Youth Rates only an option

April 9th, 2013 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

blogs that businesses don’t want as McDonalds, Restaurant Brands, The Warehouse, Farmers, Kmart, Bunnings and Countdown have all said they won’t offer them.

This is the thing – the starting out wage is an option only. It is a minimum, not a maximum.

I employ a large number of young people at Curia. I would never dream of offering youth rates to my staff, because I deliberately pay for quality (in fact a recent industry survey showed our rates were the highest of all research companies that took part).

But what is right for some employers is not right for others. Flexibility is a good thing. For some employers being able to hire a 17 year old (or an 18 year old who has been on a benefit for six months) for a bit less, will mean they’ll offer them that job, rather than someone more experienced.  And getting people into their first job is critically important.

Tags: ,

8 Responses to “Youth Rates only an option”

  1. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    The left….economically clueless…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Spam (368 comments) says:

    Based on this logic, I look forward to NRT campaigning against the need for a minimum wage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. dime (10,224 comments) says:

    can you imagine if the big boys did offer youth rates?

    the attacks from the left. the smear campaigns etc

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Viking2 (11,686 comments) says:

    I employ a large number of young people at Curia. I would never dream of offering youth rates to my staff, because I deliberately pay for quality (in fact a recent industry survey showed our rates were the highest of all research companies that took part).

    Good for you. But, you are looking for staff that already have some skills.
    What about the 15 or 16 yr old who is distracted at school, just wants to work and will make a good employee. A person whose learning maturity may not fall into place until they become a few years older or whose talents are not that of computer whiz, maths entreprenure or all manner of elitist occupations.
    There are more wealthy plumbers, farmers, contractors than there are wealthy pollsters. Many of them started with a little education and continued to learn their whole life. In fact all of them.

    But you and others would discrimate against those of lower skills, bashing them up with the school teachers mojo and prevent them from earning a living by pricing their skills or lack of pout of what may be a market place for them.

    Why do people with status think they know whats best for everyone else?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. hamnidaV2 (247 comments) says:

    So let me understand this correctly. You think less is more?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. seanmaitland (501 comments) says:

    @Viking2 – then they get jobs and work for 6 months and get upskilled and then move to the adult rate. If they are serious about being a “good employee” as you make out, then they will do this no problems at all.

    It more looks like you are being deliberately obtuse than actually bothering to think things through.

    Your comment about “discriminating against those of lower skills” is either absolutely hilarious or absolutely pathetic. Can you show me an industry or job where those of lower skills don’t get paid less than those with better/higher skills? In your view, every single employer in the country is deliberately discriminating.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    I nominate Viking2’s “skills discrimination” comment for facepalm of the week.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    DPF,

    But what is right for some employers is not right for others. Flexibility is a good thing. For some employers being able to hire a 17 year old (or an 18 year old who has been on a benefit for six months) for a bit less, will mean they’ll offer them that job, rather than someone more experienced.

    I agree with the premise generally: i.e one size doesn’t fit all. But what is different about McDonalds, Countdown etc. in terms of the reason you just gave? Particularly given that these businesses don’t appear to be selling quality as much as they are offering competitive prices based on small margins.

    Also, if the reason is as you say, to offer employment to a young person “RATHER” than someone more experienced then doesn’t that rationale undermine the argument that youth rates increase unemployment overall since you seem to advance the notion that the reason youth rates are good is that it will give employers incentive over older folk with more experience. Surely this simply means a drop in youth unemployment will be mirrored by a rise in unemployment in other demographics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote