Minimum Wage Rates

[Skeddan]

The differential reflects experience at that age. Otherwise the same argument could be applied to apprentices getting the same pay as their qualified trainers.

Apprentices are not covered by minimum wage scheme - doesn't apply to them. Difference in experience at that age? What does 'difference in experience' at their age have to do with the work they do? If a 16 year old is employed at a petrol station to fill up tank, then how is higher wage warranted by the greater experience of an 18 year old (who might have also just left school and started at the same time)?

 

If the 16 year old is 'less experienced' then they might not get the job against someone more experienced. But if they get the job - and do the same work, why shouldn't they get the same wage?

 

This is minimum wage. If someone is more experienced and so does better job, that should be reflected in higher wages. At the moment a 25 year old layabout with double digit IQ who has been unemployed since leaving school is entitled to higher minimum wage than a bright eager 16 year old - why - because the 16 year old has less experience at his age?

 

Ermm... yeah....like... 's fair, like... innit?

[Albert Tatlock]

The differential reflects experience at that age. Otherwise the same argument could be applied to apprentices getting the same pay as their qualified trainers.

If the 16 year old is 'less experienced' then they might not get the job against someone more experienced. But if they get the job - and do the same work, why shouldn't they get the same wage?

 

This is minimum wage. If someone is more experienced and so does better job, that should be reflected in higher wages. At the moment a 25 year old layabout with double digit IQ who has been unemployed since leaving school is entitled to higher minimum wage than a bright eager 16 year old - why - because the 16 year old has less experience at his age?

 

Ermm... yeah....like... 's fair, like... innit?

The differential also covers perceived responsibilities e.g. family, running a house, car etc. Most 16 year olds still live with mum and dad, so why should they effectively get extra money just to p*ss it against the wall (and are too young to drive, buy alcohol & fags etc. anyway) or waste on playstation games. 16 year olds have to be watched more by employers, as they lack maturity and life experience - there are also excess insurance issues for under 18s.

 

It's also designed that way to encourage them to stay in education and not rush out for a McJob - which is good reason enough IMO, as a higher rate would damage their long term employment prospects IMO.

[Skeddan]

The differential also covers perceived responsibilities e.g. family, running a house, car etc. Most 16 year olds still live with mum and dad, so why should they effectively get extra money just to p*ss it against the wall (and are too young to drive, buy alcohol & fags etc. anyway) or waste on playstation games. 16 year olds have to be watched more by employers, as they lack maturity and life experience - there are also excess insurance issues for under 18s.

 

It's also designed that way to encourage them to stay in education and not rush out for a McJob - which is good reason enough IMO, as a higher rate would damage their long term employment prospects IMO.

I don't buy these as reasons - there is no differential based on whether the worker has a family or car. You can deal with that by other means - tax allowances or not. Why shouldn't they start saving - they'll need long enough as first time buyers. Some young people actually work to support their families - younger siblings, parent(s) unable to work.

 

If they are less desirable for employers - have to be watched more or lack maturity and life experience - then that is up to the labour market to decide. There are plenty of people in 20s and 30s who lack maturity and life experience. If there are excess insurance issues I don't think this is a good reason - in that case maybe disabled people should have lower minimum wage too. Same logic to have a differential for women - they might leave the job to go and have babies, have PMS and 'women's issues' - and their loos take up more space!

 

Is it really designed to encourage them to stay in education? I don't think this is true of the UK scheme where the full rate only starts at 22. There could be better ways of encouraging young people to stay at school in cases where they might benefit from this - however not all would do. In fact staying on at school pointlessly may not be the best thing - so why shouldn't they get paid the same wage for doing the same work?