I’m 20 – why should I earn less than someone a few years older?

Two years ago, I walked into Edinburgh’s Cameron Toll McDonald’s for a Thursday closing shift, feeling my wallet bursting at the seams after a payrise.

I had turned 18 the day before, meaning I had magically become worthy of a £1.50 payrise, taking my hourly salary from £8.50 to £10. 

I walked in, washed my hands and tied up my apron, ready for an onslaught of Big Macs and nuggets – the same process I had gone through for six months. 

Nothing had changed to warrant the new numbers on my payslip. 

I hadn’t suddenly become a world-class burger flipper, nor had I overnight discovered a secret love for customer service. And yet I was now being paid more than many of my colleagues – but crucially, not as much as those who were just three years older.

It didn’t seem right to me, but when I discussed it with colleagues, there was always a sense of ‘It is what it is’. 

Management would speak about building a team for the future, but with most staff leaving within a year, and most new employees inevitably being under-21, it was pretty clear the bottom line was in mind, and we just had to accept it. 

The truth is, there is no inherent difference between a 16-year-old worker and a 21-year-old one. 

But salaries for young workers are subject to ‘discretionary age bands’, which see 18- to 20-year-olds receive a minimum wage of £10 per hour, compared to the £12.21 received by those 21 and above. Under 18s receive even less, £7.55 an hour. 

My stint at McDonald’s was during my first year at university. 

Even two years later, I still think about the fact that were it not for those age bands, I could have been earning additional cash that would have made paying each month’s rent and bill payments, which certainly didn’t discriminate based on my age, so much easier.

So I was pleased when the incoming Labour government announced in 2024 that they would remove the discretionary age bands. 

Sadly, however, under pressure from big business, there are now reports that Keir Starmer and his ministers are considering delaying the change. 

It is beyond disappointing to see the ‘worker’s party’ put bosses before a fair deal for young workers. 

Among those raising the alarm are Luke Johnson, a director of Gail’s bakery and Brompton Bicycles, has ever seen (businesses which had 2025 revenues of £219.8m and £121.5m respectively.)

Johnson’s argument appears to be that young people are inexperienced and therefore relatively unproductive, and that being obliged to pay them more will discourage employers from creating jobs, because it’s simply too risky. 

Well, you don’t need a lot of experience to serve a pizza, or flip burgers, or pull pints – I should know, I’ve done all three. 

Plus, you can get unproductive people of all ages – it’s not just young people that have the exclusive on that particular characteristic. 

In fact, some of the young people I met at university were the most productive people in my life; working upwards of 20 hours a week while also juggling university and on the hunt for internships. 

This was in sharp contrast to many of the customers we served, who seemed to stick their noses up at us, and the work we were being paid so little to do. 

Since I turned 16, I have worked for many of the biggest high-street chains. I’ve been a Christmas temp at Primark, a crew member for McDonald’s and a bartender for Wetherspoon, and each time, age-based pay brackets were in place.

It was an open secret at every one of these jobs that we were working within an unfair system. When people heard your birthday was coming up, the first thing they’d say was, ‘Ah, you’ll enjoy the pay bump!’ 

Everyone knew it was wrong, but there was little optimism for change. 

There is no way I’m the only person to have plenty of experience in retail, fast-food and hospitality at 20. Virtually everyone I know has worked for at least a year at that age. 

The turnover at these jobs is also so high that you can become the most experienced staff member within a year or so. 

The simple truth is young workers are generally not in jobs that require huge amounts of experience. 

Nor is employee development dependent on age: an 18-year-old and a 21-year-old get the same training, presumably cultivating the same skills, and yet one comes off far better.

If these businesses do fear collapse, and the only cost-saving measure they can think to implement is paying a 20-year-old less than a 21-year-old, surely they have much bigger problems on the horizon.

Especially with some of the mega chains I’ve worked for – the fact is, for them, paying younger people less is about improving their already healthy profit margins. 

That may make sense from a strictly capitalist perspective, but it doesn’t make it fair. 

When I was paid less as a 16-year-old, I didn’t receive a teenager discount on energy bills or grocery shopping. 

Even for those with no experience, the cost of living continues to increase. It’s unfair to punish someone trying to get into the job market by paying them less than they deserve purely because of their age. 

Do you think younger workers should be paid equally for the same job?Comment Now

The lower wages also mean younger workers, myself included, have to work more hours to hit their income targets. This sucks time away from our studies and cuts down on our time to rest, socialise and develop our independence. 

By not removing the discretionary minimum wage bands, we risk denying young workers the chance to work to save, and in turn to have the opportunity to maybe become employers themselves. 

This isn’t about inexperience, productivity, or even the economy. 

It’s just about basic fairness. 

Do you have a story you’d like to share? Get in touch by emailing Ross.Mccafferty@metro.co.uk. 

Share your views in the comments below.

Comments Add as preferred source