ageism

[moanthebairns]

Can someone explain why there is a national min wage for people 16-18 19-22 (I believe are the brackets)

and in some cases

why redundancey can only be up to half of someone who is over the age of 22.

I thought ageism wasnt ment to exsist now adays in the work place so why do these bands exsist?

[Heskey]

I read somewhere the other day that pensioners are on of the largest groups of employed people in the UK right now; so it's not all bad for granny!

[Robatr0n]

Heskey said:

I read somewhere the other day that pensioners are on of the largest groups of employed people in the UK right now; so it's not all bad for granny!

Can you blame them? Working all their lives and not having a worthwhile pension to show for it means that many have to seek employment later in life.

[Robatr0n]

moanthebairns said:

Can someone explain why there is a national min wage for people 16-18 19-22 (I believe are the brackets)

and in some cases

why redundancey can only be up to half of someone who is over the age of 22.

I thought ageism wasnt ment to exsist now adays in the work place so why do these bands exsist?

Hmmmmm.

Surely it would be ageist if there was a maximum wage for people who fall into those age brackets? Minimum wages stop employers taking the piss and paying them even less..

[moanthebairns]

Robatr0n said:

moanthebairns said:

Can someone explain why there is a national min wage for people 16-18 19-22 (I believe are the brackets)

and in some cases

why redundancey can only be up to half of someone who is over the age of 22.

I thought ageism wasnt ment to exsist now adays in the work place so why do these bands exsist?

Hmmmmm.

Surely it would be ageist if there was a maximum wage for people who fall into those age brackets? Minimum wages stop employers taking the piss and paying them even less..

hmmmm.
good thinking batman. BUT if a employer can get away with paying 3.60 for a 16 year and £5 odd for 22 then thats not pc

[V8mate]

moanthebairns said:

Can someone explain ......
why redundancey can only be up to half of someone who is over the age of 22.

Because the opportunities for young people to get a new/different job are much greater than they are for older people. They are also unlikely to have huge financial responsibilities when under 22 too; and if they do they are probably sponging off the State (which means us taxpayers) rather than working anyway,

[moanthebairns]

V8mate said:

moanthebairns said:

Can someone explain ......
why redundancey can only be up to half of someone who is over the age of 22.

Because the opportunities for young people to get a new/different job are much greater than they are for older people. They are also unlikely to have huge financial responsibilities when under 22 too; and if they do they are probably sponging off the State (which means us taxpayers) rather than working anyway,

Thats still a st and unfair way to look at it.

[otolith]

It's indefensible in principle, within the bounds of the assumption that everyone is equal. In practice, they've had to frame the minimum wage legislation around the reality of a 16 year old minimum wage worker being less useful than a 22 year old one.

[V8mate]

otolith said:

It's indefensible in principle, within the bounds of the assumption that everyone is equal. In practice, they've had to frame the minimum wage legislation around the reality of a 16 year old minimum wage worker being less useful than a 22 year old one.

The stepped approach to hourly rate is the difference betwen young people getting a job or not. If everyone was paid the same, employers would only hire skilled people rather than waste time and money training school leavers.

[mechsympathy]

otolith said:

It's indefensible in principle, within the bounds of the assumption that everyone is equal. In practice, they've had to frame the minimum wage legislation around the reality of a 16 year old minimum wage worker being less useful than a 22 year old one.

And bearing this in mind, who would employ a 16 year old if they had to pay the same as they would a 22 year old?

[rhinochopig]

moanthebairns said:

V8mate said:

moanthebairns said:

Can someone explain ......
why redundancey can only be up to half of someone who is over the age of 22.

Because the opportunities for young people to get a new/different job are much greater than they are for older people. They are also unlikely to have huge financial responsibilities when under 22 too; and if they do they are probably sponging off the State (which means us taxpayers) rather than working anyway,

Thats still a st and unfair way to look at it.

No it's not. Older people need to drink beer and petrol to stop being sad, which is expensive. Younger people have bus-shelter sex and fumbles to keep them happy. That's why they get paid less. It's only fair when you think about it.

[otolith]

otolith said:

It's indefensible in principle, within the bounds of the assumption that everyone is equal. In practice, they've had to frame the minimum wage legislation around the reality of a 16 year old minimum wage worker being less useful than a 22 year old one.

mechsympathy said:

And bearing this in mind, who would employ a 16 year old if they had to pay the same as they would a 22 year old?

V8mate said:

The stepped approach to hourly rate is the difference betwen young people getting a job or not. If everyone was paid the same, employers would only hire skilled people rather than waste time and money training school leavers.

Exactly my point. Dogma collides with reality.

[moanthebairns]

rhinochopig said:

moanthebairns said:

V8mate said:

moanthebairns said:

Can someone explain ......
why redundancey can only be up to half of someone who is over the age of 22.

Because the opportunities for young people to get a new/different job are much greater than they are for older people. They are also unlikely to have huge financial responsibilities when under 22 too; and if they do they are probably sponging off the State (which means us taxpayers) rather than working anyway,

Thats still a st and unfair way to look at it.

No it's not. Older people need to drink beer and petrol to stop being sad, which is expensive. Younger people have bus-shelter sex and fumbles to keep them happy. That's why they get paid less. It's only fair when you think about it.

But I need money to do both. Bar go near a bus shelter eeeww

[Rossatron]

I've been working full time over the summer whilst home from uni (I'm 19). At the interview for the job I was told I would be paid min wage which I presumed was around 5.50 as I had been paid that in the past in other jobs. Rather unproffesionally the company I am working for left the notes about all the applicants for my job lying around and they highlighted every persons age who was under 21 or whatever it is. It was then obvious I was getting the child slave labour rate. Tight gits.