NationStates Jolt Archive

By this I mean that the tendency is for younger people to earn less than their elders for the same work.

I've noticed that as soon as I turned 19, and my employer is obliged to pay me $15 an hour, that I'm only getting a single shift a week. This leaves me some $70 a week, which is not enough for me to save money, or even pay for transport, etc. I can't afford anything besides my necessities without drawing into what i've saved, which i'd rather not touch. When I was 18, earning $12.50 an hour, I got 2-3 shifts a week, bringing in anywhere from $130-$200 a week. I could afford to save, and go out once a week. Having spied on what the 16 year olds that earn about $9 an hour get, many of them are working 4 or 5 shifts a week. They earn around $180 a week, sometimes more.

Personally, I believe this practice completely looney. For starters, "Younger people don't need as much pay because they have less things to spend it on, it's just pocketmoney, etc." doesn't hold true. These kids are still in high-school, and sometimes earn 3 times what I do.

Secondly, it's also unfair on them in another way- They do the same work I do, and get paid much less per hour.

Now, I believe if the employer paid all workers the same, I believe it would be far more efficient. The younger kids will earn more per hour and thus work less for the same money, and i'll have my shifts balance out and end up better off overall, even if I may have to endure a small pay cut (If anything, i'll get a payrise or at least remain level, which i'm perfectly happy with. Salaries keep going up until 21, where you earn about $19 an hour as a casual worker.) The company doesn't really stand to lose much money.

Anyone agree? Disagree?

(Yes, yes, i've been told to get a different job. Yet this is precisely why I find it so difficult to get another one, who would employ me over a 16 year old who is just as capable?)

I agree completely. I think people should be paid equally for equal work. It's stupid to do otherwise.

If you vote that they are a good thing, could you please explain why? I'm curious to see the reasoning behind it :)

im an "equal pay for equal work" kinda girl

in the US you would probaby max out at $7/hour for a job that could be done by a highschool student. so it sort of works out the same. you need to get yourself into a job where experience is worth something. then you are too valuable to lose.

By this I mean that the tendency is for younger people to earn less than their elders for the same work.

[ snippage ]

Anyone agree? Disagree?

(Yes, yes, i've been told to get a different job. Yet this is precisely why I find it so difficult to get another one, who would employ me over a 16 year old who is just as capable?)
That sort of practice is generally illegal in the US. Most States have laws that prohibit discrimination based on age, race, sex, etc. However, there are numerous loopholes, such as the size of the business ( those with less than 20 - I think - employees are generally exempt from many wage and hour laws ), for example.

The most frequently filed lawsuit for unlawful discrimination in the US are for age discrimination. Almost always it's for discrimination based on age over 40, since that is the cut off age for the Federal laws. If you're younger than that, it's very difficult to prove age discrimination.

My personal take on this issue is that I would refuse to work for any employer which descriminates based on age, sex, race, etc. I wouldn't be able to deal with the cognitive dissonance.

im an "equal pay for equal work" kinda girl

in the US you would probaby max out at $7/hour for a job that could be done by a highschool student. so it sort of works out the same. you need to get yourself into a job where experience is worth something. then you are too valuable to lose.

Yeah. Unfortunately, that's the problem. Such jobs, where you build on the entry position, typically need an education. I'm working on one, but what do I do if i'm stuck in the middle- no education, but a high salary requirement, competing against people younger than me who need to be paid far less and people older than me with a wealth of experience?

It doesn't really work out. Coincidentally, all of my friends are in the same position. One couldn't get a job as an assembler in a factory because he "lacked experience". The only way people my age get full-time work (which i'm not after, until I finish university), is by taking apprenticeships- for a mere fraction of the wage of standard employees, and wading through a great deal of competition to even get a placement there, often losing out to those with "more experience".

That sort of practice is generally illegal in the US. Most States have laws that prohibit discrimination based on age, race, sex, etc. However, there are numerous loopholes, such as the size of the business ( those with less than 20 - I think - employees are generally exempt from many wage and hour laws ), for example.

The most frequently filed lawsuit for unlawful discrimination in the US are for age discrimination. Almost always it's for discrimination based on age over 40, since that is the cut off age for the Federal laws. If you're younger than that, it's very difficult to prove age discrimination.

My personal take on this issue is that I would refuse to work for any employer which descriminates based on age, sex, race, etc. I wouldn't be able to deal with the cognitive dissonance.

Well, the employer in this case avoids age discrimination issues in my case, because a computer allocates shifts according to what would be the most efficient. Therefore, I get less work, and those younger get more- If I ask for more shifts, tough luck, the computer decides it. The younger people don't complain, because obviously they like having $200 in spending money each week. I mean, I would too.

Yeah. Unfortunately, that's the problem. Such jobs, where you build on the entry position, typically need an education. I'm working on one, but what do I do if i'm stuck in the middle- no education, but a high salary requirement, competing against people younger than me who need to be paid far less and people older than me with a wealth of experience?

It doesn't really work out. Coincidentally, all of my friends are in the same position. One couldn't get a job as an assembler in a factory because he "lacked experience". The only way people my age get full-time work (which i'm not after, until I finish university), is by taking apprenticeships- for a mere fraction of the wage of standard employees, and wading through a great deal of competition to even get a placement there, often losing out to those with "more experience".
there arent laws that require you hire whoever is qualified regardless of age/payrate status? or are they just finding a way around it?

you are so screwed.

that assembly plant was comprised of only the youngest of legal workers?

Well, the employer in this case avoids age discrimination issues in my case, because a computer allocates shifts according to what would be the most efficient. Therefore, I get less work, and those younger get more- If I ask for more shifts, tough luck, the computer decides it. The younger people don't complain, because obviously they like having $200 in spending money each week. I mean, I would too.
I'm afraid they wouldn't like me there at all! "The computer did it" is a prize cop-out. Who programmed the friggin' computer, another computer? Yeah, right! :(

Well, the employer in this case avoids age discrimination issues in my case, because a computer allocates shifts according to what would be the most efficient. Therefore, I get less work, and those younger get more- If I ask for more shifts, tough luck, the computer decides it. The younger people don't complain, because obviously they like having $200 in spending money each week. I mean, I would too.

Usually happeneds. My sis loves to work on weekends where her pay is double, but then they give her limited hours, purposely to cut their costs, and they prefer to hire younger students so that they can pay them less to fill up the weekend shifts.

At one time my sis worked 2-3 part time jobs because she isn't a PR in Melbourne.

Same amount of work done, but less costs. Evil.

there arent laws that require you hire whoever is qualified regardless of age/payrate status? or are they just finding a way around it?

you are so screwed.

that assembly plant was comprised of only the youngest of legal workers?

Actually, it's reverse discrimination there. They only employ older people who have experience working in such environments. They may take a few apprentices on, but they're costly to train. Thus why there are so few accepted into those programs...the problem is that young people out of high-school *aren't* qualified, so we don't get the work. Our only option is to settle for less at places that prefer to employ high-school kids.

I'm afraid they wouldn't like me there at all! "The computer did it" is a prize cop-out. Who programmed the friggin' computer, another computer? Yeah, right! :(

A fair point. What also annoys me though, is that I can't even negotiate through the Union for more hours or make that complaint. The company ENCOURAGES employees to join the union, and the union does whatever the company tells them to. :(

Usually happeneds. My sis loves to work on weekends where her pay is double, but then they give her limited hours, purposely to cut their costs, and they prefer to hire younger students so that they can pay them less to fill up the weekend shifts.

At one time my sis worked 2-3 part time jobs because she isn't a PR in Melbourne.

Same amount of work done, but less costs. Evil.

I like weekend work too...but when I get Sunday shifts (saturday is normal pay, Sunday is a 50% bonus), they're cut from 5 hours to 4 hours or less. And the younger kids (and most of the supervisors, strangely enough...hmm) get those shifts. Heh, so exactly the same problem.

I'm considering trying to get another job on top of this one. But that could get hectic considering i'm studying at the same time.

By this I mean that the tendency is for younger people to earn less than their elders for the same work.

I've noticed that as soon as I turned 19, and my employer is obliged to pay me $15 an hour, that I'm only getting a single shift a week. This leaves me some $70 a week, which is not enough for me to save money, or even pay for transport, etc. I can't afford anything besides my necessities without drawing into what i've saved, which i'd rather not touch. When I was 18, earning $12.50 an hour, I got 2-3 shifts a week, bringing in anywhere from $130-$200 a week. I could afford to save, and go out once a week. Having spied on what the 16 year olds that earn about $9 an hour get, many of them are working 4 or 5 shifts a week. They earn around $180 a week, sometimes more.

Personally, I believe this practice completely looney. For starters, "Younger people don't need as much pay because they have less things to spend it on, it's just pocketmoney, etc." doesn't hold true. These kids are still in high-school, and sometimes earn 3 times what I do.

Secondly, it's also unfair on them in another way- They do the same work I do, and get paid much less per hour.

Now, I believe if the employer paid all workers the same, I believe it would be far more efficient. The younger kids will earn more per hour and thus work less for the same money, and i'll have my shifts balance out and end up better off overall, even if I may have to endure a small pay cut (If anything, i'll get a payrise or at least remain level, which i'm perfectly happy with. Salaries keep going up until 21, where you earn about $19 an hour as a casual worker.) The company doesn't really stand to lose much money.

Anyone agree? Disagree?

(Yes, yes, i've been told to get a different job. Yet this is precisely why I find it so difficult to get another one, who would employ me over a 16 year old who is just as capable?)

Interesting, yet you leave out some details.

If I was an employer and I had to pay the same amount to a 16yr old as a 25yr old, the following thoughts would go through my head

Why would I ever hire a 16 yr old? For the same money, I can get a person who has more work experience. Doesnt need to take off to take exams. Is more mature and probably more responsible. Is more likely to have a family and more likely to really need the money. An older person is less likely to work a few weeks and then quit because he doesnt feel like working.

Given that my salary cost is the same, why would I EVER hire a younger worker over and older one? How are younger workers going to develop job skills if no one is going to hire them?

That sort of practice is generally illegal in the US. Most States have laws that prohibit discrimination based on age, race, sex, etc. However, there are numerous loopholes, such as the size of the business ( those with less than 20 - I think - employees are generally exempt from many wage and hour laws ), for example.

The most frequently filed lawsuit for unlawful discrimination in the US are for age discrimination. Almost always it's for discrimination based on age over 40, since that is the cut off age for the Federal laws. If you're younger than that, it's very difficult to prove age discrimination.

My personal take on this issue is that I would refuse to work for any employer which descriminates based on age, sex, race, etc. I wouldn't be able to deal with the cognitive dissonance.


This isnt really a discrimination thing. The original poster left out the part about work experience. Obviously, an employer is going to pay more for experience. Force people to pay the same for inexperiened as the experienced and see what happens. The inexperienced will never find work, and never develop experience.

The BC provincial government did something similiar - they instituted what they called a 'training wage' that was about $2/hour lower than the minimum wage. Anyone who had worked under a certain number of hours in a particular field! could be subject to the training wage if that was what the employer was paying.

This didn't just get young people, it nailed immigrants too, because many of them couldn't prove to the employer's satisfaction that they had worked the requisite number of hours in a similar job in their former country.

The shady employers and the fast-food joints and other similar businesses just laid-off anyone who reached the hours cap and hired a new person at the lower wage. Fortunately, most businesses that actually require talent don't behave this way as they can't attract qualified people.

Personally, I think the whole training wage thing was a waste of time -- it let's low-end employers take further advantage of their employees, and the Wal-Marts and MacDonalds of the world where screwing them already. The government just handed them a new method on a platter.

I believe age-graded salaries should, if used, be on a per job basis. I mean, depending on the job, say construction or what-not, an older worker may be more experienced than a younger worker. However, this idea of experience also comes into play. A younger worker may be more experienced.

I used to work for a photography studio. I was by far the youngest person there. I was also making more money than 3/4 of the staff, excluding the management, because I had photography experience and a killer resume. I was making $8.25/hr whereas the next closest colleague was making $7.00/hr.

This is how pay should be determined, but as I said, it also depends on the job at hand. If age was a determining factor, then, age should be a factor in pay, but for 99.9% jobs, I think it's fair to say that experience should always win out over age on the top level.

Because people with more experience will be more likely to make better use of it. :)

Also, older people tend to have more families to support, more mortgages to pay and the like. Another reason is that you need an incentive to keep doing a job. When you start something, knowing that if you keep at it for 5, 10 or even 20 years it'll pay off more is an incentive to start and keep going. If, from the moment your start it's a dead end, who wants that?

Some people have 25 years expirence others have one years expirence 25 times...

If i have the same qualification as someone 20 years my senior i expect to be paid the same if I'm as effective as he/she is regardless of family situation etc etc.

People getting paid more than others for the same job just builds up resentment in the work place which itself is detrimental.

Interesting, yet you leave out some details.

If I was an employer and I had to pay the same amount to a 16yr old as a 25yr old, the following thoughts would go through my head

Why would I ever hire a 16 yr old? For the same money, I can get a person who has more work experience. Doesnt need to take off to take exams. Is more mature and probably more responsible. Is more likely to have a family and more likely to really need the money. An older person is less likely to work a few weeks and then quit because he doesnt feel like working.

Given that my salary cost is the same, why would I EVER hire a younger worker over and older one? How are younger workers going to develop job skills if no one is going to hire them?

I understand that point with regard to full-time work that carries a weight of responsibility about it, but what if the job is menial and work experience is irrelevant? I work in a supermarket...How is any 25 year old more qualified than a 16 year old? They aren't. Particularly considering the job is on a casual basis and has flexible hours...(If you have an exam or other committment, you swap your shift with someone else. Easy.)

The BC provincial government did something similiar - they instituted what they called a 'training wage' that was about $2/hour lower than the minimum wage. Anyone who had worked under a certain number of hours in a particular field! could be subject to the training wage if that was what the employer was paying.

Yep, we have that too. It only lasts for about 5 months, though.

Because people with more experience will be more likely to make better use of it. :)

Also, older people tend to have more families to support, more mortgages to pay and the like. Another reason is that you need an incentive to keep doing a job. When you start something, knowing that if you keep at it for 5, 10 or even 20 years it'll pay off more is an incentive to start and keep going. If, from the moment your start it's a dead end, who wants that?

But it doesn't work that way! This is what i'm trying to say. The younger people get more shifts than those older and end up with almost 3 times what I do in a week anyway. I have to support a university education on $70 a week- fortunately I live at home and my meals and bed are paid for, and fortunately I had the foresight to leave some cash in the bank to pay for public transport, etc., otherwise there is no way i'd survive. Contrast it to the 16 year olds that end up with $200 in their pockets every week, with no responsibilities whatsoever. This is why I feel paying the younger employees the same is a good idea- They are exploited less by working less hours for the same pay, while I end up with more work.

A fair point. What also annoys me though, is that I can't even negotiate through the Union for more hours or make that complaint. The company ENCOURAGES employees to join the union, and the union does whatever the company tells them to. :(
A company union? Has anyone contacted the Feds about this?? It use to be illegal, although it's been years since I worked in Union Relations. Perhaps they've changed the Taft-Hartley Act. :(

A company union? Has anyone contacted the Feds about this?? It use to be illegal, although it's been years since I worked in Union Relations. Perhaps they've changed the Taft-Hartley Act. :(

Australia doesn't fall under American laws. Yet.




I do like the look of Aussies min wage laws. My min wage as a 19 year old is NZ$9.50 an hour. I'd be rather happy with aus$15 an hour. No wonder so many people leave this country.

I completely agree, just because of your age you are no less efficient at a job (in general) as someone who is 30+ or whatever. I'm quite lucky in that my employer pays the same rates no matter your age, plus commission on top of that, so instead of rewarding age, it rewards your sales ability, which is how it should be.

The other problem is, how do you define experience, i mean age doesn't make you necesarily any smarter or wiser, you could have spent your early years in a shack or something. I know thats a bleak view, but in terms of the bigger picture, i'll guarantee theres 16 - 18 year olds out there who can far out perform 30 year olds in some jobs.

A company union? Has anyone contacted the Feds about this?? It use to be illegal, although it's been years since I worked in Union Relations. Perhaps they've changed the Taft-Hartley Act. :(

I'm Australian, Eu. :) The union itself isn't run by the company (It's a national union, covering the entire retail industry), they're just exceedingly cosy with management here.

Australia doesn't fall under American laws. Yet.




I do like the look of Aussies min wage laws. My min wage as a 19 year old is NZ$9.50 an hour. I'd be rather happy with aus$15 an hour. No wonder so many people leave this country.

That's minimum wage as a casual employee, though (I think the definition is less than 22 hours a week, or something. Not sure exactly.) If I were working on a part-time basis, i'd only get $10.50 or something per hour.

I think the idea of age-based salaries is absurd (<--my favourite word). You should get paid according to your ability and your dilligence at your job. Someone mentioned contstruction workers in an example for possible justification. Well, the older construction worker may have years more experience, but he *might* also be a lazy and inconsistent worker, while the younger might be a much harder worker, making up for his inexpereince with his enthusiasm.

I work in a Foundry (place that casts metal) which makes a lot of smaller and mid-sized industrial/product parts as well as restoring and casting bronze sculptures. While we don't do the same volume of sculpture/restoration as we do simple production, restoration in particular brings in a lot more money than the ho-hum production work. It also brings a lot of prestige to the company, something which though intangible, cannot be dismissed. My official title is Restorer, specialized as a Patineur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patina) , (I fix the finish on sculptures, architectural details and antiques...I correct the mistakes of people who have cleaned the patina off their Tiffany Lamps and devalued them by 300%) but I do much more than that, because the Restoration/Sculpture Dept. is pretty small. I'm also responsible for all the waxwork that needs doing on any sculpture we cast (we use the lost-wax casting process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_wax#Lost_wax_bronze-casting_process) )

I make a really good wage there, and have since I started. When I first started, I got all kinds of evil looks and badmouthing from the leadhand on the waxline in the Production Dept. He was 51 at the time and mad as hell that I made 3 times what he did for a job he considered much easier to do than his own, and when I was only 28 years old. He called my a "hot shot artsy type" and made my job very difficult, since I had to use the area of the factory he considered his terrotory. He never missed a chance to sneer at me and tell anyone who would listen that he could do the same job I did, but better. He'd only been working there for 5 years before I arrived, and gotten hhis postion through good honest hard work. I never faulted him on his work, no one did or could. He was a valuable employee and my employers were pretty upset with the situation. I didn't feel to good about it either, quite aside from the extra stress he was giving me, this was my first real honest to god job, the begining of my career. I was still quite nervous. Fucking up in a foundry is costly and can even be deadly.

The lead hand never questioned my ability as a Patineur, but he resented me working on the wax sprues that form the core for the system that feeds the bronze into the sculpture (called the gating system). Thats what he did on the waxline, attaching literally hundreds of gating systems each week, while he saw me taking a couple days to do the gating system on one sculpture. You have to understand that if you get the gating system the least bit wrong, at best you will have a miscast, and the piece will be scrap, at worst, it can explode and send jets of molten bronze spraying at high velocity in all directions. People die when this happens, though it is very rare, and precautions can be taken to make it much safer when it does. Its a combination of artform and engineering problem and very tricky to do properly. The fact I could do it is what got me my job and my wage. The production pieces are all the same, so precast gating systems merely have to be attached to them (still fiendishly difficult) Each sculpture is diffrent, and thus each gating system has to be tailored to each sculpture to ensure a perfect casting.

The situation was finally difused when the Big Boss (God Bless his now departed soul :( ) offered to let the lead hand do my job on one sculpture. Part of me wished for him to suceed, but sure enough, when the time came to cast his handy work, the gating system cracked. Since we have an excellent system to ensure safety, no one got hurt, but a few hundred dollars worth of damage was done and the sculpture was fit only for melting down. The Lead-hand took it in stride and apologized to me, never giving a peep of trouble. He's a foreman now (he may not have my skills, but he's an awesome worker)

Up until that point, I had felt some gulit about making so much more than he does. I questioned if my work was really owrth so much more than a man over 20 years my senior doing almost the same job. After that experience, my opinion on wage disparities drasticly changed. Because I know what I'm doing and so few others do, I help the company save money and also make more money, thus I am worth my wage. The idea of wage level being based on a persons age or some other factor not really related to the work at hand is ridiculous. You can still do your job, and have more competence and experience at it than the younger people they use to replace you. Penalizing you for that should be illegal, not condoned and mandated by the gov't.

^ Dude, you've thought about this way too hard. ^

I understand that point with regard to full-time work that carries a weight of responsibility about it, but what if the job is menial and work experience is irrelevant? I work in a supermarket...How is any 25 year old more qualified than a 16 year old? They aren't. Particularly considering the job is on a casual basis and has flexible hours...(If you have an exam or other committment, you swap your shift with someone else. Easy.)

It is very simple - Seniority (not age) is rewarded because it is difficult to find good workers. If you lose a good worker not only does the quality of work decline, but you then also have to find a new worker, trainthem, and hope they carry themselved as responsibly as the worker you lost (which in menial labor jobs is not very common). Senior workers who have demonstrated desireable attributes are rewarded in order to retain them and raise the overall quality of work. A quite simple concept.



But it doesn't work that way! This is what i'm trying to say. The younger people get more shifts than those older and end up with almost 3 times what I do in a week anyway. I have to support a university education on $70 a week- fortunately I live at home and my meals and bed are paid for, and fortunately I had the foresight to leave some cash in the bank to pay for public transport, etc., otherwise there is no way i'd survive. Contrast it to the 16 year olds that end up with $200 in their pockets every week, with no responsibilities whatsoever. This is why I feel paying the younger employees the same is a good idea- They are exploited less by working less hours for the same pay, while I end up with more work.

You now see the flaw of socialized income. Setting artificial income thresholds based solely on age in terribly inefficient - as you see first hand. The employer should be able to determine for themselves who is deserving of how much additional income and reward it based on performance without government interference. Anything else is unfair to the workers and employer both - though it probably looked really good on paper.

A fair point. What also annoys me though, is that I can't even negotiate through the Union for more hours or make that complaint. The company ENCOURAGES employees to join the union, and the union does whatever the company tells them to. :(

Ahh, the old "company union" trick. Not a "real union," just a union in name only. How sad. Might as well have no union at all. :(

How are younger workers going to develop job skills if no one is going to hire them?

That's the age old question. When you are young, you don't have enough experience. Unfortunatly, when you are older, you are overqualified. :headbang:

It is very simple - Seniority (not age) is rewarded because it is difficult to find good workers. If you lose a good worker not only does the quality of work decline, but you then also have to find a new worker, trainthem, and hope they carry themselved as responsibly as the worker you lost (which in menial labor jobs is not very common). Senior workers who have demonstrated desireable attributes are rewarded in order to retain them and raise the overall quality of work. A quite simple concept.

No, you're missing the point. I'm talking about the same pay for the same work. There are basically no promotion opportunities for casual employees so that's irrelevant. "Retraining" Is also not a factor. My training took about 4 hours, and it was a group training session. The costs involved in that is minimal- these places are designed to literally mass produce employees. They're constantly shedding old people and taking on new ones. That's how they work. They can replace the most experienced person in the store virtually overnight. If you're simply a bad worker, you don't make it past your training probation period.

This isn't what my point is concerning anyway. The older casual workers earn many more times what I do - I don't care so much about them. Most of them are old ladies bringing a bit of extra cash into the house. Doesn't affect me whatsoever. Good luck to them.

What I AM concerned here about the younger people being exploited by the company by earning less per hour than everyone else, and also the fact that the exploitation in particular is driving me out of work as a result. Not only is it unethical, but it makes things exceedingly difficult for me. If I left home tomorrow, I would actually earn more money in Youth Allowance than I do at my place of work- because the younger people take all these shifts.

You now see the flaw of socialized income. Setting artificial income thresholds based solely on age in terribly inefficient - as you see first hand. The employer should be able to determine for themselves who is deserving of how much additional income and reward it based on performance without government interference. Anything else is unfair to the workers and employer both - though it probably looked really good on paper.

Hang on here. "socialised income"? This is anything but socialised. How is the company cutting costs by using younger employees to do the same work socialist? I agree that it's inefficient, if not blatantly unfair, but it's essentially a capitalist idea geared towards decreasing overhead and as a result increasing profit.

Besides that point, there is a problem there with your proposed solution. See, two of the supervisors simply don't like me. It doesn't affect me otherwise. I do my work, I go home, and I don't care what they think of me. If these people are going to be deciding my pay, however, I shudder to think of the result. It's a bureaucracy, see. There are several hundred employees. I've never met the manager myself, so this idea is pretty inefficient in itself- who will decide my pay? Who will know if i'm doing a good job? Does the manager go by what they hear from word of mouth? Where are the checks and balances? Your system may work for a small, family sized store of 2-20 employees, but I really doubt it will in my workplace.

I believe my idea of a level salary is much more logical. Exploitation is cut out, and my weekly income matches those of the younger people. If people want promotion opportunities, they can apply for them and are assessed at the time. (That's how the promotion system works now, they advertise the opportunities, and you put your name down, and if you meet the qualifications best, you're accepted.)

Ahh, the old "company union" trick. Not a "real union," just a union in name only. How sad. Might as well have no union at all.

I agree. That's why I didn't join it. I'm not paying for some union big-wig's pay packet, because it's sure as hell not going to do anything for me.

Any mandatory wage structure is a bad idea. I don't care if it's tied to age, union negotiations, or just a minimum wage. The wages that an employee is paid should be based entirely on a contract that is between the employee and the employer. That contract should be decided at hiring time with the employee's starting wage. Any further increases or decreases should be at the discretion of the employer.

I'm jumping in kind of late and haven't read everything that's been posted, but I don't think pay for the same job should have anything to do with age; rather, I think it should reflect the competence and efficiency with which you do your job. Realistically, however, I would not even support that method of pay, because competence and efficiency are subjective rather than objective things that are matters of employer opinion instead of facts.

^ Dude, you've thought about this way too hard. ^

The opposite. I overindulged and couldn't sleep. I can't beleive I wrote all that. Well it put me to sleep anyway. Probably most who read experienced the same symptoms (yawning, etc.) I'll refrain from posting on NS while under the effects weed. :rolleyes:

Realistically, however, I would not even support that method of pay, because competence and efficiency are subjective rather than objective things that are matters of employer opinion instead of facts.

Indeed!

The opposite. I overindulged and couldn't sleep. I can't beleive I wrote all that. Well it put me to sleep anyway. Probably most who read experienced the same symptoms (yawning, etc.) I'll refrain from posting on NS while under the effects weed. :rolleyes:

Haha..no, I read it, it was a good post. :)

No, you're missing the point. I'm talking about the same pay for the same work. There are basically no promotion opportunities for casual employees so that's irrelevant. "Retraining" Is also not a factor. My training took about 4 hours, and it was a group training session. The costs involved in that is minimal- these places are designed to literally mass produce employees. They're constantly shedding old people and taking on new ones. That's how they work. They can replace the most experienced person in the store virtually overnight. If you're simply a bad worker, you don't make it past your training probation period.

This isn't what my point is concerning anyway. The older casual workers earn many more times what I do - I don't care so much about them. Most of them are old ladies bringing a bit of extra cash into the house. Doesn't affect me whatsoever. Good luck to them.

What I AM concerned here about the younger people being exploited by the company by earning less per hour than everyone else, and also the fact that the exploitation in particular is driving me out of work as a result. Not only is it unethical, but it makes things exceedingly difficult for me. If I left home tomorrow, I would actually earn more money in Youth Allowance than I do at my place of work- because the younger people take all these shifts.



There is nothing unethical about what the company is doing. It is getting the job done at the lowest possible cost. The younger guys arent being exploited, they are choosing to work for less/hour. If you were willing to work for less $/hour you would probably get more shifts.

You have stated that given the nature of the job, there is no productivity differance between a younger worker and one with more experience. So why should the company pay you more per hour when you are no more productive?

The solution to your problems is simple. You can either

1) offer to get paid less per hour in return for more hours of work.

2) find a job where experienced workers generate more money for the company, thereby justifying a higher wage.

3) not to anything and continue saying life is unfair.



Hang on here. "socialised income"? This is anything but socialised. How is the company cutting costs by using younger employees to do the same work socialist? I agree that it's inefficient, if not blatantly unfair, but it's essentially a capitalist idea geared towards decreasing overhead and as a result increasing profit.

How is inefficient or unfair? Companies exist to generate profit. If they can get the same work done at lower costs, thats smart not inefficient. And as to fairness, is it fair that you are charging(in terms of wages) more per hour to do the same work?

I hate the idea of older people getting more money than the younger due to age. I want a job doing something like shelf-stacking over the summer, to pay for a new P.C. If I got the job, I would work my arse off to get money.
Let us assume there was another man, call him Greg, who's 80 and has arthritis. Whilst I could stack 30 boxes a minute (assuming the box was small, say a box of tea-bags), Gregg, with his stiff joints, may only be able to stack 10 or 20. Yet he is paid more.

You can't argue that Gregg would be more experienced than me. In the shelf-stacking trade, anyone could do it if they can read.

There is nothing unethical about what the company is doing. It is getting the job done at the lowest possible cost. The younger guys arent being exploited, they are choosing to work for less/hour. If you were willing to work for less $/hour you would probably get more shifts.

Are they choosing to, or is it because there is no alternative (Which, at 15 or 16, there isn't)? I'm sure, given the opportunity, they'd be happy to balance out their pay with mine and thus work less hours, just as i'd be happy to receive more hours.

So why should the company pay you more per hour when you are no more productive?

They *shouldn't*!!! This is the whole point behind my argument. There is the option between, and you won't convince me otherwise, the pathetic hourly rates that the young people get, and the adults that earn more than double what they do for the same work without being more productive. It should be levelled out.

1) offer to get paid less per hour in return for more hours of work.

2) find a job where experienced workers generate more money for the company, thereby justifying a higher wage.

3) not to anything and continue saying life is unfair.

1) Heh. I could, of course, transfer to part-time work, which is really the concept you are describing. I'd then be earning less, but guaranteed 25-35 hours of work per week. The problem is, I can't feasibly do that while studying full-time...unfortunately I have no option here. Nor am I going to return to a level where I am paid $6 an hour less than what I am now- *although*, as I believe I said earlier, i'm not against a small cut to achieve an equal footing with the young people, as i'll end up better off.

2) Not possible without an education, which i'm working on.

3) I'm not saying that life is unfair, here. I do realise I have it far better off than most of the world's population. I'm saying, however, that this system needs to be changed. The principle is inefficient.

How is inefficient or unfair? Companies exist to generate profit. If they can get the same work done at lower costs, thats smart not inefficient. And as to fairness, is it fair that you are charging(in terms of wages) more per hour to do the same work?

Once again, the entire point of my argument. I'll put it this way-

Situation

A) Young workers are paid little, but get many shifts per week.

B) Older workers are paid far more, and get too few shifts per week.

Logical Solution

Balancing out discrepancy to achieve equity.

Result

Company overhead remains the same, younger people earn more money for their time, and older people earn more money overall.

I hate the idea of older people getting more money than the younger due to age. I want a job doing something like shelf-stacking over the summer, to pay for a new P.C. If I got the job, I would work my arse off to get money.
Let us assume there was another man, call him Greg, who's 80 and has arthritis. Whilst I could stack 30 boxes a minute (assuming the box was small, say a box of tea-bags), Gregg, with his stiff joints, may only be able to stack 10 or 20. Yet he is paid more.

You can't argue that Gregg would be more experienced than me. In the shelf-stacking trade, anyone could do it if they can read.
Can we argue that this is a hypothetical situation and is exaggerated beyond reality?

Are they choosing to, or is it because there is no alternative (Which, at 15 or 16, there isn't)? I'm sure, given the opportunity, they'd be happy to balance out their pay with mine and thus work less hours, just as i'd be happy to receive more hours.



They *shouldn't*!!! This is the whole point behind my argument. There is the option between, and you won't convince me otherwise, the pathetic hourly rates that the young people get, and the adults that earn more than double what they do for the same work without being more productive. It should be levelled out.



1) Heh. I could, of course, transfer to part-time work, which is really the concept you are describing. I'd then be earning less, but guaranteed 25-35 hours of work per week. The problem is, I can't feasibly do that while studying full-time...unfortunately I have no option here. Nor am I going to return to a level where I am paid $6 an hour less than what I am now- *although*, as I believe I said earlier, i'm not against a small cut to achieve an equal footing with the young people, as i'll end up better off.

2) Not possible without an education, which i'm working on.

3) I'm not saying that life is unfair, here. I do realise I have it far better off than most of the world's population. I'm saying, however, that this system needs to be changed. The principle is inefficient.



Once again, the entire point of my argument. I'll put it this way-

Situation

A) Young workers are paid little, but get many shifts per week.

B) Older workers are paid far more, and get too few shifts per week.

Logical Solution

Balancing out discrepancy to achieve equity.

Result

Company overhead remains the same, younger people earn more money for their time, and older people earn more money overall.

Proper result is to let free-market forces fix wages. Not mandatory government wage structures.

Are wages really structured by age in Australia? Is that a legal requirement?

Can we argue that this is a hypothetical situation and is exaggerated beyond reality?

Poor Gregg, how are we going to tell him he's hypothetcal?

I admit that it is hypothetical, but it isn't as exaggerated as you say. It can (and probably does) happen.

The only advantage to erning less is that you pay less taxes (at least in Britain).

It is an interesting thread.

Poor Gregg, how are we going to tell him he's hypothetcal?

I admit that it is hypothetical, but it isn't as exaggerated as you say. It can (and probably does) happen.

The only advantage to erning less is that you pay less taxes (at least in Britain).
I'm trying to think of any menial labor tasks that I see eighty year old men performing. We have loading docks at work and most of the physical labor is done by twenty-somethings. By the time one has worked in the department a few years, he's likely to be a shift supervisor. Most menial jobs seem to have pretty high turnover.

Is the company obligated to employ and pay Greg, or even Gregg, the wages he receives because of government interference? Or are they just providing private sector welfare?

By this I mean that the tendency is for younger people to earn less than their elders for the same work.

I've noticed that as soon as I turned 19, and my employer is obliged to pay me $15 an hour, that I'm only getting a single shift a week. This leaves me some $70 a week, which is not enough for me to save money, or even pay for transport, etc. I can't afford anything besides my necessities without drawing into what i've saved, which i'd rather not touch. When I was 18, earning $12.50 an hour, I got 2-3 shifts a week, bringing in anywhere from $130-$200 a week. I could afford to save, and go out once a week. Having spied on what the 16 year olds that earn about $9 an hour get, many of them are working 4 or 5 shifts a week. They earn around $180 a week, sometimes more.

Personally, I believe this practice completely looney. For starters, "Younger people don't need as much pay because they have less things to spend it on, it's just pocketmoney, etc." doesn't hold true. These kids are still in high-school, and sometimes earn 3 times what I do.

Secondly, it's also unfair on them in another way- They do the same work I do, and get paid much less per hour.

Now, I believe if the employer paid all workers the same, I believe it would be far more efficient. The younger kids will earn more per hour and thus work less for the same money, and i'll have my shifts balance out and end up better off overall, even if I may have to endure a small pay cut (If anything, i'll get a payrise or at least remain level, which i'm perfectly happy with. Salaries keep going up until 21, where you earn about $19 an hour as a casual worker.) The company doesn't really stand to lose much money.

Anyone agree? Disagree?

(Yes, yes, i've been told to get a different job. Yet this is precisely why I find it so difficult to get another one, who would employ me over a 16 year old who is just as capable?)
You're working in the wrong industry entirely if this is a serious problem. (it sounds a lot like it is), and I mean that sincerely. Any job that only needs you for a day or two, no matter how well that day pays, is probably going to be an experience in getting screwed. "Fair" has not a damned thing to do with it, either. Working in Manufacturing at $9 an hour, I'm pulling down $300 a week. It's hard work, but they really can't just arbitrarily cut your hours in that kind of setting, even when you go up in pay under the employment contract.

Service industries, on the other hand, have much, much, more "Flexible" hours-they can screw you over much more easily, because, frankly, more people with qualifications are available than there are positions to fill than even mind-numbing grunt factory work, and while some might require a bit of skill, the ease of hiring replacements at lower pay is much more 'enhanced'.

(snip)
Hang on here. "socialised income"? This is anything but socialised. How is the company cutting costs by using younger employees to do the same work socialist? I agree that it's inefficient, if not blatantly unfair, but it's essentially a capitalist idea geared towards decreasing overhead and as a result increasing profit.



I'm tired and have been drinking a bit, plus your post was pretty long, so please forgive me if I don't address all of your questions and/or ramble on a bit.

It is socialized income because it is not the market, the employer or your contribution which dictates the diffrence your income - it is government interference. Setting a minimum wage is one thing, but selecting a comprehensive pay scale based on nothing having anything to do with business (age!) is completely different and reeks of socialism.

Meanwhile, you say that there is nothing more that you can contribute or do at your company to distinguish yourself. I would beg to differ. If that is your attitude then you have already lost. Unless ther is a union there preventing you from doing anything but a strict adhereance to your job discription there is much you can do to expand your value to your employer.

Attitude is everything. Look at it from your bosses POV. What things would you want to see done? It could be as simple as setting a bet with your boss that your team can produce a certain amount more one day to the next, and betting a pizza on it. It could be arriving a few minutes early and cleaning your workspace and staying a few minutes later to do it also. It could be something as simple as adopting the companies culture in your work life. Sometimes simply having a positive outlook and letting it spread to your team is all it takes.

If you are observant and motivated you will find ways to stand above the crowd. An excuse of 'my supervisor does not like me' is defeatist and unacceptable. If you are contributing to their bottom line they will like you. The question is, how much do you like them? How much do you like your job? If you can't answer those in the affirmative then it is time to move on - staying is only selling your soul.

Whilst there are a lot of good arguments here for not paying wages based on the age of the employee, I have my personal reasons for thinking that, in certain sectors, wages should be based on age.

Long story short, where I currently work part-time (a hateful, hateful supermarket...), the company deliberately promotes those not entitled to minimum or adult wage to supervisory positions. Even though they're one 'band' higher than me on the company pay scale, they still only earn a fraction of what I do an hour.

It also reflects badly on the company itself. Who wants to have a problem whilst out shopping, only to find that the supervisor called over to help them is a midget with acne more interested in earning some pocket money than dealing with customer complaints?

I still voted 'good', though. Mostly because I am vindictive, and the thought that the schoolkids that I was probably ID'ing for cigarettes last month and have now dropped out of school and try to tell me how to run my tobacco counter get paid nearly £2 less per hour than me, and have to pay tax on top of that, makes me very happy indeed. :D

Work for UPS. They don't discrimate based on age like some idiots do. (No joke. If I had to get a job with no educational expierence, I'd go work for UPS. They offer benefits for all employees regardless of age, and promotions regardless of age.)

http://www.upsjobs.com/cgi-bin/parse-file?TEMPLATE=/htdocs/index.html

Proper result is to let free-market forces fix wages. Not mandatory government wage structures.

Are wages really structured by age in Australia? Is that a legal requirement?


It is socialized income because it is not the market, the employer or your contribution which dictates the diffrence your income - it is government interference. Setting a minimum wage is one thing, but selecting a comprehensive pay scale based on nothing having anything to do with business (age!) is completely different and reeks of socialism.

It's not a legal requirement, to the best of my knowledge. Some small places pay everybody the same amount, I believe, and it could be industry-specific (I have a friend who is a waiter and I think he earns just as much as anyone older than he). So i'm pretty sure it's a retail industry convention only. I can't guarantee that though.


Meanwhile, you say that there is nothing more that you can contribute or do at your company to distinguish yourself. I would beg to differ. If that is your attitude then you have already lost. Unless ther is a union there preventing you from doing anything but a strict adhereance to your job discription there is much you can do to expand your value to your employer.

Attitude is everything. Look at it from your bosses POV. What things would you want to see done? It could be as simple as setting a bet with your boss that your team can produce a certain amount more one day to the next, and betting a pizza on it. It could be arriving a few minutes early and cleaning your workspace and staying a few minutes later to do it also. It could be something as simple as adopting the companies culture in your work life. Sometimes simply having a positive outlook and letting it spread to your team is all it takes.

If you are observant and motivated you will find ways to stand above the crowd. An excuse of 'my supervisor does not like me' is defeatist and unacceptable. If you are contributing to their bottom line they will like you. The question is, how much do you like them? How much do you like your job? If you can't answer those in the affirmative then it is time to move on - staying is only selling your soul.

You make fair points, and I understand, but to be quite frank, this workplace is not like that. If it were, then that would be nice.

For starters, my supervisors randomly change. There's no teamwork to really speak of, I have my responsibilities, and if I can't meet them on my own, I call my supervisor and they take care of it (I bag groceries, not produce anything, as i'm sure i've said). There is little to no interaction on a work level with any of the other employees.I should differentiate, also- "supervisors" have very little authority. They aren't allowed to make decisions on their own. They are there to fix problems and count change only. "Managers" are the people I need to impress, yet I've *never* actually met any of them. I don't have a boss, I have about 30 bosses at various levels. So not only am I not going to spend all of my money on pizza ;), impressing someone enough to get a pay increase is pretty difficult, because there's no one person that can say "You've been doing a good job, how would you like a small promotion?"

Oh, and I already do extra work before and after my shift, because I usually get there early, so rather than sitting and staring into space i'd rather do something, and it's also absolutely impossible to finish on time.

And I readily admit that I don't particularly like my job- who would? Doesn't mean I let that show in my attitude at work, though. I'd like to find another job, but this is also my point- it's nigh-on-impossible for a 19 year old to find gainful employment. Too old for the bare minimum wage, and too young to have any real qualifications. I'm looking for something else, but i've had no luck recently.

You're working in the wrong industry entirely if this is a serious problem. (it sounds a lot like it is), and I mean that sincerely. Any job that only needs you for a day or two, no matter how well that day pays, is probably going to be an experience in getting screwed. "Fair" has not a damned thing to do with it, either. Working in Manufacturing at $9 an hour, I'm pulling down $300 a week. It's hard work, but they really can't just arbitrarily cut your hours in that kind of setting, even when you go up in pay under the employment contract.

Service industries, on the other hand, have much, much, more "Flexible" hours-they can screw you over much more easily, because, frankly, more people with qualifications are available than there are positions to fill than even mind-numbing grunt factory work, and while some might require a bit of skill, the ease of hiring replacements at lower pay is much more 'enhanced'.

Yeah, I realise this. The only problem is that i'm studying, so I don't really have the time to get a job requiring more hours than the one i'm doing now.

Whilst there are a lot of good arguments here for not paying wages based on the age of the employee, I have my personal reasons for thinking that, in certain sectors, wages should be based on age.

Long story short, where I currently work part-time (a hateful, hateful supermarket...), the company deliberately promotes those not entitled to minimum or adult wage to supervisory positions. Even though they're one 'band' higher than me on the company pay scale, they still only earn a fraction of what I do an hour.

It also reflects badly on the company itself. Who wants to have a problem whilst out shopping, only to find that the supervisor called over to help them is a midget with acne more interested in earning some pocket money than dealing with customer complaints?

I still voted 'good', though. Mostly because I am vindictive, and the thought that the schoolkids that I was probably ID'ing for cigarettes last month and have now dropped out of school and try to tell me how to run my tobacco counter get paid nearly £2 less per hour than me, and have to pay tax on top of that, makes me very happy indeed. :D

Interesting. Well, i'm one of those people "not entitled to minimum or adult wage" but they probably won't promote me to a supervisory position...so I guess you can see the predicament, here :p

Doesn't bagging groeceries involve lots of customer contact?

Dude! THAT is where the money is! Schmooze the shoppers shamelessly. Make them want to come back and look forward to seeing you. Make them ask for you. There is so much you can do when you have customer contact. Best of all, sometimes your customers may also be employers....

You will not work your way up in any field/pay until you put in your 'grunt' time. There aren't many 19yr old senior managers. With experience comes value. You have to sell yourself to everyone you meet. Be the employee that everyone would wish they can clone. Personality and production.

Oh, and bagging groceries is still production, just not in the common term. You are producing a service. Want a bet you can make with managemnt? How about this; "Today I will get five people to tell you how much they love shopping at this store". Then, simply ask people to do so while you are providing service. "Was your experience good here today? Is there anything I could do to help? You know, my manager is a bid down today, do you suppose on the way out you could just stop by and tell him how much you enjoy shopping in his store". voila.

(note, I said manager and not superisor - supervisors often havee no financial interest in your production. They can be schmucks. )