Exploitation or unemployment - what do you think? (1 Viewer)

[loquasagacious]

Define how this is unfair?

 

[yy]

one thing i don't get: why is young people getting paid less (junior rate) for equal work?

 

[loquasagacious]

Lower skills, less experience, less strength for unskilled work.

Primarily though it is because we have a system of arbitrary pay rates eg adult rate (100%) cuts in at 21, and below that its 10% per year eg 20=90%, 19=80%, 18=70%, 17=60%, 16=50%, 15=40%.

I personally find it unfair as I know it does not accurately reflect the value to an employer of varying aged individuals eg at work I (at 19) am in charge of: a 15, a 17, a 23, a 40 something, a 50 something, etc etc. This is a pattern repeated across the store and the wider retail environment. I think a system of individual contracts with varying pay rates would see me paid more and relative deadweights (such as the 40 something) paid less.

This is fair because in a final sense I am worth more.

 

[walrusbear]

The free market CAN be very unfair towards particular sections of society, in this case unskilled workers. The minimum wage is enforced to protect workers from market wage pressures and so they can earn an income they can survive on (and remain sane).

With the free market the wages of unskilled workers workers (eg. KFC, Subway, kmart, etc) will decrease significantly. Workers will be forced to work ridiculous hours, like blue collar workers do in America. Even a small amount of skills would increase income. The wages of highly skilled people such as accountants, lawyers and doctors will remain the same.

yeah i know
i was being facetious

 

[Not-That-Bright]

one thing i don't get: why is young people getting paid less (junior rate) for equal work?

Generally, people don't like hiring younger people... so they need an incentive - thus they are cheaper. The idea is that while you're cheap, you will gain skills etc so that when you are older and more expensive, you will still be able to find a job due to the skills you were able to aquire when you were cheap.

 

[transcendent]

unless you've been forced to do tuition on weekends and are not allowed to work by parents which was my case.

 

[spell check]

this is a typical scenario which is the result of the fact that workers have little capital with which to live, and thus must sell their labour for wages, and employers, who have capital, live off the profits from this work, and thus want to buy these wages at the lowest price possible.

it would be no use for one young person to make a stand by refusing to accept low wages and therefore not take a certain job, this will not impact on the employer at all since there will be a pool of workers willing to take the lower wages out of desperation.

the only way to correct the imbalance would be for the young workers to group together and use their power - the fact that employers need workers, to balance out the advantage that employers have in that workers need to live off wages.

even very unskilled workers are needed by employers, clearly, so why shouldn't they too be able to use the little power they have in the market to better their situation?

 

[Generator]

even very unskilled workers are needed by employers, clearly, so why shouldn't they too be able to use the little power they have in the market to better their situation?

Because for some strange reason the right to bargain collectively is considered to be an affront to the individual and their right to choose .

 

[wheredanton]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/just-desserts-for-amber/2006/04/27/1145861490041.html

 

[loquasagacious]

Because for some strange reason the right to bargain collectively is considered to be an affront to the individual and their right to choose .

I think the issue is that people should be able to choose to collectively bargain - or not.

Currently we are compelled to collectively bargain (in my case through a union which doesn't even have a presence in the company).

 

[leetom]

I think the issue is that people should be able to choose to collectively bargain - or not.

Currently we are compelled to collectively bargain (in my case through a union which doesn't even have a presence in the company).

Are you prepared to run the risk of instead having to sign an individual contract compelling you to a lesser wage, conditions etc?

 

[_dhj_]

This libertarian "skill-less" justification is simply distorting the facts. The right concept to use is the contribution of the employee to the production process, and the contribution of young people to the production process will inevitably be undervalued by the exploitation of bargaining power by the employer. The "leave it to the market" argument is ridiculous if you look at the examples of what can happen in an environment devoid of government and policy intervention. Look at Nike sweatshops for example. Do you really believe that the workers there are paid what they "deserve"? Of course I am taking an extreme example but that is what can potentially happen when the imbalance between employer and employee bargaining power is not properly addressed.

 

[loquasagacious]

And the risk of getting a higher wage?

 

[yy]

i think many TNCs actually pay higher wages than local manufacturers

 

[walrusbear]

I think the issue is that people should be able to choose to collectively bargain - or not.

Currently we are compelled to collectively bargain (in my case through a union which doesn't even have a presence in the company).

under the current conditions people can't collectively bargain
that choice still doesn't exist

 

[leetom]

And the risk of getting a higher wage?

Unlikely. Unless an employer is a liberal idealist eager to prove the worth of individual agreements over collectively-bargained ones, there is no compulsion to increase the wages of staff higher than the amount previously agreed to collectively.

There was nothing to prevent an employer from paying higher wages than the award or a collevtively bargained amount under the ancien regime anyway, so why now?

 

[transcendent]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...it-in-with-boss/2006/04/28/1146198353394.html

Good article relevant to the topic.

 

[loquasagacious]

Unlikely. Unless an employer is a liberal idealist eager to prove the worth of individual agreements over collectively-bargained ones, there is no compulsion to increase the wages of staff higher than the amount previously agreed to collectively.

There was nothing to prevent an employer from paying higher wages than the award or a collevtively bargained amount under the ancien regime anyway, so why now?

Likely if the employee is valuable.

 

[erawamai]

Likely if the employee is valuable.

Valuable according to black letter market principles.

The employer won't pay extra for anyone unless they have to.

The only reason they would pay more to an individual is because they are valuable (in that they increase output etc) and they want them to stay. Otherwise no employer is going to pay.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Unless an employer is a liberal idealist eager to prove the worth of individual agreements over collectively-bargained ones, there is no compulsion to increase the wages of staff higher than the amount previously agreed to collectively.

Under the former award for plumbers, you could not feasibly have people on 24/7 call for maintence work. Now, you can. In order to entice people to do this work, you make the money higher. If you are not paying them much money, they'll do cashie jobs on the side without your knowing.