that minimum wage should be the same regardless of age

[auntiepicklebottom2]

the rates are

£6.08 - the main rate for workers aged 21 and over
£4.98 - the 18-20 rate
£3.68 - the 16-17 rate for workers above school leaving age but under 18

now to me a 20 year old may have the same bills ect as a 21 year old, also IMO it break the age discrimination law.

www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ResolvingWorkplaceDisputes/DiscriminationAtWork/DG_10026429

Ah, I see what you mean now. But that is so open to exploitation that it couldnt work.

There are people who turn their noses up at working for minimum wage already too, hence the vast number of eastern europeans who are more than happy to work for it.

I don't think the minimum wage/age thing is too bad because it's fair in the sense that we're all 16-17, 18-20, over 21. So we all have a turn being paid the shit money and we'll all get a chance to earn more as we get older. I think that's why it's not comparable to paying differently according to gender; men will alway be men, women will always be women therefore the same people will always lose out.

It isnt a fixed maximum amount though as I said. At 18, in 1987 I was earning £12k.. and have always been lucky enough to earn well above minimum wage.

Nobody really wants to be on minimum wage, and nobody has to be on it if they have the ability to do better, but not everyone is able to achieve higher, there are adults out there with learning difficulties who would be taken advantage of in the workforce but for minimum wage too and they deserve the opportunity to earn at least a basic minimum not a complete pittance.

YANBU I hate this as well!! How do they get away with it? If a job deserves 7 pounds an hour then it deserves 7 pounds an hour. It doesn't matter who does it. All my shop jobs always utilized the young teenage boys for the hard heavy lifting.. and then paid them less or the privilege of doing more work. Who does the government think it is telling a 19 year old single mum she needs less money than a 30 year old "kept woman" who works to amuse herself.

Paying more for seniority is obviously different.

It isnt the governments fault that a 19 year old chose to be a single mother though.

But it is the governments fault it is allowing for the girl to be fucked royally by her company. We all want to earn more than the minimum wage but we don't always get the chance. It might not have been the 19 year old's choice to be left by a feckless partner.

Squakytoy do you think that if two 19 year olds get married and have a child they should be discriminated against? Or does the government get to choose how and when we should breed by withholding money to parents?

You do come out with some absolute tosh.

They are not being discriminated against. They are not forced to earn the minimum wage, they are free to apply for jobs that will pay them more than that. And they are not forced to have a child either!

If two 19 year olds on low income decide to get married and have a child, that is their decision. It is up to them to plan their lives and not bring a child into it unless they can bloody afford it! That is where this country has gone down the pan with people who just think that someone else ought to support them and pay for their choices.

Yes, some people make mistakes, and some people get left in the shit, which is why we have a benefits system in place, to help those who are in need. Also, people with children, on a low income are entitled to help, with tax credits.

How many companies would choose to voluntarily pay more than they have to? Enough to support all the teenagers who want jobs?

Do you believe it was Ok for women to be paid less too? They were deemed to need the money less than men and after all they could always look for work that paid better?

If two 19 year olds on low income decide to get married and have a child, that is their decision. It is up to them to plan their lives and not bring a child into it unless they can bloody afford it! That is where this country has gone down the pan with people who just think that someone else ought to support them and pay for their choices.

Your scenerio doesn't make sense the two hypothetical teenagers want to work but will be forced to take benefits due to not being paid a living wage.

Your profile says you are 42. Say you and I have the same job in a shop, should the company be allowed to pay you less because I'm 15 years younger than you? Would you feel discriminated against?

16 and 17 year olds are not eligible to vote, so they will often get the raw deal. I think the rate should be the same for all - as others have said, you should be paid according to what the job is worth, not who you are.

As Hecate and Kiwi have said it is to enable youth employment, by giving an employer an incentive to employ a completely inexperienced young person, with all the risk and extra supervision costs that come with that.

Many young people do live at home so are willing and able to work for less (or even nothing in the case of interns) to get some work experience. If you raise the minimum wage for young people they are less likely to be able to get a job.

That said a good employer shouldn't pay someone less just because of their age. If they are doing exactly the same job to the same standard as an older person then they should get a raise to the same level.

I am on minimum wage.

minimum wage = minimum effort.

Its so that they can get cheap labour. Same as jobs that take on 100 pounds a week apprentices rush them through the nvq then let them go and do it again. Its so they have cheap people to do the dogsbody work. I dont agree with it personally.

Here lots of young people are supporting themselves on the 4.98 an hour and I dont see why they should have to for the same work.

and squeakytoy yoru wrong it depends on the area many whole countys are made up mostly of jobs on the minimum or near minimum wage. No matter how clever, qualified or experienced you are if you live in those areas eg devon and cornwall as two examples it is difficult to find a job for a decent wage.

Nikon - I also dont believe minimum wage means minimal effort it definitely doesnt for all us carers of the learning disabled, children and the elderly who get paid that.

Minimum wage should be the same for all who have one or perhaps two years' work experience - less for those who have not, regardless of age.

If there was no minimum wage there would be many companies who would pay a pittance, especially in these difficult times where people are desperate and will take any job offered to them.

I wonder if part of the thinking about having a lower minimum wage for youth is so as not to tempt them out of education too early.

If young people could earn £6 hour without any further education or training (assuming there are jobs around) would this lead to more of them to give up on the slog and low earnings of being a student or apprentice, but instead go straight to work in what might turn out to be a dead end job that still pays them minimum wage 10 years later?

Himalaya I agree with that with 16-17 year olds but a lot of degrees now are worthless and you could earn more getting a trade at 18 than you could at 21 with some degrees.

However if you are in an area like mine they will still exploit you even with the qualifications if you are under 22. Supply and demand

the govt does discriminate against younger workers - you can't get WTC till you're 25 for example, and housing benefit for a single person is staggered (so under a certain age you qualify for enough to cover a room in a shared house rather than a flat).

i agree with the point about supporting the recruitment of younger workers though - in the current environment, all other things being equal, why would any employer recruit an 18yo rather than a 35yo if they are due the same money? i earn minimum wage, and if anyone who is young enough to get the lower rate starts with the company they are on the lower rate while they train and once they are capable of working on their own they go up to the same rate as everyone else. i know a lot of companies won't do that but it does encourage the company to hire younger workers...

the govt does discriminate against younger workers - you can't get WTC till you're 25 for example, and housing benefit for a single person is staggered (so under a certain age you qualify for enough to cover a room in a shared house rather than a flat).

I really do not see what is wrong in that. A single person who needs to claim housing benefit should be satisfied with someone else providing them with their rent. We have a huge housing shortage in this country, so why should more money or a bigger house be given to a single person?

squeakytoy Fair enough to give different HB according to need but why according to age?

Andrew, because many people were leaving their family home, with the full intention of getting a flat, and their rent paid by HB. This is partly why the country is in a recession, because our system has been drained over the last three decades.

squeakytoy Then why should older people without dependents get a flat on HB? Again, where does age come into it as opposed to need?

Because the system was being abused Andrew, and those abusing it were mainly in the under 25 age group, who were using HB as a way of getting their own home. When I was that age, it was something that many of my peers were doing.

We live in a society that has to implement regulations and set limits. Most single people under 25 are either still living at home, sharing a rental with friends or other students, or living in student accomodation, or they are earning a wage that provides them with enough to pay a mortgage or their own rent.

Hmmm, I work for the NhS. I am 30 yet get paid the same as a 17 year old on my team. I have far more experience and I am much more capable than my collegue purely because I have been working for 13 more year's than she has. I think the difference in minimum wage is supposed to reflect this.