Bazj Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Asp is right, the minimum wage is now a barrier to employers taking on school leavers because they can get older and more experienced staff and still pay minimum wage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 On the other hand I can?t imagine many 16-17 year olds who live rent free, giving up A levels just so that they could go and work in McDonalds for ?3.64 an hour, or start an apprenticeship on ?2.50 an hour Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 On the other hand there are, as there always have been, 16 to 17 year olds who are studying for A levels AND who work part time to give themselves spending money. Giving young people something for nothing doesn't turn them into responsible adults does it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Nice one, obs. Â As wolfie mentions, the apprenticeship rate is ?2.50 an hour, hardly extortionate to an employer, and they get the training paid for. They don't like it, but for the majority of the young people I work with, this isn't the barrier. Â There are lots of kids who are studying and trying to find some work too, not many jobs out there though. They're not all workshy and looking for an easy ride y'know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Asp is correct... there are kids doing both  As for apprenticeships... virtually impossible to get in some fields of work hence the kids all finish up on full time college courses instead. Full time being around three days a week and only 1/4 of that seems to be learning about the actual trade itself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 ... there are kids doing both  Yes, and my guess would be that for ever one who's doing that, there's at least another on who wants to.  Don't do those kind of programmes where I work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Big difference in studying and working part time for spending money, and giving up your education to work full time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 ... there are kids doing both Yes, and my guess would be that for ever one who's doing that, there's at least another on who wants to.  Don't do those kind of programmes where I work.  I was referring to the kids who go out and find themselves a part time job... I was not referring to specific 'programmes'... infact what do you mean by that ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 The minimum wage is no barrier. It stops exploitation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 The minimum wage is no barrier. It stops exploitation  really? explain your reasoning behind that one then Kije Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 It sounds like you want to pay under it Baz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Baz is actually right in a way. Â With all the experienced but unemployed people available to fill vacancies it often does not make it viable for a business to take on unexperienced or young trainees/staff when they can get fully qualified and skilled people for not much more. Not to mention all the new H&S twaddle that is applied to young apprentices from colleges etc too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 If you had the choice between taking on an experienced person or a trainee, you would go for the experienced person every time if the wage demand was the same. I employ people as well If you don't need to invest in training don't its a cost Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 It sounds like you want to pay under it Baz  Not necessarily, I have never paid the minimum wage; always well above it, but what I mean is that I agree with the minimum wage, but there does need to be some leaway say when a person first starts for a company when they have to be brought up to speed or when a company doesn't actually make an awful lot of profit such as those that now use cheap european labour where they live 20 to a house and have little or no overheads.  A person living in the normal way would not compete because the playing field isn't level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 I have the same problem Baz, All engineers at our place have to have at least a HND in electrical engineering, when they come out of college they are not very quick, it take time and money to get them up to speed, I would rather take some one on that is time served (nick some one from a competitor who knows the job) than take a trainee on, having said that we do often take trainees on, In such cases we pay above the minimum wage, If they are any good after 2 years we pay them what we think they are worth or get rid and start again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Think perhaps we're all missing the point here? These kids are the (or should be) THE future workforce, so in order to employ them and set them on a career path, we need to train and educate them. The success or failiure of our future economy will depend on a highly skilled and flexible workforce that can keep us one step ahead of the global competition. Our main competitor (China), is already buying up high end technology companies throughout the world, and thus increasing their capacity to compete. My only gripe, is that WE seem totally incapable of planning or preparing beyond each 5 yr election, plus, the higher education on offer tends to be mickey mouse degrees and/or a sop to massage the dole figures. SO - this brings us to a key question in relation to economic policy:- Should we be cutting investment in training, innovation, research etc, in order to balance the books now OR should we be continueing with economic stimulus by investing in economic growth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 The UK has never been good at R&D, Most machinery in UK plants is very old, We can neither compete on wages or on speed of manufacture, due to lack of re investment, I am not blaming any government for this, its UK bosses that are to blame. We have never done it over here, Alot more of japanese company profits are re invested back into there companies, while over here we pay share holders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Of course, the bosses are just as myopic as the politicians - so maybe, we'll get the kind of future we deserve? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Business has known about the lack of investment for decades but carried on regardless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Sorry kije, but both the steel and aluminium industries modernised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 To little to late, and not enough when they did Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 Diz: Â I was referring to the kids who go out and find themselves a part time job.. Â I know you were, so was I: but the way you phrased that suggests that you think these part-time jobs are there for the taking, they're not. Particularly for people who don't have any experience, and maybe not much else either. Â ...what do you mean by that ? Â I was using "programmes" as a generic term, referring to this: Â Full time being around three days a week... Â That isn't typical of the college I work at. Â ..and only 1/4 of that seems to be learning about the actual trade itself... Â Wouldn't know about that, but there's not many people I know who served an apprenticeship and enjoyed it. Â Kije: Â If you had the choice between taking on an experienced person or a trainee, you would go for the experienced person every time if the wage demand was the same. I employ people as well If you don't need to invest in training don't its a cost. Â That's why (cheap as they are) apprenticeships aren't popular with employers: when there's queues of ready mades out there, why bother? But like I said, training is paid for, still got to pay the (low) wage though. Â Baz: Â ...but there does need to be some leaway say when a person first starts for a company when they have to be brought up to speed... Â There is, it's that ?2.50 apprenticeship rate. Â Obs: Â I was with you all the way in your High Noon post until you mentioned "Mickey Mouse" degrees - again! Â Kije, again: Â The UK has never been good at R&D... Â Not sure that's true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 To little to late, and not enough when they did Given the demands of the unions in the 60's they were always on a loser because everything was cheaper to import. PLUS shares became the vogue and shareholders reaped the profits. Still, what goes round, comes round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 It was "cheaper to import" Peter, cos a Jap on a bowl of rice a day, with brand new machine tools and automation; was always going to out-produce and undercut, and copy British goods (now it's the Chinese) and alas, there's no patriotism when it comes to shopping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 Agreed, but coal from Australia? (yes, I know the quality was not as good) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.