Employers expecting people to work for £6.50 an hour!!

Googlewhacker

Person_one wrote: »

Mainly because I think it'd be really obvious that you hold them in such low esteem, and I hate the attitude that you can have a person figured out based one aspect of their life, including age. You could have the brightest, hardest working 16 year old for miles around but have already made your mind up that they'll be next to useless.

I've worked with 16 year old volunteers, who freely gave up their time for a decidedly untrendy cause, made a real commitment and and worked their backsides off.

If we're making generalisations based on relatively narrow personal experience, mine is that men in their late twenties to early thirties are lazy, unambitious and self satisfied, they get away with doing the bare minimum but cover it up very well. Of course, my assertion is no more valid than yours in reality.

I take your point and whilst you probably won't believe it I treat each person that works me with he same respect as I would expect.

I might agree that if they are working fulltime then they should be entitled to the same wage (presuming they are capable of doing the same job which I still question) but the vast majority of 16-18 year olds do the weekend work and if employers had to pay the same wages to these as other people then alot of 16-18 year olds would not get their break into employment and as such not get employment on their CV for the future as employers would employ someone with the experience

zenmaster

£6.50/hr? Luxury!

My first job paid £1 day, 8:00-18:00, no lunch break though, due to the nature of the job, we were only actively working 45 minutes each hour. 6 day normal week or 7 if I wanted overtime.

So £6 - £7 per week.

teabelly wrote: »

The value of money halves roughly every 15 years.

This was more than 30 years ago but less than 45 so worst case, using your formula, that would only equate to £48 week in current terms. I think your figures are out somewhere. I would think more like every 7 years (which I was also told is the rate at which property prices double).

Did I complain? Of course I did.

Did I survive? Of course I did.

But, it was probably the best job I have ever had.

PS. I've just worked it out in excel - it's around 5-6 years. Blimey - it was well paid (£19.20/hr). Didn't feel like it at the time though.

dickydonkin

Person_one wrote: »

Mainly because I think it'd be really obvious that you hold them in such low esteem, and I hate the attitude that you can have a person figured out based one aspect of their life, including age. You could have the brightest, hardest working 16 year old for miles around but have already made your mind up that they'll be next to useless.

I've worked with 16 year old volunteers, who freely gave up their time for a decidedly untrendy cause, made a real commitment and and worked their backsides off.

If we're making generalisations based on relatively narrow personal experience, mine is that men in their late twenties to early thirties are lazy, unambitious and self satisfied, they get away with doing the bare minimum but cover it up very well. Of course, my assertion is no more valid than yours in reality.

I don't think is a case of holding younger workers in low esteem, I would suggest that Googlewhacker has based his opinion from experience - and I tend to agree.

The reality is that young workers do require additional supervision and are easily distracted and by virtue of their inexperience in a workplace environment, they need to be monitored so they are not a danger to themselves or their colleagues.

Certainly the majority who have worked with me in the past seem more interested in texting and faffing on with their mobile phones - if only they concentrated as much on the task in hand.

What did they do with their hands before mobile phones?

I may be accused of generalising - but again, this is based on my experience - not an assumption, although I do concede that I have worked with some very competent and concientious young workers although this tended to be in the minority of cases.

Person_one

dpassmore wrote: »

I don't think is a case of holding younger workers in low esteem, I would suggest that Googlewhacker has based his opinion from experience - and I tend to agree.

The reality is that young workers do require additional supervision and are easily distracted and by virtue of their inexperience in a workplace environment, they need to be monitored so they are not a danger to themselves or their colleagues.

Certainly the majority who have worked with me in the past seem more interested in texting and faffing on with their mobile phones - if only they concentrated as much on the task in hand.

What did they do with their hands before mobile phones?

I may be accused of generalising - but again, this is based on my experience - not an assumption, although I do concede that I have worked with some very competent and concientious young workers although this tended to be in the minority of cases.

Do your experiences of working with 16 year olds put you off hiring them? Therefore possibly missing out on the 'very competent and conscientious' ones? Its a real shame if stereotypes about teenagers are preventing the good ones from getting jobs/recognition for their hard work.

Googlewhacker

Person_one wrote: »

Do your experiences of working with 16 year olds put you off hiring them? Therefore possibly missing out on the 'very competent and conscientious' ones? Its a real shame if stereotypes about teenagers are preventing the good ones from getting jobs/recognition for their hard work.

No, but if they got the same money as someone over 18 then you would think twice over hiring someone with no experience.

Interestingly I was thinking about this earlier on and you commented on about how 16 year old volunteers worked just as hard as anyone else. Well I think that is the point in question, people who volunteer have a differant mindset to someone that is working to earn money and as such I would say they are more conscientious on their behaviour and work ethic compared to a 16 year old that is working just to earn money.

Obviously there are exceptions but it would explain why you have a differant view to most people.

Person_one

Googlewhacker wrote: »

No, but if they got the same money as someone over 18 then you would think twice over hiring someone with no experience.

Interestingly I was thinking about this earlier on and you commented on about how 16 year old volunteers worked just as hard as anyone else. Well I think that is the point in question, people who volunteer have a differant mindset to someone that is working to earn money and as such I would say they are more conscientious on their behaviour and work ethic compared to a 16 year old that is working just to earn money.

Obviously there are exceptions but it would explain why you have a differant view to most people.

I suppose that's a possibility, but until I have to learn otherwise I think I'll stick with my image of 16 year olds as lovely, curious, funny, excited and hard working, its just nicer!

adg1

markbass wrote: »

What is it with the employers out there that expect the earth from employees for between 6 and 7 quid an hour, it's a disgrace to expect people to work for these sorts of sums, i remember the wages were higher than this ten years ago, is it a case of Employers taking advantage of the lack of jobs about, knowing damn well they'll be takers for their measly wage?

Get over yourself. You may not work for that figure but for many people that type of money would really help them.

For the record, I don't earn the NMW, nor between 6 and 7 per hour BUT, if I were to be unemployed I would grab that wage like the last banana on a desert island.

Hootie19

Are you assuming that everyone in the country has the same outgoings as you??

*IF* I earned NMW and took home the £940 you quote, MY outgoings would be:

Mortgage £860
Council Tax £170
Water Rates £60

Ooooops look. I'm already paying out more than I've earned, and I've not had a cup of tea yet (can't afford the teabags milk or sugar). (That's a bit simplistic, I know, because I don't earn NMW and neither does my husband, but if we both ended up in the position where we did - our BASIC outgoings don't change.)

I can see the OP's POV, and in essence, agree with it. But can also see why employers aren't paying more, when "times is 'ard".

My own gripe (from my own personal situation) is against employers who insist on only employing temporary staff and not giving anyone a permanent job. But as I say, that's *my* gripe, and others, no doubt, will be along to say they'd happily "just" have a temporary job, rather than no job at all.

kr15snw wrote: »

O.k, lets look at this.

£6.50 an hour for 40 hours a week gives you £940 a month after tax.

So my bills:

Mortgage: £170
Food: £200
Water / Gas / Electric / Other Bills: £300
Sky: £40
Mobile: £20
Internet: £10
Petrol: £40 (It's cheaper for me to drive the 5 miles to work than it is to get a bus - 3 chages!!)
Bridge Toll: £15

Thats £805 a month, which leaves me £135 a month to 'live off'.

Oh and this budget is for 2 adults and we still get the luxury of a mobile, sky and internet

Seems an ok wage for me

purcel

sharloid wrote: »

I'm on £6 odd, so is my partner. We've managed to buy a house, run a car and go on holidays. Not luxury ones, but holidays nontheless! We receive no benefits what so ever. It's all possible. What's your problem?

Depends where you live I think, here in the South East houses are not cheap to buy! I earn over £7 an hour and my husband is on £21000 a year and we just get by. And we don't have Sky or go out more than once a month!

I hate my job but cannot find anything else who pays a decent wage so we can be able to still afford our £875 a month mortgage payments!

kiwi07

I have a friend who works for an agency. This agency used to pay them £6.15 per hour 2 years ago. Now they pay them ....£5.80 per hour. They have reduced their pay simply because it's .....a recession. This is ridiculous!!!!!!!! They have find out that agency getting paid £12 p/h for every employee.... £6.20 for doing nothing is a good profit for an agency!!!!