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.
No comments:
Post a Comment