To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
No need to bribe people if the job is good
Share this:
The scheme is aimed not only at bribing employers to take on unemployed locals, but also to bribe the unemployed to seek a job in the hospitality industry in the first place. You might agree that the aims are worthy, but it’s the method that stinks.
The scheme, which could cost the taxpayer up to £1m, simply highlights the short-term thinking that still pervades the States. So we have a record number of unemployed and we’re going to make it a priority to help them, at least for a while. We also have a long-standing local industry that needs seasonal workers but mainly employs non-locals. So we’ll throw some money at the problem now that saving taxpayers’ money is no longer considered important. Yes, it smacks of hypocrisy too.
But of course you have to be careful with taxpayers’ money and the pressure on States departments to make savings is unremitting. Yet the Back to Work experts have dreamt up a hare-brained relatively costly scheme which will have minimal impact.
To begin with the scheme is wide open to abuse, unless you have an army of administrators to check every detail. No doubt we’ll have the unemployed in their dozens signing up to collect their £650 after completing their compulsory course to make themselves better candidates. But that’s not going to turn the hospitality industry into an attractive job for most people. Many of those that are unemployed were in the fulfilment industry and are now surplus to requirements. Most were happy to pick and pack for a few hours a day because the hours were flexible. They are unlikely to be committed to spending hours serving behind a bar or washing dishes. Had they wanted to become a barman or a kitchen porter, they could have done so. They might not be highly skilled workers but they know enough to understand that there are plenty of seasonal jobs around in hospitality. They don’t need the Back to Work people to tell them and then bribe them to apply.
Most of them will want to get out after the 26 weeks needed to collect their £650, just as the number of job vacancies shrink. Certainly few new jobs will have been created because the money has been spent on bribing them to take a seasonal job.
But the designers of the scheme must not only assume that the unemployed are stupid and need to be told about the hospitality sector. They also assume that the employers are stupid as well.
Employers have to be bribed to a maximum of £2,080 in order to accept the option of taking on an unemployed local in preference to someone who has just come off the boat. Some employers might jump at the chance to make a quick buck in a difficult industry, but that’s no way to create long-term, well-paid jobs for Islanders which is what we should be concentrating on.
The employers might be attracted to the scheme by the fact that candidates have to go through a three-week training period which will tell them all they need to know about the hospitality industry and how to get a job. The employer gets the £2,080 if he keeps the candidate on for the season and another £1,000 if the post becomes permanent. Happy days. The employer doesn’t have to lift a finger or make any contribution to training in order to be given loads of money. So much for tackling the problems of the hospitality industry, which include lack of training, a short tourism season, a lack of investment and a lack of career prospects.
The employer just might use the bonanza he receives to invest in his business, although as he hasn’t shown any professionalism by bothering to have a proper recruitment policy, he will probably just use it for another holiday or a new car. He’ll still be able to muddle through next season.
The Back to Work experts (or should we re-name them the Back to Work on a temporary basis experts) believe they have a point in singling out the hospitality industry for this largesse. Next to the finance sector, tourism is Jersey’s most important industry, if no longer the second most important revenue earner. It certainly has the most potential for future growth and is therefore an essential part of the diversification strategy. But the worse thing about this scheme is that it’s limited to this one industry. Surely if you’re going to resort to bribes you should bribe everyone.
No, this scheme has been limited presumably because they want the most impact from the least amount of money. It will get a number of people off the list of those actively seeking work, if only temporarily. That’s why the Social Security Minister thinks only about 300 unemployed will be suitable for the scheme, when there are twice that number who have been unemployed for more than a year.
So the numbers have been deliberately restricted to the hospitality industry, and indeed to only a part of that industry. But what about the rest of the economy? There are hundreds of other businesses in the Island which could benefit from a little financial help with their staffing, and many of those jobs could be more attractive to the unemployed. If the experts believe a bribe is necessary to get people back to work, then they should give every employer and unemployed worker a bribe if the aim is really to cut those looking for work?
No the scheme is obviously being sold as a contribution by the States to the struggling tourism industry when there are plenty of other ways in which the States could help that industry. Having a long-term plan and sticking to it, rather than short-term fixes, would be a good start.
So the hospitality scheme might reduce the figures and the amount of benefit paid out temporarily, but it won’t necessarily find the unemployed a good, permanent, well-paid job, or find the employer the kind of staff he wants to employ.
There will also be the temptation for the social security department to decide to use a stick as well as the carrot, and those who don’t offer themselves to the hospitality sector might find it difficult to get any other support. That’s not necessarily a bad thing and there is a case for benefits, for example, to be restricted for those few who refuse to take up jobs on offer. But please don’t try to force staff into the hospitality industry by trying to hide the unattractive employment prospects with a cheap bribe.
If you really want to help the unemployed and the economy, then the States should concentrate on trying to help employers in hospitality to create long term, reasonably well-paid job. But they should offer similar incentives and training in all industries. Featherbedding one industry doesn’t help that industry in the long run, nor the unemployed or the economy as a whole.
Related