TVNZ reports the "agreement" to pay children working at supermarkets adult wages as a "win for supermarket youth." It isn't. It's a win for Laila Harre's union, and for Sue Bradford's activism.
Sure, the bill is "a win" for those few youngsters who are paid as adults and who can hold down their job by producing more than they are paid, but it's not so good for any youngsters who might be pursuing such work and who aren't yet at adult levels of productivity.
"Harre says as the country's largest retail operator, Progressive is setting a new industry standard." So it is. This agreement will leave unemployable youth locked out right across the supermarket youth.
As is always the case with minimum wage laws, the raise in rates is good for those presently employed in the industry, but demonstrably bad for those who aren't, and who now never will be. At a stroke, it makes unemployable a whole swathe of youngsters who could have got their start on this particular employment ladder.
I expect both Bradford and Harre are aware of this, but I doubt that either will care. Their motivation for their youth rate campaigns has not been to do good for youngsters, who to them are just tools in the socialilist revolution, but to get a whole new generation involved in socialist activism--and it's in that goal that they've just been delivered a success, an easy success.
Keep an eye on where they go now with their activists now they've been handed this particular victory.