To think all ages should be paid the same.

[Potterhead113]

AIBU to think that all age groups from 16 and upwards should be paid the same minimum wage as someone aged 40 for example. I know many young people aged 16-25 who are paid less for the same job as their elder coworkers but they equally pay rent and provide in some cases for children solely from their wages.
I think that all people should be payed the same for the same job. I know a girl who is 17 who has a baby and works 4 days a week for £2 less an hour than someone in their 30s that she works with who does the same job as her.

I agree. It is a nonsense.

I agree. I also think it's wrong that the rates of JSA etc are lower for those under 25. It's blatant age discrimination and I don't understand how it can be legal.

It's there to help them as they have less experience. If the minimum wage were equal then employers would get no benefit from hiring younger people and would focus on those with more experience first (that's legal even if age discrimination is not). So it's a way to make younger less experienced people more attractive to employers to get them on the ladder. This is why the apprentice rate is even lower as employers have even more work to do with them.

There are advantages to the lower minimum wage though. It's harder to get work if you've got no experience, and most 16 year olds don't have experience. So, if you have the choice between a 16 year old or a 30 year old on the same wage, you'll go for the 30 year old! If younger people are cheaper, there is an incentive to take them on (if you only pay minimum wage)

Also, 16 year olds can't work the same hours as 18 year olds by law, so are less flexible. So I can see the benefit in lower rates.

I do think the rates for 18+ are too low though, and that lower rates of JSA til 25 is ridiculous. It should be 21 at most.

Most jobs have an incremental pay scale

No - as an employer I do not agree.

I think the age bracket should be adjusted to 16- 20 but def not any more than that.

Employees over this age group bring with them job experience, better communication skills, maturity in attitude and skills learned either through life or in previous jobs.

It takes far longer to train up a young person with little work experience or ethic than it does a more mature person.

It is also important that people learn that 1. Things must be earned

1. Loyalty pays 3. They do not get everything straight away.

Small business, trades people etc can afford to take on young people at a lower rate, as they get far less work input from trainees etc as they do other employees thus balancing out the finance. If this were not the case then young people would never be taken on, as if we had to pay the same we would opt for the more experience candidate.

so, where do we find the extra money, as contrary to public opinion, we don't have endless pots of it. Times are tough

I know of at least one business that employs mostly 16 and 17 year olds, on zero hour contracts. As soon as they turn 18 they are offered no more shifts. Completely immoral.

It's got nothing to do with what responsibility they have at home or whether they pay rent. It's to do with their experience in the role. Someone fresh out of school isn't going to be able to have the same experience etc as someone in their 30's.

I think pay should be based on length in post and on previous experience. So an 18yo who has been in post for 2 years in the same place should absolutely not be paid less than a newby who just happens to be 21. That's just wrong. However, if someone older comes in with a lot of previous experience, I see nothing wrong with paying them more - this could all be done using pay scales.

Yes, I think they should, though Balsamic makes a good point because yes, employers do employ younger members of staff because they are cheaper to pay, and without that they might not get a chance against more experienced employees.
I do feel bad though, working alongside younger colleagues who are doing the same job, have the same responsibilities and earn less than I do, especially when they are also paying rent and bills and have children to support the same as I do.
A lot of places I've worked have a lot of young staff and a sprinkling of old UN's like me more mature to keep the wage bill down. And someone with experience, but under 25 so 'cheaper' is a Godsend for these type of employers because they can do the job but cost less to hire!
Although, I do think there are some benefits or help available to those only under 25, depending on circumstances? I'm not sure though as I'm well above it! And do tax credits pay to top up the family income regardless of age or is that lower too?

You don't receive child benefit until you are 18 even if you have a child under that age. Stupid really as the age of consent is 16. But I don't know about tax credits. beerwench

I totally agree with you it's mind boggling that it is legal to pay 2 people doing the same job a different wage simply because one is younger.

I would also like to pick up on this point made above It takes far longer to train up a young person with little work experience or ethic than it does a more mature person.

How on earth can you believe this to be true of younger members of staff? The amount of time would depend on their desire to learn not the age of the person, it honestly sounds like you are implying all younger people have no work ethic and all mature people do, which is a heck of a sweeping statement to make!

I agree, if people have extra skills and experience to bring to the role then that should be rewarded but it's not a given that a 25 year old starting a new job is worth a higher salary than a 20 year old.

As a teenager I worked on a production line in a factory, if you were new you were new, existing skills largely irrelevant so why should age be a factor?

I think you're right pointythings but the problem is officially tying policy to experience is difficult as there's no real official record of experience earnt in the workplace. Maybe there should be though!

Under 18 and they must still also be receiving education, and apprentices are on separate rates. I think that makes them a different category.

I see no reason to make the minimum wage different for all over 18s. Just those on a recognised apprenticeship (leading to a transferable qualification or certification)

Though I think those with less than 3-5 tears experience in work will always be earning less, sometimes considerably less, than those who have done more. That's because experience makes you a better worker.

So whereas I'd expect to see wages increasing as your length of time in the workforce increases, and I think wages should be related to the work, not the assumptions on how cheap/expensive someone's lifestyle is likely to be (other than London weighting)

i agree. Roles that i know of where there is a pay differential are things like shop, bar and waitressing work. You really dont need lots of experience to do these just a bit of common sense and people skills. Often its a benefit to be young as you have more energy.

@potterhead113

I didn't know that about child benefit, how ridiculous! I was under the impression that CB was paid to anyone with children (except those over a certain earning) I don't understand how that can be thought fair, a child is a child whether they are born to a 17yo or a 37yo, and it's there to support the child isn't it? I'm shocked at that to be honest. I can't see any sense to it.

YANBU

So far, you can offer lower pay rates to people with less or no experience, employers do that all the time - and rightly so. I never understood what age has to do with it. Minimum wage should be exactly that, the bare minimum. Most hair salon pays their employees different rates depending on their levels, age doesn't need to come into it.

Apprentice are a bit different if they are actively been taught a skill.

I guess I can see the argument that the lower minimum wage for this age group may help reduce youth unemployment as it encourages employers to take on a less experienced, younger candidate. Though I don't think it should be used as justification for discriminating between those with similar levels of experience or competence.

However I think the difference should at least be topped up by the state - and it's not. Age discrimination is built into the benefits system. For instance, in Universal Credit, the standard allowance for a single claimant under 25 is £251.77 and over 25, £317.82 a month. This is the subsistence rate, before other elements such as for children and housing. I struggle to think of any (legitimate) reason why this should be the case.

Cynically, I guess it's down to younger people being less likely to vote - note that pension credit, ie the subsistence rate for those over pension age, is the equivalent of £690 a month.

If you can do the job then you're old enough. I've paid over minimum wage many times over for young people who turn up and do the same as their older peers. If as an employer you want to take a risk and give a young person a chance, do a trial period and see how it goes. Young people are poorly valued sometimes.

I agree. Unless they start selling things in shops and rent costs and cheaper/ more expensive depending on age. Inside of work you're all doing the same, and you all
Have to cover the same bills. It's
Stupid.

I've always thought age based minimum wages are stupid. Like pp have said, food and rent and bills are not charged at a lower rate for younger people so why on earth should lower wages be paid to them?

YANBU, when I was in sixth form it used to really annoy me that I worked checkouts in a supermarket for two years and earned £3.60(ish) an hour as I was under 18. I had an August birthday, and working with people I was in sixth form with who were on £5(ish) an hour doing exactly the same job but getting more because of a quirk of their birthday really irked me. I could understand if the different wage had been due to more experience, but it was a straightforward checkout job (that I was good at) and it was as purely based on my age!

I think everyone should be paid the same from 18. I work in a shop (well known chain) from 16, working ft in school hols. By 18 I was acting as deputy manager and cashing up and dealing with customer service desk. I knew more than the weekend manager who was 20 yrs my senior. Luckily this chain at 18 paid their staff the nmw.

I can understand why they might not get so much in pay but I do think benefit top ups should be equal to all other age groups. Not all young people are able to stay with parents indefinitely. Some may need to move area for work and rent their own place and obviously if they are on the lower min wage for being under 25 they will need more help not less to pay for basics.