End Wage Discrimination Against Young Workers

From Joe de Bruyn
National Secretary of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association.

Some of the most logical changes to industrial awards and legislation over the years sparked outrage from vocal minorities at the time. With hindsight, it's often hard to believe there was any debate at all.

The present case to pay 18 to 20-year-old workers the full adult rate will no doubt join that list in years to come.

The Fair Work Commission is considering a submission to pay younger adult workers under the general retail award the full rate. At present, 20-year-olds get paid 10 per cent less than the full rate, 19-year-olds get 20 per cent less and 18-year-olds get 30 per cent less.

Australians as a whole believe in equal pay for equal work. It's why women, by law, are no longer allowed to be paid less than men, and why we don't have employees who work long hours to receive a handful of food stamps at the end of it. We've fought for that right over the decades.

Yet there's a small, but vocal, segment of society dragging its heels: a number of - not all - businesses have been ducking their heads over the years, hoping no one will notice that they're continuing to buck the equal-pay-for-equal-work trend and get away with paying adults as children. Those archaic practices are now being dragged out into the light at the Fair Work Commission.

If you listen to the voices of some of the business lobby groups, you could be led to believe that if the commission moves to provide younger workers with fair pay, the retail industry will collapse.

It won't.

Many fair-minded employers are already paying adult rates of pay to 20-year-olds, and in some case 18 and 19-year-olds too. It's common practice and the changes the commission are considering would merely reflect what is already happening in much of the industry.

In New Zealand, junior rates of pay for those over 18 were removed well over a decade ago. Government studies in the country show there has been no negative effect on employment for younger workers as a result. In fact, the report suggests it has been a positive move for youth employment.

As baseless as they are, the cries of fear from the business lobby groups in response to this case don't come as a surprise. They're the same lines used every time there is a hint of change within the industry - that it will put unnecessary burden on business and cost jobs. All the evidence suggests that's not the case.

Vocal opponents will also play to the outdated belief that young workers are unproductive, inexperienced and can't be trusted.

One argument put before the Fair Work Commission against fair pay for younger workers was that these employees can't tell the difference between a watermelon and a pawpaw.

If it were not so serious, untrue and offensive, it would be comical.

In retail, by the time a worker reaches 18 to 20, they've often had several years' experience in the industry. Many are even in positions of leadership.

But due to an antiquated clause in the general retail award, they are still paid significantly less than their 21-year-old colleagues. Our practice of paying workers fairly is one of the things that makes our country great.

To make a baseless exception for one specific age group doesn't make any sense at all. At 18, 19 and 20 you are an adult. It's time our businesses moved with the times and started paying our adults what they deserve - adult rates.