Issue 1247 - The Courier

Comment
Comment
Tuesday 6 March 2012 Th eCourier
Editors Sophie McCoid and
Susie May Beever
Online Comment Editor Jack Torrance
No money
for nothing:
Innovation or
exploitation?
SLAVE
LABOUR?
Fast food chain Burger
King is one of the corporations
to drop out of the
scheme. Photography:
miskan (Flickr)
Is The Government’s youth WE scheme beneficial?
YES
JOE
WOOD
Experience is often considered
the most valuable asset a person
can have when they are
looking for employment.
However, providing work experience
for people on Job Seeker’s Allowance
has been severely criticised
in the past days and weeks, being
compared to a form of modern “slave
labour.” In my opinion this is a completely
unfounded view, when it is
considered from a wider perspective.
In reality, it is a highly innovative
scheme. It provides young people
with very little to no qualifications an
opportunity to immerse themselves
in a working environment and gain
skills and recommendations they can
use for future references. Yet, despite
the benefits this scheme and schemes
that follow it could bring, large businesses
have begun flocking away in
droves and as such it may well cease
to exist while still in its infancy.
Under these work placement
schemes, people have a much greater
opportunity of escaping Job Seeker’s
Allowance and finding employment,
especially as employers are often reluctant
to take on people with no
experience in the workplace. Consequently,
the scheme encourages social
mobility by offering unemployed
young people opportunities that
would, in any other instance, be unavailable
to them.
It is a great shame that large businesses,
such as Burger King, have recently
pulled out of the scheme, due
to mounting public and political pressure.
Yet, this scheme is one of the few
ways in which young people can find
work experience, and there is now a
great possibility that it will be eliminated
while still in its early stages.
The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson,
expressed the predicament of
the jobless youth, in a column in the
Daily Telegraph: “They are told they
can’t get a job unless they have some
work experience; and they can’t get
any work experience unless someone
is willing to give them a job.”
Considering how British youth unemployment
is at an all-time high, it
is unfathomable that there are such
strong criticisms against the scheme.
It is, of course, not the only way that
unemployment can be lowered; however,
it is a massive opening into some
of the largest private companies in
Britain and is a powerful means to
strengthening our weakened economy.
As a nation, we are suffering from
increasing ‘measures of austerity’ and
it is not possible for Britain to function
without a working populace in
these times. Therefore, helping people,
who would otherwise remain
idle, become part of a work force is a
reasonable approach to take. In light
of this, one of the great detriments to
reducing unemployment in Britain
could be seen as those who have so
severely criticised this scheme without
truly considering what it actually
provides for unemployed young people
and for the country as a whole.
NO
JOE
MATHERS
In principle, the government’s
flagship work experience scheme
seems like a great idea for getting
the young and jobless into work.
However, there has been intense public
criticism of the scheme, accusing it
of using job seekers as “slave labour”.
While I don’t take the view that
the government’s work experience
scheme amounts to “slave labour”.
I would argue that there are a number
of fundamental issues with the
scheme both morally and practically.
Participants in these schemes can
have their Jobseeker’s Allowance cut
if they drop out after the first week. It
is argued by the government that this
rule protects small businesses using
the scheme.
However, if we look at the 100 or so
businesses and charities taking part in
the scheme, only a tiny proportion is
small businesses. Additionally, many
of these businesses already run their
own work experience schemes, where
there is no threat of benefit cuts.
So there seems little point to this
new government scheme, unless it is a
government cost cutting exercise.
If we look at the statistics of who receives
employment after the scheme
has finished, the figures are very illuminating.
Only 25% of the participants
on the scheme receive full time
employment and the government’s
own figures suggest that these participants
would have found employment
swiftly anyway.
Another 25% receive part time employment
that often doesn’t amount
to more money than job seekers allowance,
but they can still lose their
benefits if they don’t take a job offered
by their work experience placement.
Furthermore, the unpaid work experience
scheme distorts the labour
market. It means that businesses in
the current economic climate can access
an almost unlimited supply of
free labour. This means that there is
less need for paid employees, which is
extremely beneficial for big businesses
but not for the young and jobless. Often
only a limited skill set is required,
so companies can rotate unpaid employees
on a four weekly basis.
A study conducted in 2008 by the
Department of Work and Pensions,
investigated the effectiveness of work
experience schemes for the young
and jobless in other countries. It concluded
that, “there is little evidence
that workfare increases the likelihood
of finding work” and “it can even reduce
employment chances.”
Although the job scheme is not
compulsory, it is often portrayed as
such by job centres that are looking
to hit targets on reducing the number
of job seekers. There have also been
huge inconsistencies in the implementation
of the scheme.
Additionally, there are some serious
moral questions that need to be asked.
Executive pay for a large proportion
of the businesses involved with this
scheme has risen on average by 49%
just last year. It seems perverse that
unpaid employees are now making
money for extremely well paid executives.
In principle, the government’s work
experience scheme seems very beneficial
for the jobless. However, in practice
there are a number of underlining
issues that need to be resolved before
I will support it.
Emails in response to
articles should be sent to:
editor.union@ncl.ac.uk