Is £6.91 not the minimum wage then...or at least just about.
Got a job in primark!
- Thread starter ThatAsianGuy
- Start date
Is £6.91 not the minimum wage then...or at least just about.
It's £6.19 from October 2012
Edit, £6.09 at the moment, hmm. I need to check I'm being paid correctly then. I'm sure I don't get that.
Edit 2, Seems I am on current minimum wage, I didn't know it had gone up to that.
Still sucks :/
Edit, £6.09 at the moment, hmm. I need to check I'm being paid correctly then. I'm sure I don't get that.
Edit 2, Seems I am on current minimum wage, I didn't know it had gone up to that.
Still sucks :/
Last edited:
£6.08 currently.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Well at least you get minimum wage. Makes me so angry when i hear about friends who work for less than £4/h. I don't even understand the reasoning behind it being lower for under 21s. Is the work they do worth less? No, they do exactly the same jobs people over 21 would be doing if the company couldn't get people to do them for less.
Why?
Young workers have stricter employment rights which limit their ability to work the same hours or shift patterns as those over 18, This includes reduced maximum daily and weekly work periods, increased break periods and frequency as well as the inherrent lack of general work experience when compared to the average worker over 21.
So, yes the work they do is worth less, as the restrictions on what an employer can ask of them are greater.
What about retail do you love? I hated every second of it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
That doesn't mean the work they do is worth less, it means they work less. Working less and getting measly wages for what you do work means that you're never going to earn any real amount. You're not doing skilled work anyway so experience doesn't really factor into it, which also means that you're not going to get any experience out of it. You're only doing this for the money. A very little amount of money for what may well be a small amount of time, but which could have a massive impact on your study, education work, stress levels and through that your future prospects.
And this isn't just about a lower minimum wage, it's about the common occurrence of and very lax attitude towards being paid lower than even that. At least half the people i know who have had a job (other than a paper round) have been paid less than their minimum wage at some point. They don't want to talk to their employer about it because they'll lose their job. They don't want to report it because they'll probably lose their job and they'll likely cause their workmates to lose their jobs as well, at least some of them.
I work in golf equipment retail, I play a lot also. Most of the people who come into the shop are genuine and don't waste my time, they want to know why product A does Y and product B does Z. My knowledge to help others makes me happy.
If I can sell just one product that will improve someone's game and they leave understanding why it will improve their game, I have succeeded, that's why I love what I do.
Their value to the employer is less due to the employment restrictions being greater....thus the lower wages. In fact if the minimum wage was static across all age brackets then you would see employers limiting their exposure to the greater statutory restrictions of employing under 18s, and that would be detrimental to that particular demographic.
Take it from people who actually have experience of the workplace from a employer perspective, you don't know what you are talking about and just because something doesn't require a specific set of skills, it doesn't mean that experience is not neccessary or doesnt impact productivity or that the business doesn't have to invest time and money in training and the relative impact on the overall profitability of the business. Many firms, especially the larger ones generally pay over the minimum wage scales anyway, and those that do not would probably be unwilling to employ younger workers if an increase in the minimum wage meant that they could get more experienced workers for the same costs and without the headache of the extra statutory legislation.
The truth is that the lower minimum wage rates for under 18s (not so much those who are above or have left full time education) is pretty insignificant to their life choices, I find it highly unlikely that any 16 year old is going to quit education because they can earn £6 hr down the local 7/11....
I do think that the rates should be restricted to 16/17 year olds and once you reach 18 and effectively you are no longer under legal parental responsibility you shpuld be entitled to the same rights as some who is 21.....I see no justification for the three tier system we have currently.
If someone you know is being paid less than the legislated statutory minimum wage then they need to report it, they cannot legally be sacked for doing so.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
All the restrictions on working hours do in terms of the employer is give them the opportunity to employ two or three or more people to do the job of one person. However you cut it that's getting more for your money.
The costs of employing people are not limited to the wage you pay them.....the costs are greater for the employer than you would realise, on average the cost to the employer is twice what the gross wage to the individual is.
To employ two people at lower minumum wage rates is far more costly than employing a single person on the higher rate.....and that is without costing the extra involvment in training and supervisory management that younger people on average require.
With respect, you don't understand how a business works or the inherrent costs of employing someone, especially with regard to employers contributions to the HMRC, Statutory Provisions, Pension etc.....
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 6,049
- Location
- melee island
Not proportionally, regardless of size it is still cheaper to hire a single employee on a slightly increased salary than two on lower salaries to cover the same or similar workloads, this is why there are various incentive programs and subsidies available to encourage hiring of younger workers, that is outside of the variance in minimum wage......the costs may be different depending on the size and nature of the business but not in such a way as to negate what I am saying.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 6,049
- Location
- melee island
I quoted a little more than I should have there, but yes, I agree with you on that point.
Really? I've been running payrolls for 20 years and I've never noticed the total cost of an employee being twice the gross wage
Nothing even close to that amount. Can you elaborate as to where you pulled that figure from..Again, as a direct cost it's not far more costly, it's 294.82 per week to employ two 17 year olds compared to 256.93 for one 21 yo.
With respect, you don't seem to understand the specific costings either.
Also the restrictions in working practices you spoke of for under 18's, while maybe an issue for some employers, for the vast majority the limits of 'only' being able to work 40hrs a week and no night shift aren't an issue.
But I agree with your general point that of course it is reasonable for under 18's to be paid less, (whether 3.68/hr or 2.60/hr for apprentices is enough is a different debate) as they are generally inexperienced and still learning. The band for 18-20yo's @ 4.98 I guess is for the same general principle.
These are only statutory minimums of course, nothing stops an employer paying a particularly talented young employee more money if they deserve it.
