Over the years, UK Government efforts to get the long-term unemployed
back into work have not been a great success. People that I've spoken to who
have been on DWP courses aimed at getting them off benefits and back into work,
have told me that training providers have often told them that they find it
harder to get well qualified people back into work than people with no
qualifications.
Some years ago, an unemployed man that I knew, told me that his jobcentre work coach had advised him not to disclose his university qualifications in business studies and economics, because it might be scaring off potential employers. He refused to do so, and contacted the newspapers. This was at a time when Tony Blair was spouting on about "Education, Education, Education."
I know of one person who is long term unemployed who has a science degree, two science masters' degrees, and spent three years studying for a PhD and she still can't get a job. She tells me that her local jobcentre offer her cleaning and packing jobs.
Another problem with so-called back to work training, is that the courses tend to be motivational and of a one size fits all type. They involve a lot of psychobabble and bullshit. They're basically trying to shove square pegs into round holes and people into dead end low paid unskilled jobs. People were frequently bullied into working for no money in order to keep their state benefits. Under Tony Blair's Flexible New Deal, the unemployed were told, "Work or lose your Benefits." Employers soon realised that the jobcentre was providing a load of free labour and they didn't have to pay anyone.
One of the biggest employers is the UK government, but I'm pretty sure that to this day, the DWP don't advertise their vacancies in the jobcentres. I think this also applies to other government departments.
Negative comments about the unemployed made by politicians often make it more difficult for people to get back into work. Boris Johnson used to talk about 'feckless Brits on the dole', but the Johnson family are so well connected that they have no need for the Jobcentre. They can always find someone to give them a leg up. Some employers don't advertise vacancies in the jobcentres because they take the view that most claimants don't want to work and are only applying for the job in order to retain their state benefits.
Posts
1 comment:
You make some valid points. It is often the case that there is a lack of discrimination with regards to choosing the appropriate training course to meet the requirements of the individual. This situation is inevitable when you sub-contract these services to the private sector. They have targets to meet, so it's their sole motivation to achieve these outcomes, regardless of the outcome for the individual. As you say, there are no such difficulties with the upper classes, as for them it's about their contacts.
I find it tiresome that politicians repeat the same points infinitum. They consistently display a lack of lateral thinking on the matter of job seeking or indeed, any understanding of the employment models in operation in this country. It only requires a rudimentary insight into the employment market in this country to realize that two distinct categories have emerged over the years. The highly educated in the STEM subjects and the service providers. The latter largely make up those who are unemployed. The very nature of their employment is unskilled, low paid, casualized and with no prospect of skill advancement or proper training. It seems obvious to me that if we want to improve the skill base of those in the service sectors, then we need to heavily invest in high quality training. This objective will not be achieved by subcontracting to the private sector. We have to open doors for people, not enclose them in economic insecurity for the test of their working lives.
Post a Comment