Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
Original poster
HairsprayBabe · 06/12/2016 18:30

Flo Yes under 25s have the vote but they are much less likely to use it so politicians dont bother tailoring policys for them.

OP posts:
Floisme · 06/12/2016 18:30

Much as I sympathise with this thread, young people are capable of voting too!

Leanback · 06/12/2016 18:36

flo under 18s are not

FizzBombBathTime · 06/12/2016 18:36

Gin that happened to me
Worked 5 years in one place, made redundant on Mat leave and as I was only 21 I wasn't entitled to a penny.

Floisme · 06/12/2016 18:39

flo under 18s are not
Yes I know that. 18-25s?

FizzBombBathTime · 06/12/2016 18:40

Flo the minimum wage age restriction things were introduced by labour in 1998. I was 5. So yes I can vote now, but I couldn't then.

Original poster
HairsprayBabe · 06/12/2016 18:40

I am under 25 and I do vote... so because the rest of my cohort don't we should be penilised? That sounds fair...

OP posts:
Floisme · 06/12/2016 18:44

Please read all my posts. I completely agree it is ageist and wrong and if I was your age I would be bloody furious with any of peer group who didn't vote.

Floisme · 06/12/2016 18:46

Ahem. With any of my peer group.

BadKnee · 06/12/2016 20:59

Over 18 - should be the same for everyone

Under 18 - it is different. They don't have the same legal responsibility, there are certain things they cannot do, (sign things, sell alcohol, dispense drugs, etc). It is seens as training as they are gaining the experience of the working world. (Not excusing just explaining)

It was to encourage youth recruitment. Young people were finding it hard to be taken on.

Voting is a side issue. Anyone over 18 can vote. No excuse.

PrincessConsuelaTheSecond · 06/12/2016 21:35

Fizz bomb you should have received redundancy pay at that age.

I suppose regarding the NLW/NMW - the fact is that statistically a 25 year old is likely to need more money than a 16 year old. At 16 I know I had no kids, car or mortgage. So it's justifiable on objective grounds IMO, although there will always be exceptions to the rule and people who are affected by it more than others.

PrincessConsuelaTheSecond · 06/12/2016 21:38

Oh and I also think it's done for policy reasons - encouraging recruitment of younger employees whilst reducing the cost for smaller businesses.

lurkinghusband · 06/12/2016 22:03

If they wanted, the government could adjust employers NI so that for the employer there would be no benefit in hiring younger workers.

Floisme · 06/12/2016 22:05

The principal should be equal pay for equal work. There's an argument that a 16 or 17 year old who is still being trained and supervised isn't delivering equal work but I can't see any justification beyond that.

FizzBombBathTime · 06/12/2016 22:31

Princess

You're right... It was... Half a weeks pay I was entitled to. For 5 and a half years loyalty. (Which worked out as about £100)

Shock
FizzBombBathTime · 06/12/2016 22:32

Anyway they got away with not paying me a penny as the owners disappeared to avoid the inland revenue

Original poster
HairsprayBabe · 07/12/2016 08:28

That is terrible Fizz
I am not complaining about under 18s earning less, as said upthread they are allegedly still training, and are unable to undertake certain tasks for legal reasons.

But legally there is no difference between an 18 year old and a 26 year old, or a 24 year old and a 27 year old person. So how can paying them differently be just?

Princess
If work was paid on how much an individual needed then I would be paid a lump sum of 15K so I can buy a house, where as my manager who has a paid off mortgage and 2 buy to let properties would be paid very little. So paying over 25's just because they might have more outgoings makes no sense and isn't fair.

OP posts:
FizzBombBathTime · 07/12/2016 09:30

Hairspray it's all bullshit. I worked my arse off, frequently got paid late/forgotten about, I was training people that STARTED on more money on me simply because of their age. I only stayed because it was convenient travel wise and stuff. Argh!

Original poster
HairsprayBabe · 07/12/2016 09:33

I hope you are in a happer position now Fizz Flowers

I wonder if companies and the government realise what it does to morale when they totally undervalue vast numbers of their workforce?

OP posts:
FizzBombBathTime · 07/12/2016 10:06

I went on mat leave last October and was made redundant in November, now pregnant with number 2 so not back into the workforce yet. Feel a bit overwhelmed by the prospect actually tbh Sad

UterusUterusGhali · 07/12/2016 10:13

Under 25's can't claim housing benefit either, I believe.

Can't remember if they passed that or were just thinking about it.

appalachianwalzing · 07/12/2016 10:16

I think the government needs to be a lot more explicit about the age at which parents are expected to stop contributing, and people are considered self-supporting adults, as it's clearly gone well past 18.

The assumption is parents more or less have to contribute to uni fees. That's how loans are calculated. Children now have to stay in education/training till 18, so there's an assumption they're living at home and need less money. At uni, I guess the assumption is they're supported during holidays. So when does it end? 25 seems a bit extreme.

The Irish government introduced a lower unemployment benefit for under 25s and were fairly explicit that it was because the assumption was under 25s would go back and move in with their parents if they lost their job. This Is yet another way of entrenching privilege- those who don't have parents who want to, or can, support them well into their twenties will suffer. So why isn't there more debate about it?

shovetheholly · 07/12/2016 10:18

Yes it is. Wake up, OP. There's a war against the young happening! Until you guys get together and start voting and demanding change, the politicians are going to take the piss.

shovetheholly · 07/12/2016 10:18

Oh, and the housing benefit thing? It's shifting to 35 soon.

DeleteOrDecay · 07/12/2016 10:24

YANBU, it's ridiculous really. It's perfectly possible that a 17 year old could have their own home, child, bills to pay, car to run etc, the same as anyone else. They might be at uni and needing to work to feed themselves or cover costs. Yet they get paid less for doing the same job as their colleague due to their age? It's like they have assumed that because they are younger they don't have as many financial burdens as everyone else. How is that okay? It's blatant ageism.

I don't buy into the whole, it makes employers more likely to employ young people spiel either. Such a load of nonsense.