Just when you thought age discrimination couldn’t possibly cause any more problems, it’s come up in the context of the national minimum wage.
The Employers Forum on Age (EFA) is campaigning against the 18-21-year banding, saying it discriminates on the grounds of age.
Unlike the challenge to the statutory retirement age by Heyday, EFA has not taken the court route. Instead, it is actively lobbying the government and is receiving support for an early day motion, with 88 signatures representing cross-party support.
EFA director Sam Mercer said: “We are frustrated by the refusal to address the fact that under the current bands, 18-21 year-olds are paid less, simply because of their age and irrespective of their capabilities or responsibilities.
”We believe this constitutes direct age discrimination and is sending out completely the wrong message to employers about the consequence of making decisions based on age in the workplace.
“While we support the existence of the youth rate for 16-17 year olds due to the statutory restrictions on the work they can undertake, a development rate for inexperienced workers should not be based on age and should only be applied for a short term.”
Mercer continues, “We are calling on the government to equalise all minimum wage standards for those over 18. Age discrimination in employment became illegal on 1 October last year – the current argument from the government that employers might potentially avoid taking on younger workers if they had to pay them the same amount as workers over 21 is simply reinforcing the discriminatory practices that the legislation was designed to eradicate.”
2 Responses
Applause
“Let’s first applaud any discrimination against age (or race, or creed, or gender).”
Cor, I had to laugh!
Age discrimination
Let’s first applaud any discrimination against age (or race, or creed, or gender).
But may we also be spared from the lobbyists of any partial re-interpretation of the principles of anti-age discrimination for special interest groups?
I have several clients, especially in the public sector, where salary banding may be more rigid and formalised, who need first to retain more experienced staff because they acknowledge this experience is essential (not just in delivering their employers’ services but also to train those that follow them), and secondly to employ the essential principles of continuous improvement with some awareness of how and why their organisations ever got to where they are now, so that they can at least learn the lessons from the past.
I don’t support paying 18-21 year-olds less *solely* because of their age (and I have 4 daughters who might agree on this!) – but given tight budgets, we must surely also leave room to reward and retain those with greater experience?
Nit-picking the legislation may be fair-game for lobbyists, special interest groups and lawyers – well, of course it is! – but not for politicians whose original intentions were clear and for those of us who have real organisations to run?
Just a very private thought.
Jeremy