In Australia, workers under 21 years old are paid less for the same jobs. It’s an obvious injustice — and thanks to new laws, now it’s entrenched.
  • arbilp3@aussie.zone
    29·
    13 days ago

    The new changes lock in youth rates for those aged eighteen and under. The percentage of the adult wage that eighteen-, nineteen-, and twenty-year-olds receive will increase each year. These rates will reach parity with the adult rates in 2029, 2028, and 2027, respectively. The catch, however, is that these increases and eventual parity only apply to young people who have worked at the same employer for more than six months. This caveat is ripe for exploitation.

    I did not know about the caveat. Yes, young people will be further exploited. This is so wrong.

  • MisterFrog@aussie.zone
    23·
    13 days ago

    This is especially fucked because young people are disproportionately working as casuals and are routinely structurally dismissed by not being given shifts

    Thanks for sharing

  • eureka@aussie.zoneEnglish
    7·
    13 days ago

    My first employer didn’t keep track of my birthday, so I got about a thousand in backpay and never got another shift.

    I didn’t realise it went up to 21, I thought it was just 18.

  • Therefore@lemmy.world
    52·
    13 days ago

    This might be a hot take, but I think this is better than before because 18+yo staff will get paid adult wages after 6 months. Before this they simply didn’t.

    • Mountaineer@aussie.zoneEnglish
      4·
      13 days ago

      The number of 18 year olds that make it to 6 months in any given job is already low.
      It’s about to become very close to zero.

      I’ve witnessed 3 people in this age bracket suddenly get zero shifts (or are only offered emergency shifts) over the last 3 years, over multiple jobs each.
      JB HiFi, KFC and Ghanda are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

      • Therefore@lemmy.world
        1·
        13 days ago

        Overnight and school hours make up the majority of hours in a week, those must be staffed by 18+ by law. Given that a store remains in one place, there’s a finite number of 18-20yo over a given period. A store that routinely uses this to maintain low wages will be left with low potential candidates, on top of increased costs of training and uniform since each hypothetical candidate is only good for 6 months.

        Before this change I think it was easier to select based on age- the window was 2 years and incremental. Now there’s going to be a 6 month window including training for those essential positions. Maybe I’m being optimistic but it seems like a positive step.

    • thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works
      2·
      13 days ago

      Given that without this, tiered wages would have remain unchanged and even more unfair - I’m with you on the “hot take”.

      The fact that this leaves room for further improvement isn’t necessarily a bad thing; the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and all that.

      When this policy is enacted and there are no provable negative impacts to employment figures, then we can go back and push for a further extension to this policy. But first we will need to dispel the FUD around “no one will employ an 18-21yo” if we have to pay them full wages myth.