Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Ian Hurley
I know that this may sound stupid in view of recent age discrimination legislation, but is there any reason why young people 16-18 should not be employed, any answers are greatly appreciated
ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Anthony Slinger
I saw a recent job advertisement in the local paper for a van driver. It read "must be over 21 for insurance purposes." Is this legal? would the company would be obliged to pay a higher premium, for example, so not to fall foul of this law? I would think that a driver under 21 could not be discriminated in this way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Darren J Fraser
The insurance provider has most probably stipulated the age rather than the potential employer, same situation with not allowing under 18 to clean certain machinery due to insurance stipulation.
Would the employer want to infringe insurance cover to prevent discrimination claim - unlikely
Would the insurance provider loose a discrimination claim from a third party - how often does an insurance company pay out on this sort of claim - hardly ever.
So long as the young person is correctly supervised, fully understands the company policies and procedures and has been correctly informed of all relevant risks, has received adequate and comprehensive training and instruction to the same level as other persons within that position, then there is absolutely no reason why a young person cannot be employed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Baynes
Not my area but what about the following?:
work which they are not physically or mentally capable of doing.
work which brings them into contact with chemical agents, toxic material or radiation
work which involves a health risk because of extreme cold, heat or vibration
I think they are only allowed to do the work above under the following circumstances:
where it is necessary for their training
where an experienced person is supervising them
where any risk is reduced to the lowest level that is reasonable.
Additionally, I don't think they can work serving alcohol in open containers, not sure about bottles and cans. There used to be some prohibition on working in commercial kitchens but I can neither remember nor find out whether that still stands and it may have only applied to those below school leaving age anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48 I am not sure why you ask the question in the way you do. Young persons present a different set of risks than adults but subject to suitable risk controls it is perfectly acceptable to employ young people between 16 and 18. There are, as one might expect, some prohibitions enshrined in law, regulation and code but beyond that it is a matter of making a risk assessment that recognises the special risks that young person present. One clear example is immaturity both mental and physical. This may, for example, require a different sort and style of supervision. The HSE has a webpage devoted to this subject that will help you further. http://www.hse.gov.uk/youngpeople/index.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gareth W Jones
This response is to Anthony Slingers question on this thread....
I Attended an employment law seminar yesterday, H&S/HR type workshop, under the new "Age discrimination Act" there is a clause which states "Objective Justification" which goes on to say with cost or Health and Safety implications employers can justify age as a reason for non employment.
Gareth
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
quote "is there any reason why young people 16-18 should not be employed" (sic)
Yes. If they are not qualified, not suitable, and not appropriate personality.
You may wish to train them, coach them, supervise and mentor them so that you can continue to trade with the advantages that new employees can bring to your business... there are only a very small number of jobs that would be precluded.
I left school and went into a five-year apprenticeship. Started at fifteen. Thankfully my employer had foresight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Anthony Slinger Thanks for that Gareth,good old CPD! I googled "Objective Justification" and found a page from the DTI. To quote "The discriminatory effect of any age-based practice should be significantly outweighed by the importance and benefits of its legitimate aim, and the employer should have no reasonable alternative." it goes on "A wide variety of aims may be considered legitimate, but they must correspond with a reasonable need on the part of the employer. Economic factors such as business needs and efficiency may be legitimate aims, but arguing that it could be more expensive not to discriminate will not in itself be a valid justification." The point I was making would it be reasonable for an employer not to employ some one on age if it ment paying a higher insurance premium. It is not as if 17-21 year olds cannot get insurance to drive commercial vans. Full link http://www.agepositive.g...tive%20justification.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.