Yes won only just, yet the arguments voters rated highest all came from the No side, and all of them turned on one fear: that equal pay makes employers pass over the young.
The joint most-respected No cases were blunt about it. One said “Younger people should be on a smaller wage to encourage companies to hire them”; another that employers would take “older more experienced workers” when the premium is minimal. An SME owner said they “most likely just wouldn't bother employing them”. A conciliatory No voter conceded that “a narrower gap seems fairer” but still held the line.
The most-respected Yes case was plainer and rested on the work itself: “theres no reason a 50 year old stacking shelves and a 16 year old stacking the same shelves are getting paid different wages”. Others turned to bills, with one noting “Petrol isn’t cheaper if you’re under 21”. On experience, one Yes voter was dry: it “doesn’t take a whole lot of experience to stack shelves”.
The disagreement was over whether the work is in fact equal. One No voter even said they voted No on the assumption that, given inexperience, it is not equal work. A further No strand went past the question, calling for the minimum wage to be scrapped entirely, which no Yes voter echoed.
So the debate ran as a clash between a principle of equal pay and a prediction about who gets hired, and voters ended up narrowly on the side of the principle.
80 Opinions
They don't have the same level of experience. It will lead to employers taking on older more experienced workers as their premium compared to younger workers is minimal.
It rather depends. It's not a straightforward situation. Experience matters. It's less of a problem for organisations that have pay scales as length of service and experience is recognised. Doing the same job doesn't necessarily mean doing the same job as well. If you have someone who has worked in a role for 10 years and you suddenly pitch a 19 year old in on the same salary, it's likely to cause problems.
Younger people should be on a smaller wage to encourage companies to hire them. If they're paid the same the company will likely go for a older experienced applicant
If you are in a non skilled job then yes, theres no reason a 50 year old stacking shelves and a 16 year old stacking the same shelves are getting paid different wages. If your on minimum wage your probably not in a skilled job. An if you are in a skilled job on minimum wage you should probably look for a new workplace.
Scrap the minimum wage altogether. Pay should reflect skills, productivity, experience and the value of work, negotiated between employer and employee, not dictated by politicians. Young people need opportunities to gain experience, not wage floors that risk pricing them out of jobs. Equal work can justify equal pay, but compulsory rates ignore differences in capability. Let businesses hire, let people work and let wages rise through productivity rather than state decree.
No, but the gap should be narrowed. It is of course true that many under-21s have the same costs as those over, and are doing equal work, therefore a narrower gap seems fairer. But a completely equal minimum wage only discourages businesses from hiring younger workers at a time when youth unemployment is so high.
I own and manage an SME. We do sometimes employ youngsters. Some are great, but in general they are less reliable and less productive (not their fault - I was the same when I was 18!). If we had to pay the same rate we most likely just wouldn't bother employing them. It doesn't do youngsters any favours if you price them out of being able to get work.
We all start on the bottom rung so why should someone undergoing training get the same as someone who knows the job?
Younger workers are generally learning the ropes of their jobs which also includes the ethos of getting up everyday and going to work. It should be up to the employer to decide if they deserve a higher wage based on their performance.
The ability to undercut the market opens up a lot of opportunity for younger people. Forcing employers to match wages will simply result in the loss of relatively unproductive roles pitched at younger, cheaper, employees. There won't be job losses as such, but recruitment in this age bracket will fall considerably.