When we talk about diversity and inclusion, “same job, same pay” is a guiding principle. We build strategies around fairness, equity, and equal opportunity. But there’s one area we rarely question—how we pay junior and apprentice workers. In an era where equity is non-negotiable, why are we still paying people based on age?
The Current Model: Age vs Capability
Many junior employees and apprentices are paid significantly less than adult workers, even when they’re doing the same job, in the same environment, with the same expectations. The rationale? They’re younger. But when performance, responsibility and contribution are equal, does age still justify a discount?
It raises uncomfortable questions. Are we saying a younger person’s effort is worth less? Are we reinforcing the idea that value comes with age—not capability?
Fairness, or Just Historical Habit?
In any other part of the business, this wouldn’t pass the fairness test. Paying someone less based on personal characteristics—whether gender, ethnicity, or background—would be unacceptable. Yet when it comes to junior rates, we accept it as standard practice.
This isn’t just a payroll issue. It’s a cultural one. It speaks to what we value, and how seriously we take inclusion and equity when it’s not easy or convenient.
Rethinking Pay as a Strategic Move
In the middle of ongoing talent shortages across trades and early career roles, we should be asking if this model is helping or hurting. What would happen if we paid juniors and apprentices more—not just because it’s fair, but because it’s smart?
Employers who pay fairly often see stronger engagement and loyalty. Younger workers feel valued. Word gets around. Higher pay can attract better candidates, increase pride in the profession, and reduce dropout rates in critical training pipelines. This isn’t just about cost—it’s about futureproofing.
Will It Kill Industry—or Help Save It?
There’s a common argument that lifting junior wages would hurt small businesses or increase pressure across already tight margins. But perhaps the real question is whether the current model is sustainable at all. If we rely on underpaying the youngest in the workforce to make the numbers work, then the system is already fragile.
Maybe we’ve underestimated the potential uplift—greater retention, better quality training outcomes, and a stronger employment brand in a socially conscious market.
Time to Challenge the Default
It’s time to start asking different questions. Are junior rates a relic of an outdated system? Are we unintentionally undermining our own D&I efforts by accepting a two-tiered pay structure? Are we really developing future talent—or just discounting it?
If equity truly matters, then it must extend to those just starting out. Paying juniors fairly isn’t just the right thing to do—it could be the smartest move we haven’t made yet.
