Jock's Place - Minimum wage discrimination - Comments

comment

Tristan — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:19:28 +0000

I don't support the minimum wage. It makes good political sense (ie people think its good), but it makes no economic sense or sense for people as a whole. Some individuals may benefit, but others loose out.

If we think that there's a minimum income which people can't live below we should have a negative income tax which encourages working, not an artificial floor on wages.

comment

Jock Coats — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:00:26 +0000

I tend to agree. But I can understand the argument - which I can't with adult workers. I was outraged at the time that they had no protections whatever originally, IIRC. Not sure I absolutely support the NMW system anyway - we had policy at one point, perhaps we still do, to negotiate on a trade basis and a regional basis. It sounds difficult to achieve I know but better than trying to pick a national average which everyone is supposed to be able to support themselves with in vastly differing circumstances.

comment

Will — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:51:28 +0000

I would go further and scrap the differential for 16-year-olds too. If the point of the minimum wage is to say This is the least that should ever be paid for an hours' work", then anyone working should receive at least that amount.

If anything, doesn't the current lower wage encourage employers to recruit 17-year-olds who should still be at school instead of 22-year-olds to whom they'd have to pay more?"

Minimum wage discrimination

Jock — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:05:00 +0000

I've always taken a slightly different view of the inbuilt age discrimination in the minimum wage legislation for under 21 year olds than many it would appear. When I was a councillor in Oxford we had a few instances of employers of young people - mostly restaurants - pushing the limits of the legislation anyway. I never did approve for example of including tips in the minimum wage. If someone's working they get paid, if their customers think they've done a good job they should feel free to enhance that, not make up the employer's shortfall.

But mostly, I felt that young people, people starting out on life's employment journey, are the very ones that need a bit of a boost. They're the ones potentially with the expenses of setting up home and so on, living independently for the first time. So I really never liked the differential wage for under 21s. I can, just about, accept that 16-18 year olds, who if I recall correctly were not even protected by the initial legislation (which was a total outrage if I'm remembering it correctly), may be paid less in order to encourage them to stay in education, and to encourage employers to give them added training related benefits.

So I'm quite pleased to see the quandary apparently being created by this weekend's implementation of anti-ageism legislation:

Age law 'threat to minimum wage':

Young people get a lower minimum wage than the over-21s

Laws being introduced on Sunday, which ban age discrimination at work, could endanger the minimum wage system, a business group has warned.

Workers aged under 21 can currently be paid less than their older colleagues.

But the British Chamber of Commerce (BCC) said this may be considered discriminatory and be open to legal challenge under the new legislation.

I hope there are some test cases, and I hope personally they win. Eighteen to twenty-one year olds are adults. Why should they have any fewer rights than anyone else?