SHOCKING NEW TRIAL SCHEME WILL SEE GRADUATES MAKE JUST £1.87 AN HOUR
Job-seeking graduates living in London are to be forced to work for three months unpaid in order to keep their benefits, the government has announced. That means they will be toiling for less than £1.87 per hour – even less than the pitiful wages that apprentices earn. And it gets worse. If the scheme is successful, it will be rolled out nationally.
Fresh from his department’s success crushing objections from Poundland intern Cait Reilly in court earlier this month, employment Minister Chris Grayling announced that 18- to 24-year-olds (including graduates) who have spent less than six months in employment since leaving education will now have to work for 30 hours a week for their £56-a-week jobseeker’s allowance. (That’s £1.87 an hour – we did the maths). He denied that it was “slave labour” and insisted it would help young Londoners improve their career prospects.
They will do ‘work experience placements’ in charities or social organisations – such as care homes – for 30 hours a week over 13 weeks. It is unclear how much real work these ‘placements’ will involve, but given that the idea is to banish the “something for nothing culture” that he feels is so prevalent among workless under-24s, we assume these will look very similar to proper jobs (only they will be unpaid, of course). The scheme will be tested this year in 16 London boroughs including the riot-hit areas of Croydon and Haringey. The Government then hopes to roll out the scheme across London and the rest of the UK.
In a comment piece for the Evening Standard entitled Working for benefit is not the same as slave labour, Grayling defended his scheme, saying:
“Of course we can’t just leave young people, particularly those in difficult circumstances, with no access to financial support. But it’s not at all unreasonable to expect them to do something in return for that support. And that’s what a new trial we are launching in London will do.
“Later this year we will begin a scheme that will ask young Londoners signing on for the first time to do three months of full-time community work in return for their benefits. As part of the scheme, they will also receive support in looking for jobs and getting themselves ready for the world of work.
“Every young person who has done less than six months’ previous work will be asked to take part – and if they refuse, they will not be able to claim benefits…
“The usual suspects will cry “slave labour”. They always do. But they are the people who believe that young claimants have the right to sit at home playing computer games. I simply disagree.
“In an ideal world, no one should get something for nothing. And if you haven’t yet had the chance to make a financial contribution, then it’s not at all unreasonable to ask you to give something to the community before it gives something to you.”
The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, added:
“I would much rather people had the fun and the experience of work placements and the confidence that comes with it than being on benefits and doing nothing [and] seeing their self-esteem fall away.”
Graduate Fog does not think that anybody has the right to sit at home playing computer games whilst being funded by the taxpayer. But we do think that young people have a right to the same protection as any other citizen – which is to be paid at least the minimum wage for their labour.
We have serious questions about the practicalities of this scheme. What safeguards have been put in place to stop these work placements replacing proper, paid jobs at these places of work (like care homes)? What happens to these jobseekers after their three month placement – is there any guarantee of paid work at the end of it? Will any of these ‘social organisations’ and care homes be private businesses – and if so why should taxpayers fund unpaid labour there? If these people aren’t being paid, what kind of attitude can we expect them to have at ‘work’? Won’t they be difficult to manage? Will they be properly supervised? And is it appropriate to trial this scheme in workplaces concerned with the important business of caring for some of our most frail and vulnerable citizens, like the elderly or the disabled?
But our big question is HAS ANYBODY IN THE GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY SAT DOWN AND THOUGHT THIS THING THROUGH? Because we are rapidly losing faith – as well as patience – in our government’s ability to provide what Britain’s young people really need. Which is proper, paid jobs.
*IS £1.87 A FAIR WAGE FOR GRADUATES?
Or do you think your work is worth more? Do you agree that young people have a ‘something for nothing attitude’? Would you be happy to take a ‘work placement’ in a care home, if it meant keeping your benefits?
I am trying desperately to find work. These Tories have no idea how the other half live!
Well it’s not as though any conservative government really wants to see an excess of critical thinking, structured analysis, and skilled debate among its young population. The skills taught at university tend cause people to push back against authority rather than blindly obeying policies that support inequality between groups of citizens. Punishing university graduates is the logical choice, as it deters people from developing the skills necessary to question societal elites.
Marks, I think you’re being a bit cynical there.
The reason why it’s easy to bash the young is because, quite simply, they’re the societal group least likely to vote, despite everything that’s going on.
Critical thinking, structured analysis, and skilled debate is great within the confines of University (where young people, mostly, excel) but there’s talking and there’s action.
Despite all their critical thinking, structured analysis, and skilled debate, young people who don’t vote, as far as I’m concerned, have no right to moan. They must accept the lot given to them, because they did nothing to stop it.
The skills taught at University make us great thinkers and writers – world class, in a lot of respects – but not good actors. Get on the stage if you wanna make a change.
The Government’s scheme is very similar to the Poor Law system that ran between 1834 and 1948. It was only because the Labour Party won the General Election in 1945 that the system was replaced by the National Assistance Act 1948 and the creation of the Welfare State. Both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives together are systematically and logically dismantling the Welfare State, something that neither party believed in from the start. They have only supported in the past because it has been hugely popular with the electorate.
The purpose of the Universal Credit is to undermine further the independence of Local Government, esp under areas of Labour control and further centralise power with the Central Government.
The new Welfare-to-Work scheme is a philosophy of the New Right and places control of welfare recipients into the hands of the private sector and voluntary sector. In essence, the Government will be outsourcing Labour Exchange. The first 13 weeks will not feature in the unemployment statistics and struggling charities and failing businesses will have their staffing shortages plugged, free of charge. The Government will hand over decision-making powers to these employers, who will have the power to recommend suspension of benefit if the ‘unemployed’ person is regarded as not behaving responsibly under their own business codes.
As regards graduates, the Government has to give them a dressing down. It has probably witnessed what it regards as too many beligerent graduates who think they are better than anybody else, who think they should get special treatment because they are graduates, who have the nerve to claim Jobseekers Allowance when their skills and qualification would secure them employment, and it is only their own stubborn attitude that stops them getting of their fat, bone-idle arses, so they need to be given the right incentive to look for work.
The Tories are behaving as the breadwinner father with a solid work ethic, and the Liberal Democrats the dutiful submissive housewife. Together, they plot and scheme to ‘liberate’ us from the Socialists.
@Brian – yet another “all graduates are lazy” attitude which conveniently backs this scheme which will disadvantage many and benefit few. Being made redundant was enough incentive for me to look for work but it still took me eight months to find another job. That was after 3 voluntary placements, 2 courses and a hell of a lot of job applications. Insinuating that a degree is a fast-track to a job in this day and age is laughable.
What I’m concerned about is that overstretched care homes will now be forced to be staffed by graduates who are only working there to cling on to what little money they have – what about the older people who live in them? How good is this going to be for them?
@Sarah, as you are probably aware, studies have shown that a lot of graduates in employment have either got s job that is unrelated to their degree or have a non-graduate low-paid job. Something like 70% of graduates are in employment, with about 10% unemployed and the remainder in postgraduate study. So, I would not consider all graduates to be lazy.
The labour market has experienced monumental shifts in recent years as companies down-sized and cut back to the bone. Sometimes it’s difficult or impossible to spot a trend as a trend and not just a few companies acting alone. Everyone keeps their cards close to their chest and don’t assist jobseekers by letting them know about the change. Overnight, through no fault of your own, you can find yourself either made redundant or locked out of your chosen sector in looking for work.
Companies are getting used to getting roughly the same amount of work out of fewer people. Managers are becoming increasingly skilled at keeping their workforce numbers low. However, a year of this and figures show that the economy flatlined and then dipped into recession. Economic growth can only happen through creating many more full-time paid jobs, paid at the appropriate level for the job.
The Coalition Government’s approach is wrong.
@Brian …I totally didn’t see the irony in your first post. It really looked like you were being serious!
That’s OK, Sarah.