[poiuy]

At the moment, the national minimum wage is: £3.68 for 16-17 years olds, £4.98 for 18-20 year olds, and £6.08 for the 21+. In my opinion, it is unfair that a 16 year old, who does the same job, works the same number of hours, and has the same level of skill as a 21 year old worker is paid less. I understand employers like experience; yet for jobs which pay the nmw, the skills you need- for example operating the till, are very basic and do not require much training; a 16 year old could easily get up to the speed of a more experienced worker. I also believe that the stereotype of teenagers are more lazy and have poor literacy/numeracy skills (so should be paid less) is unfair; employers should judge workers work ethic on an individual basis. I believe that the rate of pay should be done on how efficient and fast you are at your job; not your age.
Whilst workers over 21 are more likely to being supporting children and paying rent/living outside their parents home, I don't think this should be an excuse; as they receive housing benefit and child support for this. Vote in the poll! By the way, I am 18 and I am not on the minimum wage- I get paid the nmw for a 21 year old, like all the other workers.

[Hopple]

(Original post by poiuy)
At the moment, the national minimum wage is: £3.68 for 16-17 years olds, £4.98 for 18-20 year olds, and £6.08 for the 21+. In my opinion, it is unfair that a 16 year old, who does the same job, works the same number of hours, and has the same level of skill as a 21 year old worker is paid less. I understand employers like experience; yet for jobs which pay the nmw, the skills you need- for example operating the till, are very basic and do not require much training; a 16 year old could easily get up to the speed of a more experienced worker. I also believe that the stereotype of teenagers are more lazy and have poor literacy/numeracy skills (so should be paid less) is unfair; employers should judge workers work ethic on an individual basis. I believe that the rate of pay should be done on how efficient and fast you are at your job; not your age.
Whilst workers over 21 are more likely to being supporting children and paying rent/living outside their parents home, I don't think this should be an excuse; as they receive housing benefit and child support for this. Vote in the poll! By the way, I am 18.

No minimum wage actually helps those looking for work, since they can undercut those already in employment (presumably they can't compete on experience).

[Hylean]

(Original post by poiuy)
Whilst workers over 21 are more likely to being supporting children and paying rent/living outside their parents home, I don't think this should be an excuse; as they receive housing benefit and child support for this. Vote in the poll! By the way, I am 18.

Really? You might want to look into that before you make such judgements. They don't always get child support or housing benefit, and when they don't, they then have to pay rent, council tax, bills, etc. which most under 18s don't have to pay.

Personally, I think the minimum wage is too low, but I definitely feel the system currently in place is fine.

Oh, and most under 21s are expected to work fewer hours, as the assumption is they are in full-time or part-time education as well. Not always true, but that's the assumption.

[Popular-reject-x]

You don't automatically get housing benefit and child support if you're over 21 and have a child and are leaving outside the home.
Also if you're 16/17 you're classed as a young worker and are legally required to take a rest break every 4 & a half hours and it has to be a minimum of 30 minutes. Whereas if you're over 21, you get a 20 minute break for working 6 hours.
And as a young worker, you have to be given 2 days off a week compared to 1 of an over 21 worker.

So I don't really think that 16/17 year olds should get paid the same not when unless the regulations get changed so that rest periods, holiday etc. are all the same.

[poiuy]

(Original post by Hylean)
Really? You might want to look into that before you make such judgements. They don't always get child support or housing benefit, and when they don't, they then have to pay rent, council tax, bills, etc. which most under 18s don't have to pay.

Oh, and most under 21s are expected to work fewer hours, as the assumption is they are in full-time or part-time education as well. Not always true, but that's the assumption.

The majority of 18 year olds are either looking or in full time work; and I know quite a lot of under 18's who have to pay their parents rent. Also for 16/17 year old who should get a rest break after four and a half hours, talking to my friends this is rarely enforced, and it is also unpaid.

[Pride]

I would really like to be paid more, sometimes I feel disheartened b/c I get 4.52 an hour until I hit 18 (which was still 88p above NMW for my age when I first got the job), but bearing in mind, when you're 18, and also eventually 21, you generally have more costs to pay, you have less perks.

I know that here in london, I don't pay to go on the bus, so I travel to work for free. The tube is half price, which is actually brilliant. I don't pay taxes, I don't pay anything, it's just a saturday job so it goes to my bank account monthly.

A 21 year old, probably has a car to drive to work which incurs great fuel cost, or pays to get on a bus. They often work longer (I only do 4.5 hrs on a saturday, then I'm off to go volunteer), they might work full time at that age (I do A-levels). Working longer means having taxable pay. They may live by themselves which means council tax, bills, insurance and stuff. I live with my parents.

I could go on really... I tell myself, I don't really need so much money atm. It's frustrating being paid so small, but it's understandable...

[Rtcw]

Well, this is TSR, where majority are U21s. Poll is obviously going to be more biased.

[Popular-reject-x]

Oh & also, as someone who works as a cashier (or customer assistant as the company like to call it) on weekends, it's not the till that 16 year olds couldn't cope with. It's the customer experience the company want, not the ability to punch a few buttons.

[Hylean]

(Original post by poiuy)
The majority of 18 year olds are either looking or in full time work; and I know quite a lot of under 18's who have to pay their parents rent.

Got some stats to prove that first bit? Given, you know, the high number of 18-21 year olds in further education or higher education?

Also, whilst many may have to pay rent, a great deal of others do not and I'm pretty damn sure their parents do not charge them the same level of rent as they would be charged if they lived elsewhere.

[MissLightyear]

(Original post by poiuy)
The majority of 18 year olds are either looking or in full time work; and I know quite a lot of under 18's who have to pay their parents rent. Also for 16/17 year old who should get a rest break after four and a half hours, talking to my friends this is rarely enforced, and it is also unpaid.

Although unpaid, the manager is still losing a member of staff for 20 minutes, which means everyone else that isnt on a break has to work harder to cover you. It doesnt sound lke much but it does affect everyone, especially if it means people switching roles to cover your break.

[poiuy]

(Original post by Hylean)
Got some stats to prove that first bit? Given, you know, the high number of 18-21 year olds in further education or higher education?
.

Yes I do. If almost 40 percent are in university of higher education, than you can assume that the other 60 percent are looking or are in work or apprenticeships. not everyone goes to uni; even though it seems like that on tsr! see the link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11438140

[Hylean]

(Original post by poiuy)
Also for 16/17 year old who should get a rest break after four and a half hours, talking to my friends this is rarely enforced, and it is also unpaid.

Breaks at all ages tend to be unpaid so that's hardly an argument in your favour, and if you're friends aren't being given their legal right, then they can demand it, if they really want.

[poiuy]

(Original post by MissLightyear)
Although unpaid, the manager is still losing a member of staff for 20 minutes, which means everyone else that isnt on a break has to work harder to cover you. It doesnt sound lke much but it does affect everyone, especially if it means people switching roles to cover your break.

Fair enough, a 16 year old should have the same break policy as a 21 year old if they were to be paid the same. But if this was the case would you agree?

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by Popular-reject-x)
Oh & also, as someone who works as a cashier (or customer assistant as the company like to call it) on weekends, it's not the till that 16 year olds couldn't cope with. It's the customer experience the company want, not the ability to punch a few buttons.

But age does not always mean experience.
A 22 year old could easily have less retail experience and ability to deal with customers than a 17 or 18 year old.

[Hylean]

(Original post by poiuy)
Yes I do. If almost 40 percent are in university of higher education, than you can assume that the other 60 percent are looking or are in work or apprenticeships. not everyone goes to uni; even though it seems like that on tsr! see the link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11438140

You forgot further education, which I did mention.

Should also remember that the NMW is just a legal minimum and it is often ignored in favour of higher wages.

[poiuy]

(Original post by Hylean)
Breaks at all ages tend to be unpaid so that's hardly an argument in your favour, and if you're friends aren't being given their legal right, then they can demand it, if they really want.

It's a recession, people on the nmw are pretty much disposable to employers; if you complain they'll just find someone else who will work without their entitled break.

[Popular-reject-x]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
But age does not always mean experience.
A 22 year old could easily have less retail experience and ability to deal with customers than a 17 or 18 year old.

Which is why people aren't employed based on age.

[megan.c]

I think the minimum wage should be equal to 21+ for under 21s... but only if they're supporting themselves.
Some 18, 19, 20 year olds may not be in education and may be trying to support themselves living alone, possibly with children. In this respect minimum wage would be means tested I guess.
I'm not entirely sure how that would though - perhaps a different tax code or something?

[Popular-reject-x]

(Original post by poiuy)
It's a recession, people on the nmw are pretty much disposable to employers; if you complain they'll just find someone else who will work without their entitled break.

If they're not complying to employment law and you have proof of this, I'm pretty sure you can go to a solicitor and take them to a small claims court. Also, if they then dismiss you for that, that's unfair dissimal which is another case you can take to a small claims court.

[Hylean]

(Original post by poiuy)
It's a recession, people on the nmw are pretty much disposable to employers; if you complain they'll just find someone else who will work without their entitled break.

And then they get taken to court for unfair dismissal or breach of human rights. Also, that particular issue affects all age groups and education levels.