Experience - Welcome to Work, Kids

The past week’s row about government-funded work experience has been a disturbing exercise both in the hypocrisy of pressure groups and the enduring persuasiveness of the tabloid media.

Before today’s inevitable and sensible concession by the government, one would have been forgiven for thinking that the programme was some radical experiment of labour economics, when the crux of all this fuss is merely the concept of an internship.

“Unpaid forced labour” said some; “slavery” screamed others. Of course, the government’s defence that the scheme is voluntary is not without its flaws since the scheme does financially penalise those who see out the first week but later pull out.

But why is a state-funded incentive for firms to give the young unemployed a potentially vital start in the world of work coming in for so much criticism… and why now?

The Get Britain Working scheme has been in action since January last year, and according to official figures more than 30,000 people have taken part, of whom half were off jobseekers’ allowance within a month (whether as a result of their participation or otherwise).

But controversy has been stoked recently by the withdrawal of firms like Burger King and Matalan due to nothing more than “public concerns”. These concerns focus on the theory that companies taking on voluntary workers through the scheme are motivated purely by profit – that they expect their unpaid recruits to do the same job as ordinary workers, thus saving on wages.

This theory worked – at least until today – because firms knew that it was in the interests of the scheme’s participants to put up with whatever they were given because of the threat of penalties for withdrawal. Alas, that threat has now (belatedly) been removed.

However, what astounded ministers most was the admission by some of the companies pulling out that their decision was driven by media coverage of the scheme and, essentially, its impact on their PR – the ambitions of a growing number of young workers were being hindered by the usual headline-hungry press and a minority of misguided activists, they claimed.

Indeed, the position taken by groups like the ironically-named Right To Work is baffling. Everyone agrees that – like it or not – getting in is often the hardest part of getting on in the world of work, and that any opportunity for real work experience is therefore highly valuable; ‘soft skills’ may be a much-maligned buzz-phrase but employers increasingly believe in them.

Yet in an era of a so-called ‘lost generation’, a group claiming to be on their side is piling the pressure on governments and firms, jeopardising employment schemes and making demands that simply cannot and will not be met.

So what if the work is unpaid – the harsh reality is that employers would not risk taking on the burden of employing someone with that background unless there was something in it for them. It is in governments’ interest, too, to step into the private sector and implement schemes that might present a short-term cost but offer a long-term gain in the form of lower welfare bills.

“One battle won but the wider fight goes on” was the response of Right To Work today. Others such as the TUC – not exactly a friend of the Conservatives – hailed the removal of sanctions as a way of ensuring that the scheme won’t be exploited by firms.

As those who have been there know, experience usually comes at a cost, so those threatening to kick away the ladder would do well to maintain a sense of perspective.

New Reforms, Same Old Story

The House of Commons takes a mid-term break this week. David Cameron and some of his Cabinet ministers must be quite glad of it.

If last month’s assault on Alex Salmond and his independence referendum plans was meant to signal a year of bold and decisive moves to deal with some of the intractable issues facing the Westminster government, that strategy hasn’t lasted very long. Just six weeks into the new year two of its flagship reforms – to health and welfare – are once again tying the coalition in knots.

With any such public-service reform, often the stiffest resistance a government faces is not to the nature of the change it proposes, but to the idea of change itself – just ask Tony Blair. And if New Labour-style reform wasn’t ambitious enough, the current administration is attempting to implement it whilst squeezing budgets and tackling stubbornly high unemployment.

Hence Andy Burnham’s TV interview this morning about the Health and Social Care Bill. The Shadow Health Secretary shrewdly uttered a few headline-grabbing phrases about the Prime Minister like ‘facing the fight of his life’ and ‘putting political pride ahead of others’ best interests’, as well as the usual sentimentality about the traditions of the NHS.

However, the substance of Burnham’s position is that he supports doctor-led commissioning – one of the primary features of the Bill (and one that is already being rolled out anyway – the legislation is merely catching up with reality). What he really opposes, besides the supposed introduction of a market in the NHS – tabloid rhetoric for giving patients more choice (another principle that is already in practice across the country) – is the timing of the reform.

He calls it a “catastrophic mistake” to combine the financial pressures being placed on the NHS, not only by deficit reduction but also by demographic change, with fundamental restructuring. But when the government’s response is to claim that the reform would itself save money, the debate becomes a stalemate.

The same is true of changes to the welfare system. In one corner is a government aiming to cut costs, incentivise employment and stimulate economic growth by making life on benefits much less rewarding, pitted against an opposition claiming to be on the side of those hit hard by the downturn, for whom government support is a vital safety net – for which they have paid.

This sense of society’s entitlement to everything that governments have previously offered is what makes change – no matter how rational – so politically difficult. No one who works for what they earn would argue that those who don’t are entitled to an equivalent standard of living… until that job disappears and suddenly one’s self-interest changes; that is human nature.

Sadly, the likely result is the one that satisfies nobody; the one from which nobody gains – half-hearted or watered-down reforms that waste time and money, sap political support and merely paper over the cracks that were intended to be filled, shifting the problem into the future and the burden of solving it onto future generations.

And so it will be this coming week, when the Lords – whose half-term is, bizarrely, delayed by a week – debate healthcare and welfare reforms and vote on a number of amendments the like of which have already been rejected by the Commons.

The legislative ping-pong is worryingly reminiscent of that which has hobbled President Obama’s first term in the White House. David Cameron will be aware of the same risks facing his own authority, and the possible impact on his place in history. Just ask Tony Blair.