Posted By Jim Walker If you check the reasons why young people can't operate certain machinery you will see its an absolute duty. You need a young persons policy (call it something else if you must) kids under 18 are too immature to be treated like elders (if I had my way it would be nearer 21). Ask yourself which is better -hurt the poor dear's feelings or send them home with a hand missing.

Posted By sagalout Can I ask a Jimmy Gren question at this point? I am far from being a legal beagle and the question is a good one for opening the debate. I had not even considered this as a matter that needed any adjustment to policy or approach. Why? Because the requirement for a specific assessment for young persons is based on ability not age. I cannot see how any claim made under the ADA would succeed. Hopefully someone with a legal background will post a clarification for us.

Posted By J Knight One of the questions you should ask is about detriment. Are your young people being treated detrimentally on the grounds of youth, in relation to older workers? Mere discrimination isn't a problem. Another question is about reasonableness. Discrimination as such is not unreasonable, and is practised all the time by all employers; for example, only people with driving licences can drive our minibuses, we actively discriminate against non-drivers, but this is quite reasonable. If we were to state that in addition to a driving licence, our drivers would have to be over 21, would we be unfairly discriminating? No, because it is illegal for a driver to drive a minibus for hire or reward if they are under 21. So to comply with the law, we have to discriminate on grounds of age. As I see it, the requirement to treat young persons and children differently is a legal requirement arising from the Children's Act etc and MHOR. Provided there is no detriment, and no unreasonable discrimination there should be no problem. On the other hand I can see that you could in theory allow a 17 year old to operate dangerous machinery given ISIT and provided it was necessary for their training, so in this particular case your question is appropriate, John

Posted By Merv Newman The recent EU case concerned a female HSE inspector who discovered that she was being paid about 25% less than male colleagues The verdict effectively said that employers could discriminate between employees depending on experience and value to the employer. If the employer could show that an employee was more valuable to them, either because of CPD or other factors then that employee could be paid more than one less valuable. Men, who remain on the job, often receive annual pay rises. Women do not necessarily get such increases while off the job and can come back at the same level at which they left It is also a common assumption that women who take time off for children and have shorter overall career lengths are thus less experienced and of less value to employees. One comment I did see was that the above would be understandable for professional people who are (or should be) always learning : CPD. But how long does it take to learn to flip burgers efficiently ? (Sunday times) And how can a women who has taken a long period off work show that she has maintained or improved professional competency and is still at least as valuable as her male colleagues ? The EU decision appears to allow you to pay less competent people less than you would pay more competent experienced people. This is often called a "merit rise" Two H&S people are working in the same office, same age and time on the job, both being TechIOSH. If one was a woman who, while on maternity leave qualified for CMIOSH, I would expect her to come back on a rate higher than her less qualified less valuable colleague. (sex of the colleague doesn't enter into it) So, back to the original question on young people. The Young Persons Act limits them to "less dangerous" work as they have not gained the competency to be relied upon to work safely. It protects them more than it protects older persons. Positive discrimination for the young. But you till have to do the Risk Assessment taking into account the level of skill and expertise of those persons expected to be undertaking the work. And there is no way I'm going to be standing too close to a bacon slicer. At my age ? Merv Merv