The Student Room Group

New age discrimination law

The new age discrimination law comes into force today, which, unsurprisingly, makes it illegal to discriminate on grounds of age in the workplace.

Should this, or does this, include the minimun wage, which currently is set at these levels.

hm revenue and customs website
Workers who are aged under 18 and no longer of compulsory school age can expect to be paid no less than £3.30 per hour from 1 October 2006.
Workers aged between 18 and 21 years can expect to be paid no less than £4.45 per hour from 1 October 2006.
Workers who are aged 22 years or older, can expect to be paid no less than £5.35 per hour from 1 October 2006.


Which to me is discriminatory to younger workers, on grounds of wage, which SHOULD be illegal under new legislation.

Scroll to see replies

No it doesn't. Having just heard alistair darling on Radio 4 spectacularly fail to come up with one reason for having such differences between individuals that should be considered equal in this I do wonder what the purpose of such government dictats are if the government in question doesn't actually abide by them.
Reply 2
Yep, us studenty types are essentially an enormous pot of money for everyone to take a swipe at.

Bastard government.
meh
Reply 4
Just gone through the BBC article on the subject. Noticed this quote:

"If wages for under-21s were upped as a result, firms may be less likely to hire younger people, the BCC said. " (the BCC is apparently the 'British Chamber of Commerce')

Just ignore the fact that under-21s are probably the most flexible workers, prepared to work for the lowest amount, might actually have some initiative and drive unlike most older service sector etc workers to whom the minimum wage applies...

Really, in almost every job I've seen young people working in, it's always the old, miserable bastards who are stupid and idle.
Reply 5
LibertineNorth
Just gone through the BBC article on the subject. Noticed this quote:

"If wages for under-21s were upped as a result, firms may be less likely to hire younger people, the BCC said. " (the BCC is apparently the 'British Chamber of Commerce')

Just ignore the fact that under-21s are probably the most flexible workers, prepared to work for the lowest amount, might actually have some initiative and drive unlike most older service sector etc workers to whom the minimum wage applies...

.



I think if employers are forced to pay us under 21s the same rate as over 21s we'll basically find it even harder to find a job. The main reason we're hired is cos we're cheap labour. But if they had to pick between an 18 y.o. with no experience and a 24 y.o. who had some and had to pay us the same amount guess who they'd pick?
Reply 6
trixx
I think if employers are forced to pay us under 21s the same rate as over 21s we'll basically find it even harder to find a job. The main reason we're hired is cos we're cheap labour. But if they had to pick between an 18 y.o. with no experience and a 24 y.o. who had some and had to pay us the same amount guess who they'd pick?


It's a sad day if someone with 'experience' is being paid the minimum wage. Or equally if 24 year olds are competing with 18 year olds for minimum wage jobs - in fact, I'd be inclined as an employer (if I was offering a low-waged, awful, service job) to wonder why the 24 year old hadn't made a bit more of his life by that point.

I don't agree with the minimum wage in the first place, but equally I don't believe in exemptions to what is considered discrimination. It just seems that it's constantly students who are getting completely rogered by the state on every front. It's like HMO licensing - offer some questionable benefit, and suck cash out of every orifice in return.

I maintain my original assessment of the government: bastards.
trixx
I think if employers are forced to pay us under 21s the same rate as over 21s we'll basically find it even harder to find a job. The main reason we're hired is cos we're cheap labour. But if they had to pick between an 18 y.o. with no experience and a 24 y.o. who had some and had to pay us the same amount guess who they'd pick?


These are minimum wage jobs we are talking about here - experience is not really ever going to be significant on a candidates CV.
Reply 8
This is stupid! I want the right to employ living people instead of craky old fossils who are liable to seize up every 10 mins!!
Reply 9
This is the works of New Labour. They're going to make a discrimination law for everything.
Reply 10
I was watching something about this on the news, and someone was saying that it wouldn't be a great idea to give people birthday cards and things with their age on, because some could take it as discrimination and they may sue!:rolleyes:

What is this world coming to?:mad: You have to have some form of line against older people getting a job. You can't have 50-60 year old firemen! lol:p:
Reply 11
Charlieee
I was watching something about this on the news, and someone was saying that it wouldn't be a great idea to give people birthday cards and things with their age on, because some could take it as discrimination and they may sue!:rolleyes:


I saw that, and got the impression it was about joke birthday cards sent to people in order to imply that they are very old, ie sending a 'happy 70th' to a middle-aged member of staff. Which is not really discrimination/harassment, just poking fun. But it is part of the employer's duty of care to put a stop to things like that if they upset you. Also, it would be nice if this age-discrimination law would put a stop to the attitude of 'some heavy lifting to do? have the teenager do it!'. It works in both directions.

There are some holes in the age-discrimination law, such as why hire a person of retirement age for an 'apprentice' job? That doesn't make any sense, yet under the rules you couldn't advertise the job with an age upper limit, or even, it seems, ask for young applicants. If it were modified a bit, to only cover jobs where age really is not a factor (and there are many), then it's a good idea.
Reply 12
Some of this stuff is ridiculous. I.e you can't say "Need 5 years experience" on a advertisement. So what? Some newb applies and gets rejected because he isnt the best employee for the job. Why waste his time?

F***ing absurd, who are these people working beyond 65? GET A HOBBY FFS! If I still need to work after 50 I'll be depressed and if I'm not dead by 80 I'll finish it myself.
Reply 13
New age discrimination law? Was I wrong in seeing it as an old-age discrimination law? By Golly, I'm so clever with words.
Reply 14
LibertineNorth
Just gone through the BBC article on the subject. Noticed this quote:

"If wages for under-21s were upped as a result, firms may be less likely to hire younger people, the BCC said. " (the BCC is apparently the 'British Chamber of Commerce')

Just ignore the fact that under-21s are probably the most flexible workers, prepared to work for the lowest amount, might actually have some initiative and drive unlike most older service sector etc workers to whom the minimum wage applies...

Really, in almost every job I've seen young people working in, it's always the old, miserable bastards who are stupid and idle.


Good God, if you can't afford to pay someone $4.45/hr it makes me wonder what sort of business you're running tbh.
Reply 15
The_Bear
F***ing absurd, who are these people working beyond 65? GET A HOBBY FFS!


Probably the same poor ****er's that have spent a lifetime in the private sector only to have their pension funds raped by Gordon Brown and who therefore need to work to eat and pay for all the civil servants that retire at 43 on a 90% index linked pension?
Reply 16
croissantfever
The new age discrimination law comes into force today, which, unsurprisingly, makes it illegal to discriminate on grounds of age in the workplace.


The law is designed to protect the rights of workers to gain and remain in employment past the official Retirement age when they become entitled to State Pension. People must be judged fit to do the work they seek to do to remain in their jobs.

Should this, or does this, include the minimun wage, which currently is set at these levels.


Since the minimum wage level does not impact on the right of the employee to work - no.

Which to me is discriminatory to younger workers, on grounds of wage, which SHOULD be illegal under new legislation.


Why so? People have increments to their wages/salaries according to length of service, level of responsibility and their experience and consequent usefulness to the employer.
Reply 17
Howard
Probably the same poor ****er's that have spent a lifetime in the private sector only to have their pension funds raped by Gordon Brown and who therefore need to work to eat and pay for all the civil servants that retire at 43 on a 90% index linked pension?


That is a fair point but I counterclaim ignorance is not an excuse!
Reply 18
LibertineNorth
It's a sad day if someone with 'experience' is being paid the minimum wage. Or equally if 24 year olds are competing with 18 year olds for minimum wage jobs - in fact, I'd be inclined as an employer (if I was offering a low-waged, awful, service job) to wonder why the 24 year old hadn't made a bit more of his life by that point.

I don't agree with the minimum wage in the first place, but equally I don't believe in exemptions to what is considered discrimination. It just seems that it's constantly students who are getting completely rogered by the state on every front. It's like HMO licensing - offer some questionable benefit, and suck cash out of every orifice in return.
Not quite 24 but my union bar job is just above minimum wage and my technician job for the union is only more because there's a supervisory role (my deputy is on £5.40ph for a semi-skilled to skilled job where the going rate in the real world is roughly double that).
yawn
The law is designed to protect the rights of workers to gain and remain in employment past the official Retirement age when they become entitled to State Pension. People must be judged fit to do the work they seek to do to remain in their jobs.


http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/draft/20064266.htm

This is the legislation, from what I've read of it I get the impression that it will be unlawful to discriminate against an employee under the age of 65 on the grounds of age.


Why so? People have increments to their wages/salaries according to length of service, level of responsibility and their experience and consequent usefulness to the employer.


But this has nothing to do with lenght of service, level of responsibility or experience, its purely being paid less because you are younger.

For instance, if I were to work next year in the students union bar, I would be paid £4.45. However my friend, who took a gap year, and thus will be 22 this coming academic year, doing exactly the same job as me, will be paid £5.35.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5389842.stm <---- interesting article from the bbc website, apparantly the minimum wage laws now may be open to legal challenge.

Latest

Trending

Trending