 a hour 10 years ago in LA nursery.

Tarenath · 03/01/2011 11:52

Childcare, like most care professions, has always been, and unless anything changes will always be a minimum wage profession.
The basic nursery workers will always be paid peanuts regardless of qualifications. A childminder with a degree can't charge more because of supply and demand. The only real exception to this is nannies, and a low end nanny wage depending on area and experience can be £6/7 per hour. Good nannies working for a good families can earn twice that, but it's a tough profession to break into, evne with childcare experience, and sometimes the reponsibilities can outweigh the pay.

mrz · 03/01/2011 11:54

What she earns after gaining experience HappyMummyOfOne will probably be minimum wage if she continues in the private sector

Niceguy2 · 03/01/2011 11:57

Baroqin. I've no idea why you are so hellbent on proving if it is fair or it is not.

You've thrown so many "what if's" into your examples that it becomes rather meaningless.

As for your earlier post regarding minimum wage and taking into account a hypothetical male with no dependents, you even admit that it won't cover everyone. So we're no better off are we than the now minimum wage?

mrz · 03/01/2011 11:58

BaroqinAroundTheChristmasTree Mon 03-Jan-11 11:51:28

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?

It often happens in childcare that an older person with lower qualifications and less experience and responsibility is earning more

BaroqinAroundTheChristmasTree · 03/01/2011 12:01

When I was in care work many of my much younger co-workers had years more experience than me. Including 2 that were under 22 (the age that the NMW level used to change). Even with their NVQ2 and 3 (which added an extra 20p an hour to their wage for each NVQ) they still earned less than I did.

And if the op's SIL was studying full time and working part time (as most students have to do this time) she'd be earning the same minimum wage She wouldn't earn less than £4.93 because it's illegal. (unless she was in the first year of an apprenticeship where she'd be on £2.50 an hour)

OpenToLawSuits · 03/01/2011 12:07

Isn't an NVQ less than a degree in terms of qualifications...If it isn't then I wish I hadn't spent 4 years studying in university.

BaroqinAroundTheChristmasTree · 03/01/2011 12:08

no it wouldn't cover everyone Nicguy - but it would be a start. If the minimum wage increases to cover the "hypothetical" male (of which I know several that would fit the criteria I put) no it won't cover everyone - but if they can live on their wage with no state top ups then those with children (the single mother with 3 children was also a very common one) and other situations would at least be marginally better off.

and I see you have no answer for the fact that a single mother working full time minimum wage will get more in top-ups from the government than she earns

mrz - I know - but why is that right.

I just don't understand why for ENTRY LEVEL PAY (forget your high earning, skilled jobs - we're not talking about that - we;re talking about starting at the bottom of your career) for an 18yr old should be lower than that for a 21yr - or even 41yr old. starting out AT THE SAME LEVEL.

I have no office experience - I would be as knowledgeable in being an office run-around/general dogsbody as a 19yr old (probably less actually as ICT in schools these days seems to cover proper use of various Microsoft Office packages - I only have self taught knowledge) . Yet if I got a job tomorrow on minimum wage as one I would automatically get paid more than a 19yr old would based purely on my age.

BaroqinAroundTheChristmasTree · 03/01/2011 12:09

yes it is OpenToLaw - but I'm not sure what that's got to do with this discussion

OpenToLawSuits · 03/01/2011 12:12

Just referring the point of a 21 year old gaining a degree while a 19 year old (excluding prodigies) wouldn't have had the time.

I think teenagers should be on minimum wage...then again I wouldn't work in a job then complain about the rate of pay. Then again, I wrote my thesis of Margaret Thatcher....

mamatomany · 03/01/2011 12:16

If any 21 year old who has been to `university is earning minimum wage then something has gone wrong, graduates salaries should be reflecting their knowledge and qualifications, unfortunately they've been so diluted that's not the case anymore.
I'm so glad i'm not 18 anymore, never thought i'd say that

tallulah · 03/01/2011 12:16

When I started work in the public sector at 16 yo there was a Junior pay-scale that you were on until you were 21. DH started work in the building trade at 16 and was also on the "boy's" rate, in recognition that as a new employee you were not going to be as able at the job as the "men", who had to support a family on their wage.

Can't see it's much different to that.

mrz · 03/01/2011 12:22

BaroqinAroundTheChristmasTree it isn't fair at all and as I say the system is open to exploitation.

Ladyofthehousespeaking · 03/01/2011 12:32

It is pretty crap, she sounds like an absolutely wonderful girl though :)
it does get my goat these cut off points- for example me and dp can't claim working tax credits because were 9 months too young, even though we have both worked full time since we were 16. Ah well, at least when I turn 25 I will get an extra beat present

Niceguy2 · 03/01/2011 12:39

and I see you have no answer for the fact that a single mother working full time minimum wage will get more in top-ups from the government than she earns

There's no easy answer for that one is there? And my "answer" would completely throw this thread off at a tangent.

The irony is that you don't see that your hypothetical situations are no better than what we have now.

Personally I think the minimum wage is pointless anyway. If an employer sets a wage too low, they won't get any applicants. If they offer say £2 an hour and someone decides "Ooooh, that's perfect for me because of the hours/flexibility/whatever", what business is it of the state to say "NOOOO, thou shalt earn £4.92 because you are 19 yrs old"

Glitterknickaz · 03/01/2011 12:45

2shoes.... you're quite right... I was a bit tired and calculated it over 24 hours not 16

~facepalm~

besides, it's the only hourly rate I CAN get as I can't get work outside the home with my carer commitments.... so why isn't it relevant?

Violethill · 03/01/2011 12:55

Niceguy - agree that there are no simple answers.

This country has created a situation whereby it often doesn't pay to work, because you can be better off, or as well off, or only marginally worse off, by not working. Or by working part time so that you still qualify for all sorts of top ups.

The situation is changing now, as the Govt has realised its unsustainable, but we are living with the results of that system.

And as you say, there are people out there who are willing to work for lower wages, because once you factor in all the individual variables, there are often personal reasons why a particular job suits someone.

Childminding is an example which springs to mind. The hourly rate may appear low, but many women do it as a way of earning money while being able to stay at home and not have to spend on childcare for their own kids. So in reality, they probably often end up with more take home pay than the professionals they might be childminding for.

Its very difficult to strike the right balance so that people are given a reasonable reward for working, without risking pricing themselves out of a job. FWIW I used a nursery for my children, and while I had two there, it took up all my take home pay. I was effectively working for 0p per hour! (I did it for the long term benefits). But If the nursery had charged any higher, I wouldn't have been able to afford to use it at all, would have pulled my children out and no doubt others would have done the same, and the nursery would have closed down.

HelenaRose · 03/01/2011 13:18

FakePlasticTrees - There is, but unfortunately I need two more qualifications (and over £2500 for the training) in order to register. Very good of you to suggest it, though, thank you. :)

Violethill · 03/01/2011 13:27

Could it be a worthwhile investment though?

I did my PGCE in the days before the 6k 'pay' to do it. Ok, there weren't any fees for the actual tuition, but neither was there any maintenance loan, and as it was a full time year long course, involving weeks of full days working in schools, neither could someone earn while doing it. So effectively one had to beg or borrow the money to do it!

Was a very good investment though - sometimes it pays to think long term

sarah293 · 03/01/2011 13:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Violethill · 03/01/2011 14:03

Agree with that too - but again, there are no easy answers. People who bought their houses before the big boom are hardly going to turn around and give away their profits.

sarah293 · 03/01/2011 14:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Blondeshavemorefun · 03/01/2011 14:45

nmw is a joke - and im sure thats why so many people are on the 'dole' as although there are jobs about paying nmw, (ie in asda/starbucks/cafes/shoe shops etc) if they take them, then they wont get their rent/council tax etc paid

so they are worse off

working tax credits are silly - my friend gets £3 a week - she has always said she would be better off if she didnt work - but she has her pride

would be better if the government took away the jsa and then upped working tax credits for everyone who got off the butt and took a job

another friend admits openly she wont look for a job as she would have to pay her rent/council tax and lose all the other benefits she gets

biryani · 03/01/2011 16:55

Yes, it's shocking, especially with training. however, at a young age I think it should be acceptable that you are comparatively poorly paid-on the understanding that wages get better with age and experience! Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case with childcare; however, a NVQ 3 in childcare is a useful for developing a future career in the field of education and if she has the ability, she could at least further her ambitions in this way.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6