Young workers are exploited

Mary

The employer is not a rat - that is exactly how the construction apprenticeship scheme works. You should have done a bit of research on the apprentice set-up before he started. The CITB were right to find in the employers favour.

Young Workers Are Exploited, Yes! Because That's the way we want it, isn't it? Is it immoral or something? Aren't young workers exploited because there's no Law against it or if there is it's easily flouted? Our children will be exploited and our grandchildren WILL be exploited too. Who let this happen?
Funny how, on this site, a discussion about asylum seekers can get over five thousand responses. But worker exploitation gets no more than about a dozen. Speaks volumes about us in a way? Only by changing laws will things change.
I've said more than once that, so long as the ruling classes and the rich combined, continue to keep power to themselves they needn't include the rest of us. It's this exclusion that makes us so easy to exploit. We HAVE to take the power to change laws back from them! We must do it fairly and only fairly. We have an unfair society, we need a state that does things fairly and does not tolerate unfairness.

apprenticeships are a con their just a way of exploiting young people my son is doing a welding fabricating gets a poxy £80 a week. three lads started at the same time three months ago one was told after six weeks he was no longer reqired because he didn t work hard enough the place is EMH in liverpool with many polish wokers just another sweat shop

Equitable Joe: Once an employer finds that they can exploit an individual they will take them for a ride as long as possible, never ever re-considering their original pay-level or remunueration or proper career prospects.

Employers MUST re-bid every year for a person's services, in a proper manner.

I can relate to this so very well. My son in same predicament. He gets paid 30 quid a day, and coming 21 this sept. He isn't just labouring he is doing actual joinery work. I am not surprised as I know my son is a dab hand. However, his employer told him to say that he is a fully qualified joiner if anyone asks on site. His employers partner took him away for a day and paid him forty quid. The following week it was deducted by 10 pound. We tolerate it as we know that it is only a blip out of his life for that little piece of paper which will stand him in good stead for the rest of his career. (his employer also tried to discourage him from attending his course at tech once a week)

Though he has developed an eye infection and is now advised to stay off work for a few days. He already pays money weekly for personal items and is in a quandry whether or not he is entitled to sick pay. Knowing his employer we don't expect anything. He already gets paid 60quid cash and 60quid cheque and never always on the day its due. I imagine his employer is avoiding paying tax for him or national insurance as a result.

Are all employers like this? And is he entitled to sick pay.

Young people aren't exploited enough in today's labour market. They're too cocky, expect everthing handed to them on a platter and refuse to expect the principle of 'working your way up a trade'.

It has just occurred to me that young people should auction their labour via an eBay type of arrangement. They put themselves up for offer on eBay, with their resumé or CV, or list of qualifications and experience, and employers then bid for their services in an auction. Such auctions could have a two week time limit, with a reserve of a minimum wage offer set by the potential employee.

And that's the moment, if the employers want the wee laddie, they will try to outbid the alternative. If they want to get rid of him they will let him go. To be competitive you have to be competitive. You are in an auction when you have a job. The only evidence that you are being auctioned is other employers' offer letters.

Fair comment Adam, but the fact still remains that many employers would still unscrupulously treat young workers as cheap labour. I was in the same situation myself many years ago and although you can argue that the young person isn't fully trained and therefore shouldn't be paid top dollar, they deserve to be treated with respect and paid a fair wage for the work that they do.

Shame on the employer in this case for being a "taker". It will probably go round full circle though, because this lad will most likely end up taking his skills elsewhere.

Due for a pay rise?

But that’s not how it works - or so it would seem.

But that's how it does work. Unfortunately no one is "due" a pay rise at the end of the year, no matter whether they have had a promotion, have increased their experience and productivity, or even just to claw back the effects of inflation.

To ascertain what you are "due" you need to refer to the government tables of the Average Earnings Index that are published on the Internet. At the moment average earnings index is growing between 4% to 5% per year.

In reality, to stand still, you need compensation for inflation plus average real growth in the economy. The Average Earnings Index shows whether workers are generally keeping up with this. In fact they are not, losing about 1% per year over the past 20 years.

Another factor: over the first 12 years of your working life you should be quadrupling your real earnings, through increases in responsibility, productivity, knowledge and experience. This is aside from inflation. That's a 12% increase each year on its own. Plus AEI that would make your son "due" a pay rise of about 17%.

When your son signed up to his apprenticeship he signed a kind of indentured labour contract: cheap labour under the guise of an apprenticeship. It probably didn't specify a planned career and earnings programme. There's no obligation on the employer.

In general, beyond a legal minimum wage, there should legal enforcement of inflation proofing of wages and earnings, and enforceable guaranteed renegotiation of their contracts between every employee and their employer every year, where the employer must state in writing why they are not increasing that employee's wages in line with the published indices. That document should be able to be appealed in a wages court.

Thanks Richard will give them a call and see what they say. Fair comment Tough but taking the work he has done into consideration previous to college then he should have had proper labourers pay...apprenticeship wage not a prob while doing apprenticeship as it was expected to be low.

Not sure if it will help in your son's case but ACAS:
http://www.acas.org.uk/

They will at least give you some advice