Listening to the radio yesterday (QLD ABC) I heard this guy saying it's time we pay senior wages from the age of 18, rather than 21.

So this will simply mean many will start work at 15/16/17, then loose their jobs at 18 and may never get another start as by the time the reach 25 they will have no or litte retained skills.

As a business owner myself, there are very few circumstances where i would employ an 18/19 year old, in favourmof a 25 year old, if i had to,pay the same rates of pay.

Besides, getting a License at 17to 20 is becoming increasingly more difficult for many.

It really is a no brainer, but let's try anyway and see what happens hey!

Its well known how so called small business underpays and exploits children. There are always those on the lookout for cheap labour even the big boys will if they can get away with it;
"Three companies and a director are being prosecuted for allegedly paying four Filipino workers less than $3 per hour in Australia." ABC News.
"As a business owner myself, there are very few circumstances where i would employ an 18/19 year old." so said rehctub. I'm sure you would have no problem with them going off and dieing in some foreign war for you, but give them a job, no way, not even a discount on a pork chop!

pay senior wages from the age of 18, rather than 21.
rehctub,
that would have had to be an academic expert making such a statement. Just think, such morons get taken up in the public service & become senior bureaucrats.

Nice rant Paul1405

Now, apply a little common sense then think about what I am saying, as whether it's fair, or unfair, is erelivent, the fact is, this will only add to the already problematic youth unemployment we have.

When I was a teenager we could leave school in December if we had a job, my old man worked at a smallgoods factory so I went to work with him, finished up after the Christmas rush and had about six hundred dollars to supplement my allowance through the school year. Pretty much all my classmates did it, even the factory owner's kids were dragged back home from Scotch and MLC to work through December.
Can kids still do that? Regardless of the job kids have to learn how to work, how to function in an adult workplace before they can take on a full time job, I've noticed that a lot of twenty somethings these days seem to lack that basic skill set, they don't know how to get on with other workers.

Yes Jay, us too, but we were more rural, & cherry picking. Many of the kids in 3Rd 4Th & 5Th year went cherry picking as soon as the exams were over.

The school threatened us with no intermediate certificate if we left before school closed, only just before Christmas back then. Or not letting us come back next year, but for those who needed money the draw of cherry picking was too great.

I was very a very fit young bloke, & used to hard work, we had our own small orchard as an extra money earner, & I did all the work. Dad worked full time so I did everything after school. Most of us that went picking were the athletes of the school, with lots of chores after school.

Cherry picking was piece work, paid by the bucket full. I worked hard 12 hours a day, but Paul, none of us kids could ever match the mature fruit pickers. Often we earned only half to 3/4 of what they did in the same time. We aspired to equal the top pickers, but never made it.

It is the same in industry. I know it is hard for academics & bureaucrats to realise, but business is not charity. It has to earn the money it pays in wages, & passengers can not be carried. If anything the age for full pay should be higher, not lower

Yes Hasbeen, a similar situation for me, as my bother and I used to live at a sea side town, and we used to dig blood worms and yabbies, that we then sold on the weekend at the boat ramp.

We also could get a job after school and get paid cash, whereas now, the paper work involved in just trailing a worker is a deterrent.

Prior to that, we used to pick tabbacco and tomatoes, and we were also paid for what we picked, as there was no attendance money on offer in this days.

Theses days, that type of arrangement (get paid for what you do) no longer applies, as the unions have ensured that the less productive worker is entitled to a minimum hourly rate, despite their throughput and, they are also protected by laws such as unfair dismissal.

The other problem with many young workers is face book, as many if them update their FB ongoing throughout the day, so one, they are attached to their mobiles, and two, their focus is not on the task at hand.

As a result, we now have appearance money in many workplaces.

Another fact is that most 25 year olds are more likely to have finacial commitments, car, house bills, family perhaps and, as a result, they are often more eger to hold their jobs.

But, don't take my word for it, go ahead, change the IR laws and let's see what happens.

After all, the result of labor's idea of better, fairer IR laws, have Brough about casualization of the workforce and contract employment.

How clever is that.

Last I heard, butchering was considered a 'skilled' trade; one has to do an apprenticeship in order to become one.
Last I heard, apprentices are paid according to their year (experience, level of skill), not their age.
Last I heard, most apprenticeships were 4 years, so one doesn't become fully qualified until at least 20.
The adult minimum wage applies essentially to unskilled workers, like checkout chicks or 'console operators', or laborers, or as in Hasbeen's example, piece workers/pickers. Obviously, a bucket of cherries should cost the same, regardless of the age of the picker.
Once the basic skills are learned, these jobs can be done satisfactorily by people of any age, yet older people are deliberately discriminated against because of their age, and children are being exploited when they are essentially doing the work of an adult.
The reason there is a skill shortage in this country is because most kids can't see the value in spending 4 years working for less than adult wages to end up working for buggrall more than the median wage anyway, -unless they find a job in a mine somewhere.

Yes Grim, I agree in some areas. Motor mechanics working in a dealership are not well rewarded for their study, but I don't know a single electrician, plumber or appliance repair man whose income is not well into 6 figures. Oh, & that is only what they admit to, & pay tax on.

Around here a good mechanic, working in his backyard can earn similar money.

While waiting for his navy course to start my teenage son was earning $1500 a week working for a plasterer. If you are a hard worker building trades pay well.

There are some trades where there is no scope for the employer to pay more, but pick well, & a trade is better than a degree in many areas, when it comes to income, if not satisfaction.

Hi there REHCTUB...

Ah HASBEEN...the old 'Inter', two years before the Leaving ! Yup I completed my Intermediate Certificate in 1956, and passed my Leaving in 1958.

The old 'Inter' was very necessary if one wished to pursue a trade, go to Balcombe (Army Apprentice School), similarly for the Navy and RAAF Apprenticeship Schools, I think ? And the Leaving Certificate was necessary for a career in Banking, Insurance and many cadetships, and for entrance into some University courses also.

REHCTUB...

I'm not at all acquainted with the complex salary structures for our young people ? But from what I've been told, most young people today, seem to harbour this fallacious belief that they're much more highly qualified for a job, than the job they're doing or seeking ? In a few cases there may be some merit to that argument ?

Though,from what I've been told, it's more a case, they possess this implacable belief they should enjoy both a more exalted title or epithet for their job description, together with a salary commensurate with their own perceived abilities ?

Therefore perhaps this is the angle from which you're mounting your argument REHCTUB ? It's a case they're are asking for too much money, for their actual qualifications/abilities and the quality and quantity of their actual work ? A question to you if I may ? Would you pay the full adult rate to an 18 year old if they were capable of producing both the same quality, and quantity of work as an adult ?

Hi o sung yes qualifications & youth are one thing, being able to do the job is an entirely different thing. Kids come out of uni, present company included, thinking they are ready to rebuild the world. After a couple of years, if they are lucky enough to have a good trainer, they are about ready to earn their keep.

I watched an old fitter & turner, who was production manager at Gilbarco, [the petrol bowser manufacturer], be given 2 young graduate engineers, with a couple of years’ experience, about 3 months before his retirement, to train to take his place. His retirement was put back 3 times, for just on a year before one new chum was up to scratch, & the other had been replaced with one who was.

Yes the old bloke had grown with the company, but most systems were modern [then] standard practice.

I never expected a new chum, even an experienced one, to become productive in less than ¾ months, & worth their salary in less than 6. This was one advantage of promoting good staff where ever possible. Most of them knew how to do the job of their immediate superior before promotion. Plus it gave all the good people a reason to want to stay, when they knew they were like to gain promotion sooner rather than later.

Would you pay the full adult rate to an 18 year old if they were capable of producing both the same quality, and quantity of work as an adult ?
o sung wu,
Let's look at this from an employers' angle. If the 18 year old rocked up at the gate & started to produce like an adult then definitely yes, I would pay him adult wages.
If I had trained him & I would pay him adult wages as soon as he made me enough profit after having compensated me by lower apprentice wages for training him.
I would not penalise him & I would reward him/her for his/her incentive but then again I'm not the Government.

O sung, I have trained several apprentices, most of which have not completed their time with me, as they felt I was too hard on them. And I was.

But, I have always believed that if you want to be a good tradesman, you first need a good teacher and you also have to be a good student, amd unfortunately, it is not a trade that you succeed without putting in an extreme effort.

Of the ones I have fully trained, they completed their apprenticeship in as little as 2/12 years, to 3 years. They were then paid full wages, and two of them were under 21.

One has become a millionaire in his own shop, another a second in charge at Woolworths, and another a manager in a small goods factory.

All three are in my view excellent butchers, and I would offer them a job any day.

'evening to you HASBEEN,INDIVIDUAL & REHCTUB...

All of you gentleman more or less agree, if the young person is well trained, very well trained AND, had the right attitude with respect to their willingness to continue to learn, albeit they've been formally qualified at the Technical College. And to accommodate your requirements and proviso HASBEEN, they've gained sufficient 'on the job' supervised experience, without the need to be continually monitored, then and only then, they've earned adult remuneration because they 'work' as an adult.

The question would be for you REHCTUB, if you took a 'sickie', would you be comfortable enough to allow your young employee to totally run your butchery (unsupervised) for the day, in your absence ?

INDIVIDUAL and HASBEEN I'm not sure what enterprise you're both in, however I seem to recall you HASBEEN are a pastoralist in the bush ?
Sorry INDIVIDUAL I'm not sure what your business is ? I think you're the principal in the business, whatever it may be ?

However, would either of you accept the model I've articulated above for REHCTUB'S Butcher Shop ? Or would either of you still demand more empirical evidence the young person is actually 'earning' an adult wage, in a very verifiable, demonstrable way ?

Correct me if I'm wrong HASBEEN, in WW11 there were young pilots of just 19, 20, or 21 years of age 'in command' of high performance fighter aircraft. Some were not even Commissioned ? Merely Flt Sgts. etc. I'd be horrified to think they weren't in receipt of the full pay and entitlements as an adult pilot of similar skills ?

O sung, it was even worse than that, some of those kids could not even drive a car. Some of them had as few as 15 hours on Spits or Hurricanes, & I think it is true to say, they were not just making up the numbers, but were accidentally used as decoys, allowing the more experienced pilots to make kills of enemy distracted with shooting down those kids. Unfortunately most of them were not drawing wages for long.

When I was racing I had an automotive reconditioning factory, doing mostly hydraulic stuff, brakes steering, shock absorbers etc. In that I employed a number of mature age fitters, competent people, on full wages, employed as apprentices so they could become qualified.

Later when I was running tourist boats in the Whitsundays I had a number of skippers who had started with me as deck hands. In this industry it doesn't matter how good a boat handler you may be, you must have the necessary ticket, & that requires time served in various positions to acquire. It is very similar to an apprenticeship, served on the water.

The rate of pay depends on the power & size of the boat, & it is qualifications not age that the employee must have for different size boats.

Unfortunately boat drivers are born not made, although even the best need training to achieve it. Some may have the bit of paper, but you would never let them loose with your boat. However no matter how good they may be, without the bit of paper, you can't legally have them running a passenger boat.

O sung, I have done just that, left younger ones in charge and gone away for the week between Christmas and new year. They were both still apprentices at the time, but I was already paying them as butchers in events like that.

My analogy for the definition between an espiring manager and just an employee is quite simple.

An employee is one who says, I only have two hours to go, where as a committed wannabe manager says, I only have two hours left.

I developed what I consider was the best training incentive for apprentices.

Each Monday morning I paid my two first years their $20 bonus, by way of four five dollar notes, placed on a clipboard, beside their name.

When they made a silly mistake (basic housekeeping) I took one five dollar note back.

After about three weeks, they both kept their $20 bonus and it cost me $40 for peace of mind.

Year two was three ten dollar notes and included basic to moderate butchery skills, same deal.

Year three was two twenties and year four (not that they took that long) was one fifty.

Now I can tell you that any boss would pay a few bucks per week to have a mistake free workplace and, given it was my money that was at risk, not theirs, they couldn't say I was robbig them.

It worked a charm.

o sung wu,
I'm not in business. I get very upset at times when I get home from work & TV news show people losing their jobs not through non-performance but due to some cowardly bureaucrats stalling at decision making.
As I watch the news about these poor people getting sacked my mind goes to my organisation where we have more work than we can poke a stick at yet workers don't turn up or when they do nothing gets done yet the fortnightly pay is for 76 hours. People have reported this to managers but absolutely nothing is being said & done about it by those who's job it is.
Speaking up can result in dismissal.

I had exactly the opposite rehctub.

I had an old bloke, probably only 10 years younger than I am today, working for me in the reconditioning factory. He could never produce 20 hours worth of work a week, but I used to leave him in charge when I was off racing.

He had ethics, & looked at everything from a customers point of view. If something was not up to the standard he would expect as a customer, it didn't go out.

I always reckoned one faulty item cost you the profit on about 10 to repair, & that was before the result of loss of reputation. This bloke could not earn his keep as a fitter, but probably saved me a fortune by ensuring nothing but the best went out the door.

I think this is back-to-front: The voting age should be increased to 21 (when youth could hopefully have gained an appreciation of the really important national issues, and may be less self-centred to exclusion of all else); and the minimum age to hold a driver's licence increased to 18 (when youth may have attained some common sense), so there would be far fewer 'tragedies' involving vehicles packed with 'schoolies', and accidents involving youth and speed, alcohol, drugs, showing-off, road-racing and 'hooning'. (And, limited licences and speed-limited cars for all between 18-21.)

Military Service: No-one under 21 should be sent to a war or conflict zone - and then only those showing relevant maturity. Age can beget wisdom (though not always), but very few are 'born' with it.

As many have noted, there is more to doing a job than merely monkey-see, monkey-do, and genuine, earned experience - when duly applied - should be rewarded. To say an 18 year old is just as good as an experienced 21 year old is to denigrate the 21 year old.
Pay your dues, earn your rewards - honestly, and not by legislated chicanery perpetrated by self-interested Unions peddling spurious rubbish.

One problem with the drivers licence bit Saltpetre, many of our kids have enough problem getting to work now, if they could not drive, they would have very little chance of finding anything.

We have little public transport, & that little is restricted in its destinations. I don't think any of our kids can access work using it.

We had a real problem with the in school apprenticeship scheme, as none of them had licences. We could only organise work for them where we could also organise a lift to & from that work. So although I won't disagree that a bit more maturity before driving would be a good thing, in our world today, driving is critical to employment for many.

Hasbeen,

An alternative then would be to allow special licences to those under 18 really needing to drive to work or to education facilities, but with strict conditions (as to passengers, and time and route of travel), and restricted to appropriately speed limited vehicles. Subject of course to their passing a fairly stringent driving test - possibly including a personality assessment.

The other alternative is better, affordable and more extensive public transport facilities, or failing that, a subsidised cabcharge facility.
Not everything need be either or; or, there may be more than one way to skin a cat - in the genuine public interest.

Just about everyone on this thread makes sense. The hard part is to get the academic bureaucrats to understand.

Hi there people...

INDIVIDUAL, you really must tidy up your vocabulary, and desist forthwith from resorting to that intemperate language of yours -videlicet 'academic' on this public forum ? Mate, we must never, ever allow an 'academic' to get hold of anything worthwhile my friend, I'm sure you'd agree !

HASBEEN...your remarks about many young people who can't or don't drive, reminded me of a recent TV show titled 'RBT'. It shows this young bloke who lost his provisional licence for revealing a PCA at .010%. Barely a discernible registration of his true PCA measurement ? Yet, as a provisional driver, the law states he must be at zero. Thus lost his licence, and as a consequence, his job ! The ability to drive was an integral component of his job. Sometimes the law's an ass, true justice must be served, but in this case it's a 'lose and a lose' conclusion ?

Just reading your individual threads and comments, made me realise how much vocational experience, together with 'worldliness' each and every one of you have or had ?

I know a little of the occupational antecedents of BELLY, HASBEEN (who's compressed so much into his amazing life eg military aviation, car racing etc.),REHCTUB with his Butcher Shops, INDIVIDUAL who's also run successful businesses...!

Considering the above, irrespective of how academically or occupationally qualified a young person is. Until he or she can obtain that vitally necessary 'on the job' experience, they'll never be qualified enough to be considered competent to supervise the day to day operation of a section, or a small business ?

o sung wu,
cheers for all your remarks however, it pains me to have to disappoint you somewhat as I have never been in business but I do try understand those who are. I already understand the hurdles our bureaucrats put up for small business, they do it to us wage earners also.

Yes Hasbeen, horses for courses I say.

I remember when I was running the Hypermarket butchery in Brisbane (84/5) I had a hopeless butcher that was actually a very good people person, so I gave him the job of walking around out front just talking to customers and selling.

I requested that he wear board shorts, thongs, a straw hat and zinc cream, and go out and mingle with the customers. He would also spruk out our specials over the OA.

Our sales increased by about 30% in a month or so.

Funny thing was, the other butchers complained that he wasn't pulling his weight and management sacked him, which pretty much goes with what Indi says.

Little did they know, he was actually securing their jobs.

Now as far as being burdened with hurdles, it's simply because big brother thinks that two grown adults can't come to an amicable arrangement when it comes to work, hours,conditions and pay.

Hi there INDIVIDUAL...

My profound apologies to you ol' man, I can't for the life of me, understand how I came to believe your were in business for yourself ?
Nevertheless, you certainly appear to understand much of the problems and 'hoops' many in small business have to go through with all this petty bureaucratic red tape ?

Actually, I was always under the impression that governments were there essentially to aid and advise, as well as guide small business through the various difficulties associated with marketing their wares. Both within Oz, as well as overseas where appropriate. Providing government assistance for them, in terms of trade and excise, as well as guiding them through the myriad of Taxation complexities that they may experience, when dealing with companies and businesses abroad.

Recently, the last five or six years or so, it would seem the government consistently puts up barriers, and makes it far more difficult for small business to operate ? Seems counterproductive to me ? Then I'm a mere 'boofhead' and have no understanding of business anyway.

Thank you INDIVIDUAL for setting me 'right' on your vocational activities. Again, I'm sorry.

The reduced rates for youth is to counter the tendency for those in their teens and early twenties to be vastly over-represented in the unemployed statistics. The reduced wages give an incentive to employers to hire youngsters so that they can get the work experience to apply for the better paying jobs later.

The unions pushing for wage parity has nothing to do with protecting the youth, rather protecting their members.

SM,

And then make a push to get more of the youngsters to sign up;
And then make a push to increase all wages bottom to top;
And then decide what to do with all that extra Super in the Union-controlled Industry Super Fund;
And then pat themselves on the back (the Super Fund Trustees), and award themselves a nice little board member salary and expenses increase - as justified by how clever they have been;
And then look for the next fat chicken to pluck - on a legitimate parity basis of course (no question of creep here);
And of course we have to start all over again, across the board.

But we know that the minimum wage is still too low (highest in the world, but so are our general living expenses), so it needs a push;
And suddenly all prices go up, so, catch-up quick, catch-up, Quick!
And the merry-go-round sets off in full stride once again, (with pats on the back all round).

But still, that blasted 1% just gets further and further ahead; so the Super Fund trustees look at the $billions they are responsible for, and think, we're bigger than General Motors! So, we deserve equal executive salaries - hooray! (And we don't have to justify it to the share holders - there aren't any, just contributors!)
Now, if only we can get Super contributions up to 15%, why we can retire on a nice little nest-egg at 50!
(And we won't have to worry any more about pushing that heavy, heavy barrow.)