Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Is NLW Ageist?

63 replies

HairsprayBabe · 06/12/2016 14:37

Just thinking about this and it really annoys me.

I no longer work in a minimum wage job, but when I did there were colleagues doing the exact same job as me, same duties, no extra responsibility. But because they were older they automatically earned more.

Can someone please explain to me how that is fair? Especially when I had been there longer than some older members of staff! It isn't like I was living at my parents house so had less outgoings than someone +25.

This is ageist right or AIBU?

OP posts:
Footinmouthasusual · 06/12/2016 14:38

What's NLW mean?

Original poster
HairsprayBabe · 06/12/2016 14:39

National Living Wage

OP posts:
DoesAnyoneReadTheseThings · 06/12/2016 14:41

I think it should be the same for everyone. People who are 16 could have a kid and live alone and a 46 year old could be single with no kids and live with parents. It makes no sense. Years of experience rather than years of being alive would make more sense.

Birdsgottafly · 06/12/2016 14:42

It's very wrong.

Even if you are living with Parents, the way a teens earnings impact on their Housing/Council Tax Benefit, is unfair.

Original poster
HairsprayBabe · 06/12/2016 14:42

I agree, it makes me feel like I am worth less simply because I am not over 25.

OP posts:
Muppetslikecoco · 06/12/2016 14:49

YANBU. This drove me crazy, exactly the same work for less pay. The only upside I guess is that it may encourage employers to employ younger, less experienced people so they have a chance to gain experience. But if they did that to any other group (overs 50's for example) there would be uproar.

Honeydragon · 06/12/2016 14:52

YANBU. We pay a proper living wage (not the govt made up one) and that's what you start on, you get training and a contract and you're age is irrelevant. The age banding fucks me right off

Scarydinosaurs · 06/12/2016 14:54

I think it can be justified by saying someone who is 25+ has more life experience and therefore a more valuable employee.

Where would we draw the line? 16? 14? 12?

I do agree with you, but think there is more to it than agism.

OhhBetty · 06/12/2016 14:56

Yanbu at all. I work in a care home and think we should all get paid more anyway for what we do!! But we have a couple of workers who are 19 and their quality of work is as good as anyone elses and even surpasses some of the people who outearn them just because of their age! Totally unfair. It's basically legal discrimination.

Vixxfacee · 06/12/2016 14:59

My old employer was terrible for this. They have a 17 year old wage, under 21 wage and over 25 wage. All for the same job. So someone could potentially doing the same job for less than half of someone older. They preferred employing younger people as it saved them alot of money.

EverythingEverywhere1234 · 06/12/2016 15:05

Absolutely it's ageist. Like a PP said, a 16 year old could be living alone with a baby as much as a 45 year old may be single, no kids and living at home. Makes no sense at all.

Original poster
HairsprayBabe · 06/12/2016 15:09

So why was it aloud to go through? Other than because the youth don't vote...

It just feels like an entire section of society has been written off as not worth as much as people slightly older.

OP posts:
Honeydragon · 06/12/2016 16:22

I remember when min wage came through in the 1990's .... I got a pay cut Hmm thanks Blair voters.

MargotsDevil · 06/12/2016 16:26

In some retail (those selling restricted products like alcohol and tobacco) technically a 16 year old assistant on the till isn't doing the same job as they need (older) supervisors on hand to authorise the sale. So in those cases I can see an argument for under 18s being paid less. Other than that then YANBU.

Leanback · 06/12/2016 16:48

My old place of work (left a year ago) paid under 18's £3.90 an hour.

CaptainMarvelDanvers · 06/12/2016 17:08

YANBU. At my previous place of work both myself and my colleague were on minimum wage but because of his age he was earning much less than me even though he was living in a house with his partner and 2 children and had higher traveling costs.

Also I wish people would stop calling it National Living Wage, it's a cheap ploy from the government to capitalise on the good will of National Living Wage Foundation.

msrisotto · 06/12/2016 17:12

Oh I think it's bloody awful, how did that get passed?

FizzBombBathTime · 06/12/2016 17:19

Before I had ds I did the same job for 5 years. I started when I was 17.

I was on minimum wage the entire time I was there, and obviously it was in line with my age each year.

What fucked me right off was I had years of experience under my belt, had a qualification to do with the job, and yet new people that were over 25 were paid more than me and I was technically their superior/ expected to show them the ropes Hmm

Honeydragon · 06/12/2016 17:36

Also I wish people would stop calling it National Living Wage, it's a cheap ploy from the government to capitalise on the good will of National Living Wage Foundation.

Absolutely! There is a big difference between £8.45 ph and £7.20ph and a huuuuuge difference between the min wage rates enforced by the govt for under 25's

Caboodle · 06/12/2016 17:38

The idea was to encourage firms to hire younger workers as youth unemployment figures were rising afaik. It is a minimum, employers can, and do, pay more.

Original poster
HairsprayBabe · 06/12/2016 18:05

Absolutely, there is no way you can live properly on 7.20 an hour, even if you work all the hours god sends, I have tried it is horrendous.

OP posts:
CurlyBlueberry · 06/12/2016 18:07

YANBU. It is ageist. (I am over 25 and still think it is horrendous.) I can see no justification for it whatsoever.

WhereYouLeftIt · 06/12/2016 18:20

Yes it is agist. There should be a 'rate for the job' and the age of the person doing that job is irrelevant.

Floisme · 06/12/2016 18:25

Yes, ageist and wrong. There's just about a case for excluding 16-17 year olds as they're supposed to receive education or training if they're in a job. I can see no argument for not paying it at 18.

I'm a bit bemused by the voting comments though - last time I checked 18-25 year olds still had the vote!

Gincident · 06/12/2016 18:25

Yes it is massively ageist, but then lots of laws are discriminatory. When it comes to redundancies for example, the young get less entitlement (half a week's pay for every year they were under 21, a week for every year until they were 41, then a week and a half per year after that.

Think about housing benefit too, now you have to be 35 before you are entitled to claim for a one-bedroom flat!

Basically the elderly are more likely to vote and therefore politicians need to ensure they are spoilt in old age at the expense of the young. Yes it's unfair, yes it's discriminatory. Will anything happen about it? No...