Monday 23 January 2012

Profiting from Unemployment

The case of Cait Reilly suing the Government is surprising because it is surprising. She's the geology graduate going to the High Court for being forced to work for free in Poundland or face losing her Job Seekers Allowance.

It's surprising because so many people already think it's an unjust system. For me, I think it's outrageous that private businesses benefit from millions of pounds worth of labour, subsidised by the taxpayer. They're having their cake and eating it by taking on free, State-sponsored labour and boosting their reputation for doing so. There's no irony that Poundland last year bucked the struggling high street retail sector trend to announce record profits, up 30-odd percent on the previous year.

Of course, I'm all in favour of work experience as an invaluable means to prove a job seeker means business about employment. Clean Slate is founded on this premise but also on the deal that while you're proving yourself, you should also be directly rewarded for your efforts - by the beneficiary, ie, the employer. This demonstrates respect and forms the fundamental contract between the worker and the boss, and this cannot be artificially engendered without money changing hands.

Cait Reilly wouldn't generally qualify as a Clean Slate Temp Worker because she's not so disadvantaged in the labour market and is clearly well-motivated in herself, having lined up volunteering in a museum more closely alligned to her career of choice. That only shows how badly wrong Job Centre Plus are getting things.

I don't agree that as someone from a relatively privileged background she should 'get over herself' as some pundits have said - some of those pundits are commenting from an equally privileged position, probably more so. I think Reilly has a good point - one made privately by thousands of poorer people who wouldn't get a look in in the media, let alone have the stomach to take on the Government.

I had a bit of a barney with Business in the Community not so long ago. Why should private, profit-making businesses get free labour from homeless people just because they're homeless and because they should think themselves lucky enough to have something to add to their CV? Even if it leads to a job, it saves the company the cost of recruitment or at least the gamble of taking on an unknown.

Job Centre Plus is lining up similar placements for 50,000 job seekers. That's 3.5 million hours handed to employers for free. That's almost £25m of staff costs underwritten by Government. (And I don't buy the argument about employers' management time, as they'd have to provide that anyway to temp staff, they save on recruitment/ induction costs if they take on the job seekers, and it doesn't take much training for stacking shelves.)

Obviously I have an agenda. Oddly, it's quite a corporate one. Clean Slate is doing what Job Centre Plus fails to do: prepares people for work in practical skills and in attitude. We pump prime people to build their confidence. And, where people opt for work experience, work is matched 100 percent to their ability to make something of the opportunity and it's paid*. We also put in a whole load of legwork with the employers to ensure they fit the bill and negotiate what gaps we need to fill in if training or support cannot be offered on the job. (*Our Temp Workers declare their earnings, often losing money pound for pound, and work within the restrictive welfare thresholds to avoid being forced off benefits before they're ready.)

Hopefully, I've made Clean Slate's case well enough not to sound to arrogant but: When we're doing so much better, why should we have to compete with State-subsidised schemes that under-value job seekers and profit mainstream companies?

So, we'll be watching Cait Reilly's progress with interest. I doubt she stands much chance but I hope she gets plenty of attention - less reactionary and sensationalist than it's been to date, at that.

No comments:

Post a Comment