How low can they go?
Today Sue B’s Bill to scrap the youth minimum wage gets its first reading in Parliament, secure in the knowledge that it will be supported through to Select Committee by Labour, United Future, the Maori Party and of course the Greens. There’s been lots of debate about the Bill, which is great, and the fact that it has coincided with the rise of the Unite union, who are lobbying on this very issue, has meant that the issue of the youth wage, and minimum wages in general, have been high in the public consciousness of late.
Out of interest, I’ve been reading about pay scales at Restaurant Brands Ltd, who own Pizza Hut, KFC, and Starbucks:
- A 15-year-old youth worker earns a starting rate of $6.89 per hour at Pizza Hut, and $7.13 per hour at KFC, well below the youth minimum wage of $7.60. Starbucks is better, with a base rate for all ages of $10.00.
- Probably the average worker, a 17-year-old worker with 12 months’ experience, will earn $8.52 at Pizza Hut.
- The maximum a worker aged under 18 can earn at Pizza Hut, even if they are a sole charge shift supervisor, is $10.81. At KFC the maximum is $11.87
Scary stuff. Another interesting fact is that youth workers aged under 18 leading a shift at Pizza Hut get paid between $7.40 and $8.77, all below the adult minimum wage. This effectively means that they are supervising adult workers, who are earning more than them! This seems grossly unfair.
The Herald has a good piece outlining the main arguments in the debate on youth wages today. The Bill is expected to come before the house at around 7.30pm tonight.
[EDIT] KFC Henderson workers are taking industrial action on this issue RIGHT NOW!
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:37 pm
The Herald article left out the most fundamental issue: no-one has the right to interfere with voluntary interaction between two adults. If I want to hire someone at a particular wage, and he or she wants to work for it - that’s our business.
Of course, that’s leaving aside other pragmatic arguments. As P.C. asks:
“You have a business selling burgers/fried chicken/coffee. Two people apply for a job. One is a sixteen-year-old who’s never worked before. The other is older, with some experience and a good work record. The government says you must pay them equally. Whom do you employ?”
Finally, I presume that every single one of you complaining about youth rates also boycotts every business that pays youth rates?
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:47 pm
At BurgerKing I receive $9.60/hr - 1yr after it goes up to $9.80
I had a cleaning job and the boss said “Everyone does about the same job, cleaning, cleaning this, cleaning that, you get the same pay and theres no reason why anyone younger doing the same work should get a lower pay.”
February 22nd, 2006 at 7:09 pm
“You have a business selling burgers/fried chicken/coffee. Two people apply for a job. One is a sixteen-year-old who’s never worked before. The other is older, with some experience and a good work record. The government says you must pay them equally. Whom do you employ?�
Guys with experience and a good work record typically don’t apply for fast-food places unless they’re really desperate. Fast-food places are the only places that will hire teenagers whether or not they’re desperate.
Quite frankly, I’d rather the 20 year old with a rent payment due get the job than the 16 year old. (assuming the 16 year old doesn’t have a rent payment due.)
February 22nd, 2006 at 8:46 pm
The government says you must pay them equally. Whom do you employ?�
I didn’t realise that the government was saying you had to pay them equally. I thought that the business could pay whatever they wanted, as long as they paid the minimum wage. Oh, I get it, the older guy with experience is only getting the minimum wage. Why is that?
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:33 am
Im a computer technician myself - I can get myself setup in work but I dont want to be just another computer technician in Taupo, theres to many as it is…
Now Im highly more skilled at computers than most “qualified” computer technicians today… Now Im only 21 and the other guy maybe a bit younger qualifying for the youth wage. If we go for the job - it pays minimum wage for example. If we both got employed - i get more than him since Im older even though were doing the exact same job.
What the government wants to do is make the minimum wage equal for both youth and normal. That means since hes younger he’ll get the minimum wage as I would - not a youth one but if the wage is $10 - he’ll get $10 just like me.
Now if I arrange a contract for $16 an hour and he gets a minimum wage contract - thats ok. but what the government wants to get rid of is the fact that minimum wage for me isn’t the same his minimum wage.
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:55 am
“The Herald article left out the most fundamental issue: no-one has the right to interfere with voluntary interaction between two adults. If I want to hire someone at a particular wage, and he or she wants to work for it - that’s our business.”
This works well for IT consultants and the like, where there is negotiation. However, when one party (e.g. giant global food corp) is much more powerful than the other, then there is no interaction, simply dictation of terms. The minimum wage is designed to protect the weakest and most vulnerable from explotation.
It amazes me that the right wingers go on about ‘get a job bludgers’, then proceed to deny them a decent wage when they do!
In any case, wages in New Zealand have not risen much even with the alleged ’skills shortage’, in fact they have fallen hugely in real terms since the 1980s, and this market failure needs to be addressed IMHO.
Hope this bill passes!
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:33 am
“The Herald article left out the most fundamental issue: no-one has the right to interfere with voluntary interaction between two adults. If I want to hire someone at a particular wage, and he or she wants to work for it - that’s our business.â€? That the Lord’s Prayer of the simplistic idealogical right - a demonstration of the power of faith in lieu of rational thought.
The whole reason we have employment law in the first place is because the negotiating power of the two parties is clearly not equal. The community - in the form of the state - not only has the right, it has the positive responsibility to set the boundaries within which negotiation can take place. Youths are clearly not adults, else we wouldn’t limit when the can drink, when they vote etc. And when they become adults they’re still deserving the protection of law in areas where they can be exploited.
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:34 am
this is a poor policy and demonstrates how devoid the Greens are of rwational thought and consequence of this type of legislation. While it may be popular with young people, it will not appeal to employers. Quite simply it will have a negative impact on young people, some who will end up on a benefit (as opposed to working) and the consequences will generally be more negative. I personally would not employ a 16 yr old over an 18 year old unless there was an incentive for doing so - such as a cheaper rate of pay. This would especially be the case if proposed increases to the minimum wage push the rate past $10 per hour.
Again you socialists fail to think thru the (unintended) consequences of your policies. You are not the employer. Leave your sticky beak out of the business of matters that do not really concern you.
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:52 pm
Is this a Green blog or an ACT one?
Quite frankly as an employer I expect to employ anyone capable of doing the job either right out of the box or with some suitable training. That is I expect a 16 year old to perform as well as a 36 year old as well as a 56 year old.
I also had experience of this as a 16 year old employee. Talk about an incentive to work. $2 per hour pumping gas during the day and $4.95 per hour at night cleaning (showing my age there I know
). boy I worked hard as a cleaner. My employers rationale was that I had to perform as an adult and should be paid accordingly. I relished it.
I think that any employer who considers that they need to pay youth rates to survive should not be in business at all. Anyone seeing Burger King or McD’s shutting up shop in NZ if they pay young people adult rates? I think not.
As an aside, ever consider how none of you would find it easy to survive on minimum wage, now think about what youth rates are like.?
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:28 pm
Here’s the crux of it: Any employer that “has to pay youth rates to survive” — well, that’s not a very healthy business, is it? And, for chrissakes, it’s not like the world can’t do without another McDonalds, Burger King, or another American fast food chain.
You know in America, we even have McDonalds in our WalMarts?
February 24th, 2006 at 12:19 am
petermck said “Again you socialists fail to think thru the (unintended) consequences of your policies. You are not the employer. Leave your sticky beak out of the business of matters that do not really concern you.”
Exploitation concerns everyone. It is only fair that working people earn a living wage. Since employers have not provided this, even while whinging about skills shortages (high demand), then clearly the government must legislate so they do.
The stingy employers federation were predicting 11% unemployment when the employment relations act came in, they have cried doom and gloom every time some minimal change in wages and conditions is put forth.
I would argue that increasing youth rates / min wage will make people more likely to seek work, as it is now hugely above the level of the dole…
February 24th, 2006 at 9:55 am
So petermck
In order to give people a livable wage - you will lobby the government to remove their employers’ subsidy aka “income support” and you will undertake to pay people the difference.
“Yeah right”, comes to mind.
February 24th, 2006 at 10:55 am
I am not sure of this, so perhaps others on this blog may help me, but I was under the impression that youth rates, and lower wages for women were set up for what at the time were legitimate socialist reasons. At the time, men were generally the bread winner and so adult male wages were set so that families could survice on them. Wages from women and children were supplementary and were priced accordingly.
Of course times change, and now earnings from all members of the family are necessary, and often women and children are supporting themselves. So the arguent has shifted to one of equal pay for equal work, something nobody could have any objection to on either socialist grounds (providing what people need) or capitalist grounds (incentive to work, as Scott points out).
February 24th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Sure - I think that two people doing identical work deserve extra pay.
However, I don’t think the Government has the right to pass legislation demanding that - just like I don’t think it has the right to pass legislation enforcing a minimum rate of pay.
Minimum wage laws don’t make a persons labour worth the minimum rate they stipulate - rather, they make anyone whose labour is worth less than that rate unemployable. They also raise prices of cheap food, commodities etc. - hitting the poor with the double whammy of unemployment and high costs of living.
February 24th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
kiore1 says:
“… under the impression that youth rates, and lower wages for women were set up for what at the time were legitimate socialist reasons” “men were GENERALLY the bread winner and so adult male wages were set so that families could survice on them. Wages from women and children were supplementary and were priced accordingly …”
Apart from the blatent inequality (in fact a method of control), at that time there was no thought about, nor provision for individuals and families whose lives were different from the norm.
A personal example: My mother and aunt , born in 1903 and 1905 were brought up by their mother who was widowed when the girls were 5 and 7. There were no benefits. My grandmother (who was lucky to have come from an educated family, and was a trained teacher) went back to teaching (full time), raised two daughters put them through University etc. WHEN SHE REACHED RETIREMENT AGE SHE WAS STILL BEING PAID LESS THAN A FIRST YEAR MALE TEACHER. Without the help of her own mother she would not have been able to manage raising two children and teaching full time. Throughout my mother’s childhood, she shared one bedroom with her mother and sister in her grandmother’s house. I have no idea what their lives would have been like if my grandmother had been “unqualified” (as most women were at that time) or unsupported by her extended family.
“Equal pay for equal work” is an excellent concept. Within a society worthy of the name, any differences in lifestyle or need can be compensated for in a well thought out tax system and benefit system.
Many of the Right with simplistic notions of “individual responsibility” seem to want us all “treated the same” with some (including themselves) being much more “equal” than others, especially when it comes to renumeration! Yet they seem unable to see shining examples of “individual responsibility” among (for example) many sole parents.
I won’t even start of the huge and growing discrepancy between the minimum wage and the amounts now being paid in “undisclosed packages” to so called top executives! (In this regard, I believe that we have fallen into potentially damaging trap by inappropriately copying this behaviour from other countries.)
eredwen
February 27th, 2006 at 8:43 am
Fast Bike …
As each person should be paid according to their market worth and economic contribution, I would be very happy to have no minimum wage — but rather each person negotiate a wage (or their union on that person’s behalf)
You socialists have no right to interfer (in spite of what you think) in telling an employer what they must pay a person. Each person does have choice in spite of what you think. If an employer offer say only $1 per hour then the employer would never find staff. if he offered $100 per hour he would be unindated with people. The minimum wage has been set at a level which is probably a happy / market medium for unskilled service for the majority of the market in recent times, but moving it dramitically (say to $12 per hour) may well upset that medium. The equivalient (with the holidays act) has already shown to upset the maet with many cafe operators now choosing to close on public holidays rather that be lumbered with opening and paig non marrket related wages on those days.
I Heard the arguement on the weekend “well corporates can afford to pay a higher wage (may be true) but the biggest employer is actually small businessses and individuals) who may not be able to pay the “non-market related wage. The loser is actually both the employee (who does not get the job) and the employer iwho is denied services (because he / she cannot afford the non-market related wage)
again more proof that socialism is stupid.
February 28th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
The minimum wage is the minimum standard. The fact is all you wage slaves are being paid the minimum wage now, as in the minimum we can get away with.