The SDA (essentially the shop workers union) has lodged a claim in the Fair Work Commission for those who turn 18 to be paid an adult wage.

http://www.moneymag.com.au/should-18-year-olds-be-paid-adult-wages

I am concerned many employers won't take on young people anymore, particularly those with little to no experience. They won't get a foot in the door and it will be difficult for them to get future work and employment.

On the other hand, young people often do the same work as other people and yet they get paid different rates. So, you could argue such a move is fair and reasonable. They do also face costs of living just like everyone else.

I'm not sure though if the full implications of the move have been taken into account by the union, including the costs on youth and on business.

I'm wondering what people think of this move by the union and if it is justified.

It's up to the FWC and the union. What anyone else thinks means diddly squat.

An idiotic situation brought on by idiots in an idiotic system.
We have a thing appropriately called an apprenticeship to learn the ropes until competent. Some are slow learners, some will never learn & a few will always be ahead of the rest. So what if someone is good at the job earlier than another, just finish your time & then you get paid. If you think you're that good that you deserve more than others go into business, as simple as that !
Do your time & be done with it. prove your merit before demanding equality.
Learn some patience & give & take. Do your time, get up to scratch then worry about equality but not before. This is the deplorable situation that was kicked off when the Goaf sold National Service for votes from the useless. Now the useless demand equality for unequal performance.

Around 86% of 18 year olds were still engaged in education in 2024.

Fewer than 4% of them who do work are in a union - the same as most workers these days.

Eighteen year olds are too immature to vote. Like everyone else, their brains are not fully formed until the age of 25. That they are allowed to vote is just another cynical piece of politics.

The union is just looking for attention: wasting its few members’ money.

There are people more worthy of attention and sympathy than texting, selfie -taking eighteen year old know-all, know-nothings.

Not necessarily Nathan J
I'm not sure whether fast food is SDA like Coles and Woolies, but I know that in some situations the kids not only get paid less, but they also work harder and faster than adults, take McDonalds as an example.

Many don't have their own cars yet, and although they get a lower wage, costs such as rent if not living at home remain the same, and because they have to do 100 hours and wait a year to get their 'Ps' they are spending significant amounts on Uber etc.

I have a friends daughter working at Maccas, she just turned 17.
I told her she should go and do DoorDash when she turns 18, she can earn $1800 a week picking groceries at Coles ad delivering them, not have any adults over her shoulder telling her what to do, and work her own hours and skip the junior wages as she's paid as a subcontractor.

WTF?

ttbn states: "Fewer than 4% of them who do work are in a union - the same as most workers these days."

If that is the case then the bleatings that we often see about poor workers and productivity must be a response to business models rather than union action.

My take is that there were less complaints about the cost of living when the workforce was more highly unionised.

ttbn also states: "Eighteen year olds are too immature to vote. Like everyone else, their brains are not fully formed until the age of 25."

Yet we often see here on OLO cries to bring back National Service.
So it seems OK to have 18 year old submit to the hazing and bullying of the army. It's OK to train them in martial competence when their brains are still developing.

Talk about indoctrination.