Here's my (apparently) controversial opinion of the day: if you do the same work in the same field with the same employer, you deserve the same rate. The fact that in a lot of industries you can be paid a 40% wage because you're 15 is absolutely disgusting, when you perform the exact same work as somebody older. And what's even worse is that in some industries, full wage doesn't start until you're 21. Why is that acceptable?
I have no idea about Australian labor laws but I do know adulthood is defined as 18. What I'm about to ask is honestly ignorance so don't take it as sarcasm, so what in the fucking fuck is going on in Australia that at ages 18 to 20 is considered 40% wage in any industry? What industries will pay 100% versus 40%? Do you guys not have laws protecting ageism? Am I too tired to be on the internet? Just kidding. I know I am. See ya'll in the morning.
G'day! Adulthood is defined here as being 18 too. Once you turn 18, no age restrictions apply to you anymore. You can drink, smoke, vote, go to war, whatever you'd like.
In fast food specifically (unsure about others), the minimum wage increases 10% for every year over 15 you are, starting with 40% at 15 and reaching 90% when you're 20. It's an absolutely stupid and I'd definitely argue discriminatory rule.
It IS actually illegal to discriminate based on age, I don't know why it's legal to discriminate any adults based on age for anything, and I'm unsure whether that's intentional or it actually is but just unenforced, but from my experience it's pretty much only ageism if you discriminate against old people (at least, that's how it's enforced)
Some industries don't have any age based wages. I know the community services award doesn't, but I'm not sure about others
How are the laws/regulations worded in Australia?
"Discrimination in employment based on age" or "discrimination in pay based on age" can probably be considered two separate things. (A silly distinction, but weasel words make the politics go round.) Id be surprised if anti-discrimination laws combined both of these to grant more protections to a large chunk of the workforce.
I've never read the legislature so I don't know, but I'd assume it's a bit of both, but with specific exceptions to people under 21. There would have to be pay wise, otherwise the government would be implementing illegal laws, but I'm not sure whether anybody can be discriminated against based solely on age in terms of employment
I personally agree with you, but the counter argument is that would make it much harder for 15yo kids to get a job. Most employers would prefer to hire someone a bit more mature if it cost the same. So allowing a lower minimum wage for teenagers evens the playing field a bit.
I don't disagree with the counter argument entirely, but I do think that the almost 'discount' (for lack of a better word) you receive by hiring younger people is excessive. And because it's less than half the price to hire a 15 year old vs 21 year old, that means 2 things end up happening:
Firstly the older you get the less likely you are to be hired for an entry role (which I'm sure you can argue is justified, but if you just never started working until you were 18+, you're pretty much SOL)
Secondly once you turn 17, or 18, or 19, a lot of people get effectively fired if they aren't part or full time. Of course, that would be illegal, so what happens is your hours just end up getting cut, or they conveniently "run out of work" for you and stop giving you shifts
