Is the government right to freeze minimum wage for young people? > Reviews (7)

So, national minimum wage is increasing by 1.8% from October 2012, but not for everyone, much to the dismay of union leaders.Is it fair that minimum wage hasn’t been increased for 16-20 year olds?I'm on the fence with this one. Minimum wage has always been a bone of contention with those that are on it, and a matter of little interest to those that aren't, who are earning above it.

From a statement by Vince Cable, it doesn’t sound like there is a very strong reasoning behind the freeze on minimum wage: "In these tough times freezing the youth rates has been a very hard decision - but raising the youth rates would have been of little value to young people if it meant it was harder for them to get a job in the long run.” Does anyone understand the logic in this? In January 2012, the cost of living rose by 3.6% (according to the recent Consumer Prices Index), so it is the under 20s that have families of their own, that I feel sorry for.

I want to play devil’s advocate, and take the view that this is fair. Of course, jobs are few and far between at the moment, but there are options out there if you look, properly. If someone isn't happy on minimum wage, do they make every effort to look for another job? If qualifications (or rather lack of) are getting in their way to finding a better path of employment, away from minimum wage, do they seek ways to improve their skill sets, by finding courses to up their employability?

Unfortunately, I'm a sceptic. I know too many people that revel in telling you how hard done by they are…you know the types - they love negativity because it gives them something to talk about. The issue that they're not getting paid enough rings out on a regular basis – which begs the question "so what are you doing about it?" I appreciate times are tough and that it is not always easy, but I admire those that are not particularly happy job wise, but are proactively trying to make it better! Doing this by working on their CV, attending interviews, scouring job boards.

There are so many people drone on about "but there are no jobs" …However, this is what confuses me: My company has jobs and always has a need for a steady stream of staff to fulfill campaign work. If you have skill and talent, we always find room for you. We pay above minimum wage (an excellent starting rate for 16-20 yr olds, truth be known) but when it comes to interviews, we regularly get no shows. We also see lots of people who tell us they are happy signing on. I’ve personally interviewed people that have told me they are taking their last employers to tribunal because they were treated like dirt...This is not what a potential employer wants to hear! Someone even told me once, in interview, that they don’t mind being a bum! Outrageous isn’t it? It’s easy to see why people are of the opinion that there seems to be no work ethic anymore!

If we’re trying to get the young into employment, then freezing minimum wage would certainly incentivise employers to give more jobs to younger folk - as it would keep an employer’s wages bill down.

As always though, you get what you pay for, so this would probably mean that an employer would be taking on lesser skilled staff. If a company wants to do well, especially with the economic climate as it is, you want the best staff, doing the best job they can. So, would you select an experienced professional, over an inexperienced youngster?

If the government wants to get more under 20s into employment, there should be more incentives to learn. We have apprenticeships getting set up, but I'm not sure if apprenticeships are a good idea, or I'd they just inspire slave labour (and seeing them get a rise by 5p an hour to £2.65 per hour, is still very low).

Perhaps in some delusional way, the government are trying to save money, instead of “wasting” it on the young. Of course, that’s an extreme idea, but Cable’s logic doesn’t really work either.

Taking the view that the freeze is not fair - I'm also on the side of under 20 year olds, and in particularly the under 18s. If a 16 year old can't vote and therefore is not entitled to have the same rights as an 18 year old (as defined by the government), why should they get the same treatment and pay freezes? For under 18s, surely it would be fairer to get the minimum wage, but tax free? Why should they be taxed, if they’re not allowed a right to say how the tax money should be spent…of course, I’m veering off onto another issue with that one…

Never the less, I hope I've given some food for thought. I see both sides, but can't really see a better solution for everyone...the power the politicians have, is a very scary concept to behold.

Thanks for reading

© MarcoG 2012