why should under 25 get paid less than over 25 for the same job.
Living wage forcing busineses to cut back on staff and hours?
- Thread starter Things change I've changed
- Start date
why should under 25 get paid less than over 25 for the same job.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 9,496
- Location
- Southampton, hopefully not too hot, or too cold
Some businesses have relied far too long on paying peanut wages that are then topped up by for some employees by Working Tax Credits.
Unless I'm more mistaken than normal, the new Minimum Wage kicking in around October 2016 only increases it by 50 pence per hour.
No doubt some businesses will try and play hardball, but they will need to be be careful what they do, as one would hope the government will get heavy too and penalise business breaking employment law very hard indeed.
One hopes zero hour contracts will be banned in the very near future and those that work more hours than there contract get improved holiday pay for the first four holiday weeks of the year, as per the EU directive.
Unless I'm more mistaken than normal, the new Minimum Wage kicking in around October 2016 only increases it by 50 pence per hour.
No doubt some businesses will try and play hardball, but they will need to be be careful what they do, as one would hope the government will get heavy too and penalise business breaking employment law very hard indeed.
One hopes zero hour contracts will be banned in the very near future and those that work more hours than there contract get improved holiday pay for the first four holiday weeks of the year, as per the EU directive.
Last edited:
Its not about ability but dependency. An 18yo is less likely to be married with kids and mortgage.
so you suggesting that a woman older than 25 should get less because she may have children etc...
No, she should get more
If businesses can't afford to pay the extra. And have to cut hours or jobs to do it, then the business is close to folding anyway right?
I mean are they purposefully hiring more people than they need while at the same time struggling to pay for it? The work still needs doing, so if they cut hours, who does it?
I mean are they purposefully hiring more people than they need while at the same time struggling to pay for it? The work still needs doing, so if they cut hours, who does it?
if businesses are not able to compete while paying the minimum wage then they go bust and someone more efficient takes over
What happens to the under 25s when they reach 26? Replaced by further under 25s? Sounds a little like a classic sci-fi film that.
Pay everyone the same no matter what the age, or allow companies to pay a training wage for youngsters that expires after 6 months. Ageism is ageism not matter what ages (18+) are involved.
Pay everyone the same no matter what the age, or allow companies to pay a training wage for youngsters that expires after 6 months. Ageism is ageism not matter what ages (18+) are involved.
I was about to say they can't just replace them, need a reason to Kay then off ... But with the level of abuse zero hour contracts can provide it can easily be done.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Hate this line of reasoning. I've even seen people at my work claim they should get promotions over other people because they have kids and therefore 'need the money more'.
Your pay should be based on your input to the business not your lifestyle choices outside of it.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 2,184
- Location
- Abingdon
Good. Time to stop subsidising low wages via the tax credits system.
Why should I have to pay tax credits (via my taxes) so that Tesco doesn't need to pay the market rate for labour?
Why should I have to pay tax credits (via my taxes) so that Tesco doesn't need to pay the market rate for labour?
If we take your line of reasoning and extend it then you just end up paying Tesco the additional money directly in increased prices rather than it going through the tax system
If we take your line of reasoning and extend it then you just end up paying Tesco the additional money directly in increased prices rather than it going through the tax system
Precisely.
If we take your line of reasoning and extend it then you just end up paying Tesco the additional money directly in increased prices rather than it going through the tax system
I don't actually have a problem with this. To me it might make the same difference to my wallet, but tesco paying a decent wage is less money the government had to spend on admin.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
take it you have never heard of communism?
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 2,184
- Location
- Abingdon
If we take your line of reasoning and extend it then you just end up paying Tesco the additional money directly in increased prices rather than it going through the tax system
What, you mean people paying the actual price it took to produce something?
At least this way, everyone contributes rather than just those unfortunate enough to get hit/robbed by PAYE, so the price increases (if any) will be negligible.
Because it's better to be earning something, than nothing.
One of the biggest things that effects your long term employability is whether you were able to get work when you were young, and for school leavers with no experience being cheaper is in many cases the only reason they'll get a job over someone else.
