Old enough to know better

Bloggers4Labour has an excellent post today on Andy Morton's proposals on the Compass website to scrap the national youth minimum wage. Responding to Morton's characterisation of the policy as 'ageist', Bloggers4Labour says:

What is it about ageism we really find offensive? Surely it would be the thought that workers with a great deal of experience, who are no less able to perform a particular job, are discriminated against at, or even before, job interviews, and find it very difficult to re-enter the job market. Do these same factors tell against workers under the age of 22? Clearly young workers do not have to face the prospect of early retirement, or de-skilling, with no prospect of earning decent money again. In the real world, experience is vital for one's career prospects, but young workers generally can't offer this to potential employers. Sure, this doesn't apply to all industries, and it doesn't apply to all young workers, as some will be highly talented. The NMW, however, applies to all, irrespective of industry, talent, and passion. Furthermore, are we saying that highly effective young workers can only expect to advance at the Government's behest?

I too am sceptical of an absolute concept of age discrimination in the workplace. Previous anti-discrimination legislation was formulated to tackle the prejudice faced by discreet groups in society: ethnic minorities, women, gay people. A white man, for instance, is never going to encounter the prejudice potentially faced by a black woman in the course of her work and life. It is entirely right that she is afforded the full and rigorous protection of the law against discrimination on the grounds of her gender and race.

Age, however, is something that happens to everyone. In the course of an average life, most of us can expect to experience what it is like to be young, middle aged and old. Furthermore, in our daily lives we 'discriminate' against people on grouds of age all the time. Children under 16, for instance, are required by law to go to school. Is society discriminating against them? Or is this a sensible policy for children of that age? When it comes to issues of age, the language and claims of identity politics can often cloud rather than clarify the issue in hand.

With regards to employment, common sense tells us that different skills and qualities are more likely to be associated with different stages of the life-cycle. A 18 year-old is unlikely to have the experience to bring to a job of a 40 year-old – anyone who has seen the look of fear in an intern’s eyes when the office phone rings can tell you that. Therefore, It is appropriate that the additional risks incurred by employers in taking on inexperienced young people should be reflected in the differing protections afforded to young people in work. As Bloggers4Labour suggests, scrapping the youth NMW could also have wider social consequences: risking a potential ossification of the youth labour market leading to problems of structural youth unemployment - similar to those that underlay the riots in the Paris suburbs last year.

It is right that the govenment should try to avoid this fate with a differential minimum wage. After all, the lower minimum wage given to workers below the age of 22 is not a permanent state of affairs for them. And the small cost in equity is more than made up for by gains in employment and social cohesion.

Comments

[Seasider]

You might be interested in my response to Andy Morton's post as follows:

You are right to say there is plenty of ageism directed at young people, both direct and more subtle. It is usually demonstrated at work by a failure to provide necessary training, lack of trust in ability and/or reliability, or a simple lack of patience.

The debate on age discrimination is a sound basis for a trade union campaign to recruit young people. I hope they will take full advantage of it, as they badly need to recruit more younger members.

I've discussed this issue with employers from time to time. They all tend to say the same things.

With more and more young people going into further and higher education, there are fewer and fewer 16 and 17 year olds they would consider employing. Those who leave school at 16 these days are usually found to be completely ill-equipped for work.

For low-skill work, employers want people they can train quickly and on-the-job, who don't require basic training in literacy, numeracy and social skills - which sadly many 16 year old school leavers do. As one employer said to me, "If they're any good at anything these days, they've gone to college". So the average 16 year old is perceived (fairly or unfairly) to be of fairly low ability.

Employers will also say "If I have to pay an adult wage, I'll employ an adult". Why should they go to the bother of hiring someone they have to train in the basics, when they can hire someone with experience who needs the bare minimum of trainng?

I imagine this is what the Government will have heard from the CBI, and it goes some way to explaining why the NMW youth rate has been exempted from the age discrimination legislation.

It's one of those things that on the face of it seems unfair and even potentially directly discriminatory. However, there would need to be reasonable grounds established for the exemption. I suppose there was a compelling case made that it would not be in the interests of 16 year olds to make them even less attractive to employ than they already are.

In order to prove that age discrimination (like race, sex or disability discrimination) in recruitment has taken place, a claimant must successfully argue that the decision not to employ her/him was based on age.

In fact, most employers will recruit on the basis of (usually) reasonable requirements for minimum skills and experience. So in those circumstances the law won't actually offer much protection to young people with few skills and little experience.

Very few employers would hire a school-leaver with no useful experience on an adult wage. Youth unemployment would increase dramatically, especially at a time when employers have lots of choice as more immigrants are available (often with very good qualifications and experience, if little English) to take low skill jobs.

The fact is the Government can make age discrimination illegal, but the law cannot force employers to employ and train 16 and 17 year olds when they have an abundance of other, better candidates to choose from.

[Nick]

I think the point about experience is a bit dubious - there are plenty of older people who enter the jobs market with no experience after all, but they still get protected by the NMW.

And most young people work in sectors and occupations where in actual fact experience isn't really a big issue and the level of skills needed is low to non-existent; but where employment practice tends to be poor. These are good reasons to extend the protections of an active labour market policy rather than restrict them.

[Seasider]

The point is that if employers have to pay an adult wage they will employ an adult. They will only employ a school-leaver if they have an incentive. The 16-17 year old NMW rate gives them that incentive.

Take that incentive away and youth unemployment will rise.

[David Floyd]

"In the real world, experience is vital for one's career prospects, but young workers generally can't offer this to potential employers."

I'm not clear how the 'experience' question justifies one shelf-stacker being paid less than another shelf-stacker purely on the grounds of age.

Of course, people can be paid more or offered jobs on the basis of their experience.

The question is whether two people doing exactly the same jobs should be paid differently - it's not acceptable to discriminate in this way on the basis of race or gender.

All that said, I don't think the old/young question is an either/or. I'm just as worried about the problems faced by older people trying to stay or get back into the job market. We need a system that's fair to everyone.

[Gavin Hayes]

These arguments about preserving the youth exemptions in the minimum wage have in my view no real founding whatsoever. In fact these types of arguments are all to similar to the ridiculous scare stories and unfounded economic 'evidence' the Tories, CBI and IoD peddled about when the minimum wage was first introduced and people made quite similar arguments to these with regards to the equal pay act to end discrimination between men and women. The fact of the matter is and as the Amazing Mrs Pritchard would say 'this isn't rocket science', that minimum wage jobs tend to be jobs that are the lowest paid and require the lowest skill. So as many have already pointed out why should a young person stacking shelves, serving food in restaurants, washing dishes or standing at the production line, be paid any less than an older person doing exactly the same job to exactly the same standard? These jobs still need to be done, an employer isn't going to stop employing a good young worker because they have to pay them a relatively small amount more to bring them in line with their slightly older colleagues. Its totally immoral, wrong and its blatant discrimination. Our party was founded on the principle of fairness to all and we must ensure that is reflected in government policy and I'm afraid it isn't fully reflected in the minimum wage as it is at present. Is this really the forward march of Progress?! :-)

[el Tom]

Nick, if people have to pay 'an adult wage', they may employ an adult... but the question is, why?

On the basis of experience?

Well then we're talking about experience, not age.

Surely employers, on the premise of a single minimum wage, will pick whoever is best for the job?

Why does that mean older people? Particualrly when in the majority of minimum wage jobs the people with the most relevant experience will probably be young. How many older people do you know who, like myself, can claim for years of experience in a godawful pizza hut kitchen?

Age is not experience, and vice versa. Different pay or allocation of employment per se is justifiable on the basis of experience, the alternative is madness.

But should it be based on age, as the NMW currently is?

On a second point, I am an adult, but as a 21 year old with my own home and bills to pay, am still not entitled to a full NMW... I can barely afford to do my degree, I count pennies. Great way to widen access to education, this.

[Nick]

El Tom - it was Seasider making that argument not me! The names appear below the post, not above. I'm actually agreeing with you, and I think that Progress are making making some slightly dubious points for a nominally left of centre organisation.

[Mark Day]

Hello all,

I feel slightly like I have hijacked someone elses argument (sorry Bloggers4Labour!) but its good to have you all here.

In response to your comments, my main point would be it is absurd to pretend that labour market interventions such as the minimum wage are without potential economic (and therefore social) consequences. As seasider highlights, there is no onus on employers to give jobs to young people and, given the choice of an inexperienced school-leaver or someone with a few years of jobbing behind them, they are more likely to opt for the latter.

THe differential NMW, although in principle inequlitable, at least gives young people a more decent chance of landing a job in the first place. Similarly, policies which may on the surface appear driven by a concern for equality can in fact turn out to have deeply inequitable and socially divisive consequences. The high levels of employment protection in France are undoubtably a factor in the high rates of youth unemployment which led to the riots in the Parisian suburbs last year. The potential risks incurred by French companies under the country's employment laws means that there is simply no incentive for them to take on an inexperienced young person. As a consequence, large numbers end up disaffected in the Paris suburbs.

Nick, David Floyd and el tom: I accept that age does not always correlate with experience or the ability to do a job but to say there is no connection whatsoever is equally untrue. All cut offs on the basis of age (consent, voting, drinking etc) face the problem of being in some sense arbitrary but equally there are normally also good reasons for having them (see above).

Furthermore, discriminating against someone because they are under 22 really is not the same as discriminating against someone because they are black, gay or a women. I really do think using the language of identity politics in this context is faintly ridiculous: you are not going to be young forever! Also, we shouldn't forget the reason anyone enjoys the protection of a minimum wage at all (differentiated or not) is thanks to a Labour government.

Gavin: The fact you appear to enjoy The Amazing Ms Pritchard I am afraid says it all. (By the way, didn't you used to work here?)

[el Tom]

Sorry Nick.

Marik, I'm having a problem understanding why being temporarily part of a catagory of people makes it any less arbitrary to make rues against that catagory.

Who's forgetting that Labour gave us a minimum wage? If anything, our wanting to extend it is more of an endorsement of the principles behind it than this article is willing to make.

the problem with the French proposals is not that they offer too high a wage and too much employment protection for the young. It is that their conservative party is too unwilling to legislate against discriminatory employment practices.

As you say, age does not always correlate with experience. I would go further and say that age does not correlate with many other skills and attributes required across the whole employment spectrum, which is why the elderly (that state too is temporary) deserve the same minmum wage and anti-discrimination legislation as everybody else.

There are certain stereotypical reasons that employers gave for sacking old people, who receive a top rate NMW (a 'top rate minimum': what a perverse concept), ie/ that they were not as desirable as other employees.

The same goes for the young. Why base how people are treated at work on stereotypes rather than the case in hand, especially when the Labour Party and the EU think this quite workable with regard to the elderly?

First, you will pay us less. then, you will use us as a case study, and freeze the NMW for everyone else too.

Racing to the bottom to submit to the bad parts of globalisation.

[Mark Day]

>Hi el tom. Thanks for your comments. Response to your points below. Incidentally, in response to an earlier comment by Gavin I just want to make clear that these are my own views and not those of Progress.

Sorry Nick.

Marik, I'm having a problem understanding why being temporarily part of a catagory of people makes it any less arbitrary to make rues against that catagory.

>Are all rules based on age entirely arbitrary then? Should 14 year olds be allowed to drive JCB diggers?

Who's forgetting that Labour gave us a minimum wage? If anything, our wanting to extend it is more of an endorsement of the principles behind it than this article is willing to make.

>But the principle could prove self defeating if it leads to high rates of youth unemployment.

the problem with the French proposals is not that they offer too high a wage and too much employment protection for the young. It is that their conservative party is too unwilling to legislate against discriminatory employment practices.

>I simply don't accept your argument here. Are you saying that all problems of economic stagnation and structural unemployment are a result of discriminatory employment practices? Has economics really nothing to teach us?

As you say, age does not always correlate with experience. I would go further and say that age does not correlate with many other skills and attributes required across the whole employment spectrum, which is why the elderly (that state too is temporary) deserve the same minmum wage and anti-discrimination legislation as everybody else.

>Being elderly is not in fact a temporary (ie reversable) state unless Oil of Ulay really have found a miracle cure for ageing! The young at least have the consolition they will get older and have a whole life ahead of them in which to fulfill their ambitions. The old do not. Are you really saying age and experience ought to count for nothing? Perhaps every human quality of leadership/team work etc can be boiled down to a serious of simple psychometric tests? It sounds a pretty cruel form of meritocracy you are proposing.

There are certain stereotypical reasons that employers gave for sacking old people, who receive a top rate NMW (a 'top rate minimum': what a perverse concept), ie/ that they were not as desirable as other employees.

The same goes for the young. Why base how people are treated at work on stereotypes rather than the case in hand, especially when the Labour Party and the EU think this quite workable with regard to the elderly?

>The thrust of my argument was not that employers should be allowed to sack people for being young. THat would of course be quite wrong (and is now illegal). It was rather that there needs to be adequete incentive for employers to take on young people in the first place. I would say that a rise in the rate of youth unemployment would be a bigger deal for most young people than the issue of a differentiated NMW.

First, you will pay us less. then, you will use us as a case study, and freeze the NMW for everyone else too.

Racing to the bottom to submit to the bad parts of globalisation.

>Now who is stereotyping! I support the minimum wage and the principles behind it but believe it needs to be implemented with regard to its potential economic and social impact, particularly with regard to the youth labour market. The nature of peoples' entry point into the work force (including whether they can get a job in the first place) is a key determinent of their longterm prosperity. Any social democrat worth their salt would be foolish not to heed the potentially negative social effects of apparently 'equitable' policies.

[Seasider]

Anyone arguing that age and experience counts for nothing must be under 25. The fact that many jobs may require little in the way of skills is rather beside the point.

Employers percieve older workers as more used to the rigours of the workplace, better at fitting in, more adept at communication and social skills and less likely to sleep in and muck them around. It's a fact.

That's why they need an incentive to employ school leavers, and why 16 and 17 year olds will lose out in the jobs market if that incentive is taken away.

That's why the Government, wisely in my view, has exempted the NMW from the age discrimination legislation. They don't want to see a negative effect on the employability of 16 and 17 year olds.

For all the reasons I already set out, 16 and 17 year olds need that extra help, and the Government will not be doing this because it feels a bit mean, or is being nasty and ignoring its own age discrimination legislation.

If hollow sloganeering is your thing, however, this is a great campaign to join.

[el tom]

"Employers percieve older workers as more used to the rigours of the workplace, better at fitting in, more adept at communication and social skills and less likely to sleep in and muck them around. It's a fact."

Is this not the argument I made earlier?

Employers percieve older people as 'less modern', less able to communicate with customers, slow, difficult to train, and a health risk.

Is that fair? Why should they be discriminated against on the basis of stereotypes?

We can accurately target the undeserving that don't deserve decent pay: If someone mucks you areound, or doesn't get out of bed, sack them. If they give you the same things an older employee does, pay them the same wage.

[David Floyd]

"Anyone arguing that age and experience counts for nothing must be under 25."

I'm not under 25 but that I don't think any of the people disagreeing with you were arguing that experience counts for nothing.

The point is that age and experience are not the same thing and the current minimum wage doesn't value experience, it discriminates on the basis of age.

Someone who left school at sixteen and has five years experience in a job can legally be paid less than someone over the age of 22 who is just starting that job.

"The fact that many jobs may require little in the way of skills is rather beside the point."

It's not beside the point when one of the points is that over-22's are entitled to more money - for doing the same jobs - because they have more skills.