Its nice to hear from Keith Hudson again...how goes the "choral music
biz"...
When I forwarded the post on the "New Deal" on jobs, I considered putting
the whole thing in inverted commas...
What I found fascinating about the press release was how it so clearly
presented the UK government's commitment to doing everything to help the
unemployed short of actually doing anything... If the current employment
"boom" in the US shows anything it is that when there are jobs, people
will work...when there are no jobs people become unemployment statistics.
The impact of "labour"ed programs at improving "motivation",
"self-esteem", "job search skills", is a social worky replacement for
actually dealing with the real issues which are a lack of jobs.
I'm not sure how far along the road the government in the UK is in turning
its Employment (in Canada's Human Resources "Development") Department into
a huge "outplacement" web-site which is what appears to be happening here
in Canada.
This is done in the absence of any sort of commitment to deal with the
very real issues of a regionally specific lack of jobs through the
on-going and massive churn in the traditional sources of blue (and white)
collar employment--exhaustion of exploitable primary resources,
out-migration of manufacturing employment to lower labour cost areas,
corporate restructuring and a broad acceptance of the moral idiocies of a
"natural" level of unemployment in Canada of roughly 1,000,000 people.
I tend to agree with Keith about the futility of providing short term
wage subsidies ("as a way to get folks into the 'habit' of working", or
some such). Developing strategies and providing longer term support
for creating new types of work, paid employment for desirable but
non-commercial services, guaranteed incomes as supplements to other
sources of income seems to me to make more sense and is better policy for
the longer term.
These latter of course, require that there is a recognition that not all
employment (and conditions of employment) are reducible to market
conditions, a step forward (or back if you are looking at the history of
social policy) which governments (of whatever political stripe) now seem
incapable of making.
Mike Gurstein
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------d
> Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 07:57:13 +0100
> From: Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Evaluation criteria for UK "New Deal" on jobs (fwd)
>
> After the glowing government hand-out copied here by Mike Gurstein, it
> is
> important to realise that the New Deal is not, and cannot be, a
> permanent
> government policy but is making use of an enormous one-off tax of
> several
> billions recently applied to large newly-privatised utilities (the same
> amount of money thus not being able to pass into shareholder/ultimate
> consumer hands and thus will not be spent in economically-stimulating
> ways). It is an extremely expensive experiment and can only last for
> about
> three years. It can only last that long if, it is calculated, 40% of
> 120,000 young people (18-24-yr-olds) who are due to pass through New
> Deal's
> hands actually find themselves in genuine unsubsidised jobs.
>
> A leaked confidential memo from the Chief Executive of the government
> Employment Service shows that the results of the 12 pilot areas have
> fallen
> well short of target (FT, 8 April), Even though disproportionate expense
> and personnel have been applied to these areas and all young people
> there
> have been intensively interviewed/advised/pointed to employers, etc,
> only
> 31% have found genuine unsubsided jobs. It needs to be asked: how many
> of
> those young people would have found such jobs anyway? What also needs to
> be
> asked is: what is going to be the ultimate % when the New Deal is flung
> wide across the country?
>
> Then, of the remaining 69% in the pilot areas, the government are now
> having to pay employers and others quite high subsidies ($100 per week)
> to
> take the young people on. Large and medium-sized employers (but not the
> job-creating small companies) are falling over themselves to take
> advantage
> of these subsidies and the further question then needs to be asked: how
> many older/higher-waged employees are going to be made redundant after
> the
> young people are taken on?
>
> The New Deal will fail just as all government/bureaucracy-inspired
> job-creating schemes without exception have failed in the US and the UK
> in
> the past 15 years or so. The only net gain in jobs will be the swollen
> ranks of the civil service -- which, of course, become almost impossible
> to
> slim down afterwards. They will then be an even larger drain on public
> taxation than they were before.
>
> Meanwhile -- whether the experiment succeeds or fails -- over 100,000
14-
> 19
> year-olds are not in school or in training in the UK at any one time and
> about 45,000 pupils leave school each year without any qualifications
> whatever. The number unable to read or write adequately rises steadily.
> This is becoming so serious that a Select Committee of MPs has now
> actually
> proposed that the school-leaving age should now be reduced to 14! Such a
> statement, though buried within a lot of other comment, is really a
> frank
> avowal that the state-run education system is failing badly. The state
> education system simply can't recruit enough teachers now -- even in the
> "soft" disciplines, never mind linguists, scientists or mathematicians
> of
> which there have been shortages for years. Teaching is way down the list
> of
> jobs wanted by university graduates because they know that teachers are
> increasingly harried by form-filling (on average, two hours a day, so
> the
> teachers claim). We are now seeing the beginning of the end of a
> comprehensive state education system -- hand-in-hand with the increasing
> uselessness of the government's Employment Service.
>
> I wouldn't believe the hand-out. It may look good to people on the other
> side of the water, but it is pure moonshine:
>
>
> >Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 13:35:31 +0100 GMT
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Evaluation criteria for UK "New Deal" on jobs
> >
> >Evaluation criteria for UK "New Deal" on jobs
> >
> >UK employment Minister Andrew Smith detailed the New Deal objectives
> >and committed the government to open and robust evaluation of the
> >effectiveness of the programme. On 6th April he said:
> >
> >"The New Deal, which is launched across the country today aims to: help
> >
> >young and long-term unemployed people into jobs; help lone parents and
> >disabled people who wish to work; improve their prospects of staying
and
> >
> >progressing in work; and increase their long-term employability.
> >
> >"The New Deal pathfinder areas are showing the way forward through:
> >tailored personal advice and help to place people into jobs;
encouraging
> >
> >employers to recruit New Deal candidates; improving work skills,
> >experience, qualifications, motivation, self-esteem and job search
> >skills;
> >enabling individuals to choose the most appropriate approach for them;
> >maintaining effective job search.
> >
> >"The ways in which we do this are important, The New Deal must be
> >delivered: professionally, efficiently and in a cost-effective manner;
> >through effective local partnerships; by ensuring equality of
> >opportunity,
> >and by providing community and environmental benefits, and by ensuring
> >that people on the New Deal, who claim Jobseekers Allowance, are
> >aware of, and carry out, their responsibilities."
> >
> >"There will be robust, open and transparent monitoring of the
> >effectiveness of New Deal in meeting these objectivess, and regular
> >publication of statistics on the numbers and destinations of those
> >moving
> >through the programme. The key questions the evaluation must address
> >are the effects of the New Deal on the youth labour market, on the
wider
> >
> >labour market,on individuals, and on employers. We will be assessing
the
> >
> >effectiveness of the structure and delivery of New Deal, its impact on
> >public expenditure, tax revenues and the numbers on welfare, and the
> >wider effects on social exclusion, the voluntary sector, the
environment
> >
> >and on re-offending levels.
> >
> >The New Deal has been operating in twelve areas since January 5th.
> >From 6th April people aged 18-24 who have been unemployed for six
> >months or more will be eligible to join the New Deal.
> >
> >Press enquiries: Andrew Jones, +44 171 925 5108,
> >Robert Veale, +44 171 925 5104
> >Public enquiries: +44 171 925 5555
> >
> >Crown Copyright 1998.
> >Source. UK government press release 06/04/98
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com
> 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
> Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ________________________________________________________________________
