OPINION: I disagree with the Labour Party's policy on reduced pay for untrained youngsters going for their first job, mentioned in your paper by Lesley Soper.
She says if an employer has to choose between an inexperienced 16-year-old and a 26-year-old, they will choose the 16-year-old because of the cheaper rate.
Of course they will.
I have been an employer and the economics are simple. Employ the inexperienced teenager and they can be trained for the job.
The volume and expertise of the work they perform is only worth the reduced pay and if they measure up they get full rates.
They get a start in life and this is a trial period to see if they can handle it.
If they don't get the opportunity to make a start, they will perform like the Maori youth north of Auckland. They don't go to school so they are unemployable.
The boys turn to drugs and thievery and the girls have babies and get welfare for the rest of their lives.
I wouldn't employ a 26-year-old to start a new role because what have they done for a job for the past 10 years? Why haven't they got a job now?
Are they lazy or stupid or both?
Don't take the risk. Employ the 16-year-old at reduced rates.
- The Southland Times
How do you feel about the use of undercover police officers in pubs?Related story: Respect lost in police spying