Slavery?

EKIMIKE

Read this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/ ... employment

Maybe slavery is too emotive-a-term or simply not really applicable but this policy is an absolute disgrace.

A few things:

-If you 'work' 30 hours per week under this scheme, thereby retaining your JSA you'll be 'earning' £1.78 p/h
-Why only 'young people'?
-Why are they 'working' for some of the biggest corporations in this country?
-Wouldn't forcing them to work in social programmes be more beneficial? (christ, it might even be the makings of the 'Big Society')

Anyway, as a young person this makes me angry.

cooldad

Great idea, keeps them off the streets.

fast as fupp

what a melon!

Jez mon

Right idea, p*** poor implementation.

Ultimately, (us) young people need:
a) employment skills
b) more jobs
and a very small percentage need
c) a kick up the backside...

This gives them a small amount of a) and some c) and will doubtlessly be popular with the mail readers of the world. But really it just gives already large corporations unnecessarily cheap labour, and takes away from the number of proper full/part time jobs.

EKIMIKE

Broadly agree with you there Jez mon.

Personally when i was unemployed for a bit, i volunteered my time to a local cycling event - helped with the planning, maintained their website, got a few idea's off the ground, lead some rides. I still help out now even though i'm at Uni 8 months of the year. Looks far better on my CV than the supermarket jobs i've done whilst also giving a bit back to the community i grew up in by putting on a decent event every summer.

Obviously that's only anecdotal but surely there are more socially productive things unemployed young people can be forced/blackmailed into doing rather than clean shelves in Tesco.

In fact it would be a good idea if JobCentre's had a database of local volunteer based projects that the unemployed could be made aware of. Volunteer groups could send in requests for help e.t.c.

Limburger

Oooo now this has got me thinking (or sorts)

Remember when that Mr Whippy lady personally bricked up all the mines to stick it to the working class?
Well, the excuse then was that upstanding British - salt of the earth types wanted just a smidge too much wonga to haul up the black stuff when compared to some inebriated gentleman in Ukraine. Now - bear with me on this - at less than 2 pounds an hour these skinny youthy types could make it rather more profitable that perhaps it might once have seemed - and, with these drones being technically unemployed that kind of rule out any kind of unionisation so we will get none of that nastiness we had last time.

Et voila, eccomomic crisis averted; EU working time directive and minimum wage circumvented and, last but by no means least, the Taffs won't have anything to complain about anymore - which will wind them right up! Win.

Frank the tank

Limburger wrote:

Oooo now this has got me thinking (or sorts)

Remember when that Mr Whippy lady personally bricked up all the mines to stick it to the working class?
Well, the excuse then was that upstanding British - salt of the earth types wanted just a smidge too much wonga to haul up the black stuff when compared to some inebriated gentleman in Ukraine. Now - bear with me on this - at less than 2 pounds an hour these skinny youthy types could make it rather more profitable that perhaps it might once have seemed - and, with these drones being technically unemployed that kind of rule out any kind of unionisation so we will get none of that nastiness we had last time.

Et voila, eccomomic crisis averted; EU working time directive and minimum wage circumvented and, last but by no means least, the Taffs won't have anything to complain about anymore - which will wind them right up! Win.

Just what we want, ffs, don't go putting ideas in their horrible tory minds. :roll:

velocestrapture

I think there is a lot that is problematic with a scheme which uses tax payers funds to provide free labour to multinational companies that aren't unknown for their tax 'avoidance' strategies. If they have work that needs doing, they should pay people a proper wage to do it. If there is no actual need for the people to do the work, then its value as work experience is questionable.

rick_chasey

The issue for me is forcing people to do jobs that may not add any value to the young person.

As I see it, big companies are using young people for jobs that are largely unskilled (shelf stacking, etc) and getting the gov't to pay them for the work (i.e. if you don't work, you don't get your benefit).

That seems grossly unfair. The only way a company can and should be able to justify taking someone on for no pay is that the job adds enough value to the workers' CV in order to justify the lack of pay.

I would suggest that, beyond showing that you can turn up to work, do what you're told, and leave on time (which, let's face it, anyone can do), these internships do not add value.


Furthermore, as Jez says, these positions being filled by unpaid guys are also jobs that someone could be paid for.

Having spent a 12 months fighting tooth and nail for a job, after graduating in '09, I know how these guys feel. It's a catch 22. I was lucky because a) I had a family who I could live off without needed to claim benefit (as long as I kept on applying anyway), and I managed to get myself a paid internship for 4 months (beating, apparently, 200 other candidates).

I remember getting into the final round of an interview (of 4) with quite a highbrow boutique management consultant, only to a) be up against only MBA grads who were 25-28, b) being told that we were fighting for an internship for 4 months which, if we did well, would THEN result in the possibility of getting a job there.

With the exception of the big multinationals, this was quite a common occurance.

I appreciate that the gov't is keen on making sure people have incentives to do as much as they can to get a job.

The problem I would suggest is supply side, not demand side. There aren't 1 million under 25s unemployed because they're all lazy and don't want to work. They're there because there aren't enough jobs.

The gov't should make use of the extremely cheap long-term borrowing rates at the moment, and learn the lesson we all were supposed to have learnt in the '30s, and spend some bloody money. After all, GDP is - Consumption + Investment + Gov't spending + (exports - imports). Since Consumption is shrinking, investment is shrinking, and exports are shrinking, the gov't needs to step up to the plate and create some jobs.

It's crazy. This 'enormous' debt thing is a red herring - if it was a real problem British bond yields would be climbing like the French and Italian's are - but they're not.

verylonglegs

Hmmn, it does read as something rather unsavoury.

Something needs to be done to break through the climate of fear that is leading to the continuous downward spiral of cuts. It's got to the point where even if people received some sort of direct tax reduction they'd probably save it or pay off debt rather than put it back into the economy.

Widening the issue slightly the education system needs to be looked at, I know of two firms who gave up on trying to train young apprentices because the school leavers they were picking up were lazy, rude and unreliable so they went for older guys with mortgages who were motivated to put a day's work in.

Anonymous

It seems that people aren't getting work experience at a young age. Most of my friends were off doing grad schemes, placements, work experiences etc, mostly unpaid until they were more formal ones. I think people need to expect that they aren't going to get something for nothing. If you are claiming benefits and NOT working, then what are you doing with your time? Looking for work? Sadly, 'jobhunting' is rarely a core competency for many jobs I know. 'Sucking it up, doing the best you can with whats available, resourcefulness and humilty' tend to me more along the lines of what employers want.
Imagine the interview "so I hear you were on benefits, how did that happen, what did you do in the meantime"

"well I saw there was a gov't initiative so I got off my arse and did the best I could. Fortunately there was a poundland near me so I applied and was fortunate to get 3 weeks management training, all for free! I learnt how to deal with people, manage stock, learnt about retail and working to tight profit margins blah blah"

"I stole some JD shoes back in September cos I didn't wanna work cos it was like well boring and I leved up on call of duty"

rick_chasey

coriordan wrote:

It seems that people aren't getting work experience at a young age. Most of my friends were off doing grad schemes, placements, work experiences etc, mostly unpaid until they were more formal ones. I think people need to expect that they aren't going to get something for nothing. If you are claiming benefits and NOT working, then what are you doing with your time? Looking for work? Sadly, 'jobhunting' is rarely a core competency for many jobs I know. 'Sucking it up, doing the best you can with whats available, resourcefulness and humilty' tend to me more along the lines of what employers want.
Imagine the interview "so I hear you were on benefits, how did that happen, what did you do in the meantime"

"well I saw there was a gov't initiative so I got off my ars* and did the best I could. Fortunately there was a poundland near me so I applied and was fortunate to get 3 weeks management training, all for free! I learnt how to deal with people, manage stock, learnt about retail and working to tight profit margins blah blah"

"I stole some JD shoes back in September cos I didn't wanna work cos it was like well boring and I leved up on call of duty"

It's not that straightforward though is it?

I applied to shelf stackers and bars.

I got told each time I was, wait for it, overqualified. They figured, probably rightly, that someone with a good degree was unlikely to hang around for long.

It's all very well saying that people need work experience but a) there isn't enough to go round and b) a lot of experience that is available isn't relevant - see state subsidised shelf stacking.

It's not like the 1 million under 25s who are unemployed are unemployed because they're lazy is it? :roll:

What makes this generation different to the previous? Badly parented? Badly schooled?

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

...turn up to work, do what you're told, and leave on time (which, let's face it, anyone can do)

Oh dear, you've led a sheltered life haven't you?

Anonymous

But surely if you are applying for shelf stacking and bars and of university age, they know you aren't hanging around for long? Undersell your CV?

I'm not saying you/they are lazy. There are some people who are desperately unfortunate who cannot get work, then there are obviously the people who we all moan about "didn't work hard enough at school (not including people who are just not gifted in here, im talking about lazy, arrogant, disruptive lot), too lazy to get off bum, criminals etc".

If you are on benefits and desperate to get work, it seems (on the surface anyway) that its a chance to add SOMETHING to ones CV while job hunting.

As for this generation? I don't know. From your above post, it seems like you could be somewhere like McKinsey/Accenture, which in our year of graduation is seriously impressive. Not only because those are some seriously excellent companies to work for, but also because our graduate year ('09) was up against all the A*/AAA candidates who weren't being hired into banks, so they tended to look at consultancy/accountancy

For example - where I work we do loads of professional exams, with a 'you can resit each (and if necessary, all) of the exams once, but fail twice and you are fired. In my intake, I know of 3 people in my intake who have been fired - makes you realise just how hot your peergroup is compared to say, the intake below, where they just fired 14 people in one 1 go for 'double failing' these aforementioned exams.

Just seems we have developed a culture where (NOT ALL) people feel they are entitled to something for nothing. Nuh uh. You are entitled to free education and health and then you go and do some work for it.

So while I appreciate that it IS hard, I just can't believe that there is no work, and for some people there is a compromise that needs to be made (location, pay decrease, different area, etc). I am obviously fortunate not to be in that position, and would be at a total loss if I were to lose my job, so I could be spewing sh!t, as I cannot empathise. I think I would do the exact same job as I do now, in a smaller company and wait until I qualified.

What I think (but obviously the mechanics of this are a whole new ballgame) is that people need to be incentivised to work, while companies are incentivised to employ.
For example:
Now: Gov't pays man 15K benefits
What if: Gov't pays company 10K/annum to employ man on min 20K wage for min 2-3 years.

Company is well off for paying man 1/2 salary, and after 3 years should EASILY be able to add that amount of value to company
Gov't is well off as only pays 2/3 of benefits
Man is well off as better paid, better qualified, better experience

Obviously the scope for abuse is huge, thus the mechanics of busting people who are claiming benefits, fit to work and not jobseeking is nigh on impossible, and companies could probably exploit the above system quite easily (I imagine), but its an idea, at least, to incentivise employment, scroungers getting of bums, and help companies employ people they want to, but currently cant afford to.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

...turn up to work, do what you're told, and leave on time (which, let's face it, anyone can do)

Oh dear, you've led a sheltered life haven't you?

What makes you say that?

It's a real bug bear. Under 25 unemployment is around 25%, making up just over a third of total unemploment, and they get sh!t for complaining about it.

Christ if it was 40-50 yr olds with that level of unemployment you'd think money-geddon had happened.

This current generation coming through are the lot that will be paying for those pensions the older generation keep fighting and whinging about. A year unemployed when you are in your early 20s is very expensive. There's a well documented 'career scar' that forms.

rick_chasey

coriordan wrote:

But surely if you are applying for shelf stacking and bars and of university age, they know you aren't hanging around for long? Undersell your CV?

I'm not saying you/they are lazy. There are some people who are desperately unfortunate who cannot get work, then there are obviously the people who we all moan about "didn't work hard enough at school (not including people who are just not gifted in here, im talking about lazy, arrogant, disruptive lot), too lazy to get off bum, criminals etc".

If you are on benefits and desperate to get work, it seems (on the surface anyway) that its a chance to add SOMETHING to ones CV while job hunting.

As for this generation? I don't know. From your above post, it seems like you could be somewhere like McKinsey/Accenture, which in our year of graduation is seriously impressive. Not only because those are some seriously excellent companies to work for, but also because our graduate year ('09) was up against all the A*/AAA candidates who weren't being hired into banks, so they tended to look at consultancy/accountancy

For example - where I work we do loads of professional exams, with a 'you can resit each (and if necessary, all) of the exams once, but fail twice and you are fired. In my intake, I know of 3 people in my intake who have been fired - makes you realise just how hot your peergroup is compared to say, the intake below, where they just fired 14 people in one 1 go for 'double failing' these aforementioned exams.

Just seems we have developed a culture where (NOT ALL) people feel they are entitled to something for nothing. Nuh uh. You are entitled to free education and health and then you go and do some work for it.

So while I appreciate that it IS hard, I just can't believe that there is no work, and for some people there is a compromise that needs to be made (location, pay decrease, different area, etc). I am obviously fortunate not to be in that position, and would be at a total loss if I were to lose my job, so I could be spewing sh!t, as I cannot empathise. I think I would do the exact same job as I do now, in a smaller company and wait until I qualified.

What I think (but obviously the mechanics of this are a whole new ballgame) is that people need to be incentivised to work, while companies are incentivised to employ.
For example:
Now: Gov't pays man 15K benefits
What if: Gov't pays company 10K/annum to employ man on min 20K wage for min 2-3 years.

Company is well off for paying man 1/2 salary, and after 3 years should EASILY be able to add that amount of value to company
Gov't is well off as only pays 2/3 of benefits
Man is well off as better paid, better qualified, better experience

Obviously the scope for abuse is huge, thus the mechanics of busting people who are claiming benefits, fit to work and not jobseeking is nigh on impossible, and companies could probably exploit the above system quite easily (I imagine), but its an idea, at least, to incentivise employment, scroungers getting of bums, and help companies employ people they want to, but currently cant afford to.

What I take issue with is this.

What are young people supposed to do? We get told at school that we need to work hard, get as good grades as we can.

Then, we're told in the press, grades don't mean sh!t since, apparently, it's all 'easy'.

We get told that we should go to university to do a degree (the opportunity cost being work experience) so that we can be more employable.

We come out of University into a recession that we're passengers in, and we get told that actually, our degrees are worthless and we shouldn't have gone.

So we've put in all the hard work we were supposed to, and we were TOLD and TAUGHT that, if we did that, we should be able to get a job.

What irritates me is that, having had all of that, they get sh!t for doing what we were told.

Furthermore, I don't think the older generations appreciate HOW HARD it is to get a job. Seriously.

To big myself up, I am a straight A student. All As at A level. I got a 1st from a good uni in history > I competed (as a cox) at national level rowing competitions and, in some instances won, and I managed the finances of the Uni Cinema which had a £30,000 budget.

That, to be honest, is a pretty good CV.

It took me, no joke, around 360 applications to get a job - (i eventually got offered two in the same week).

Compared to my peers, I had a good hit-rate regarding applications versus interview. I got around 20 interviews (not counting the various round). Of those 20 interviews, I got to the final round interviews ( I worked out the average number of 'rounds' per role - it was roughly 4) 18 times out of 20.

With regard to responses from companies I had applied to: I got 45 responses, including those that agreed to interview me. That means roughly 315 companies, firms, MPs etc I applied to never responded.

It's really difficult to get a job. Any job. People make out "oh you can just take a sh!t job for now" or shelf stack, or do something.

It's not that easy.

Everyone is now being told that and people are doing that. The competition just to do anything at all is fierce.

My mate had to take out a LOAN from a bank to pay for his travel and stay in London to do an unpaid internship.

He's done 4 now and his loan's ran out > his parents have bailed him out. There weren't any internships near where he lived.

It's really really difficult.

I'm in a job I hate, but at least it pays > it's almost unbearable at times, which is why I'm on here all day.

Anonymous

I was gonna say, graduated in 09, 8K posts since 10!

I'm not sure what you take issue with (perhaps my wording is bad) but I think I support what you say. I have absolutely nothing bad to say about the poor souls like your friend you mentioned, super proactive, busting his balls, and to be honest, the fact he is taking loans out just to fund them further shows the failing of the government on our younger generation.

What I'm saying is that there are also people who aren't so proactive, and who feel that the government owes them a job and waiting for the dream role to come along while claiming benefits - which is obviously where some of the governments time and money is used to ill effect.

The issue is that exams ARE getting easier, sadly and people realise this, as governments are too busy meeting targets and their KPIs are totally off what are actually required (which is, IMO the reason for all your, quite right gripes).
The fact of the matter is, like the ConDem gov't is correctly (IMV) doing, is closing all the crap universities, and encouraging a bit more skilled labour (mechanics, plumbers etc etc) as university was wrongly sold as something for everyone, so we need to build acceptance for not doing HE after A levels. Not everyone wants to work in an office, not everyone wants to study a degree.
That is why degrees are devalued, because anyone can get one, and in order to encourage children to be able to get that university place, and I think A level standards have slipped. I'm not going to pretend to be old enough to say 'back in my day' but we were given an old O level paper to have a look at, and THAT was hard.

Degrees, Skilled labour, apprenticeships need the respect and acknowledgement they deserve in their own right, and not that one is better or worse. That is what went wrong. Someone said we all need higher education and degrees. WRONG

rick_chasey

coriordan wrote:

I was gonna say, graduated in 09, 8K posts since 10!

I'm not sure what you take issue with (perhaps my wording is bad) but I think I support what you say. I have absolutely nothing bad to say about the poor souls like your friend you mentioned, super proactive, busting his balls, and to be honest, the fact he is taking loans out just to fund them further shows the failing of the government on our younger generation.

What I'm saying is that there are also people who aren't so proactive, and who feel that the government owes them a job and waiting for the dream role to come along while claiming benefits - which is obviously where some of the governments time and money is used to ill effect.

The issue is that exams ARE getting easier, sadly and people realise this, as governments are too busy meeting targets and their KPIs are totally off what are actually required (which is, IMO the reason for all your, quite right gripes).
The fact of the matter is, like the ConDem gov't is correctly (IMV) doing, is closing all the crap universities, and encouraging a bit more skilled labour (mechanics, plumbers etc etc) as university was wrongly sold as something for everyone, so we need to build acceptance for not doing HE after A levels. Not everyone wants to work in an office, not everyone wants to study a degree.
That is why degrees are devalued, because anyone can get one, and in order to encourage children to be able to get that university place, and I think A level standards have slipped. I'm not going to pretend to be old enough to say 'back in my day' but we were given an old O level paper to have a look at, and THAT was hard.

Degrees, Skilled labour, apprenticeships need the respect and acknowledgement they deserve in their own right, and not that one is better or worse. That is what went wrong. Someone said we all need higher education and degrees. WRONG

I don't buy that this generation is any more lazy than any other.

My mother's been a teacher for 25 years (now lectures at Cambridge). She says the opposite. They're harder working, and sharper - and more importantly ( a gripe of hers) far too career focussed. As long as they get their 1st, they don't care. She complains because she feels at a place like Cambridge the result is secondary - it's about learning.

She also sets GSCE papers. She recons that the difficulty level for an A is higher now > she's of the opinion that teachers are much better at making sure kids get the grades.

When there are over a million under 25s unemployed, it's nothing to do with them being lazy or undeserving.

It's all very well saying that people shouldn't have taken degrees. But they did what they're told, and here they are.

You can't just go 'oh well'.

Sort it out.

Forcing people to take jobs that add no value just so that they can get their benefits is a joke.

You know who that is in the interest of, and it's not the person doing the unpaid work.

rick_chasey

Regarding the OT - it's not slavery.

The state is effectively paying the wage on behalf of the companies > albeit with jobs that people can't chose.

Anonymous

I think we must be arguing 2 different corners, although VERY interesting to hear that A levels are actually harder. It is a shame that it is all about grades. And as your mother says, it's all about the grades and the degree. I used to love the one or two teachers who could afford to teach a whole lesson about the concept of a 2nd theoretical infinity and other random things. Especially at university where it is all about learning. It seems there is quite a lot of financial pressure on students and so they are not able to take advantage of the opportunity to 'learn'

I'm saying that doing something is better than nothing, but it seems like jobseekers are being conned in this instance.
I'm also saying that in some cases there is a culture of people feeling entitled to something for nothing.
I'm also trying to say that what what I see, the governments plans don't incentivise both parties (employers and employees) which encourages bums off sofas.

The hardest part is the people who are keen and who are where they are for doing what they were told.
Part of this is driven by career driven women, so the workforce is more saturated. Obviously there is no blame here, just a social shift, so now you are competing against more people for your job.
Part of this is the outsourcing of much of the UK's primary/secondary sectors, so those industries have fewer jobs.
Part of this is economic recession where jobs aren't needed and even if they were, companies cannot afford to hire people anyway.

What to do? Help employers too, perhaps? I get the impression (at least from reading the BBC comments) that lots of people are very short sighted, and perhaps that includes governments as well. They want to save a quid here which will cost 2 or 10 quid in 5 years, just to please the immediate electorate.
What we need is someone who will put their foot down and be ruthless and think about the long term future of the people and the country, not just a short termist view of their electorate.
Without wanting to bash any particular party, Labour were in a fantastic opportunity to do this. They had loads of terms in office, and could have started to do something useful in the background to build to a future, but maybe i'm not looking hard enough, but they have done exactly the opposite. Forcing new government to solve all the short term misery they created so they cant focus on long term

EKIMIKE

coriordan wrote:

It seems that people aren't getting work experience at a young age. Most of my friends were off doing grad schemes, placements, work experiences etc, mostly unpaid until they were more formal ones. I think people need to expect that they aren't going to get something for nothing.

Sorry but you're missing a crucial issue here - work experience, grad schemes, placements, internships e.t.c. have been hugely limited because companies are squeezed. They are still available but the competition is phenomenal.

Also RE: "closing all the crap universities" this simply isn't true although i wish steps were taken more in this direction. Although the HE budget has been cut, allowing universities to plug that hole with higher tuition fee's has meant the only thing that will change is the cost to the student. What we really needed was a reduction in the number of students going to university and the availability of certain courses to be limited. The govt. should have forced this by cutting the budget and preventing tuition fee hikes (at the very least allowed only a small hike)

@Rick i would agree it's not 'slavery' just thought it might get people riled

I'm finding it quite hard to accept this idea of a lazy, less competent generation underpinned by a sense of overwhelming entitlement put forward by coriordan. Plain wrong and far too simplistic. It's not the people that are at fault (on the whole, every generation has their scroungers of course) but the system they are trapped in.

I'm not sure how intended the situation is with these JSA scheme's or maybe just poorly thought out, but it's a huge abuse of circumstances by higher powers. It shows an utter lack of respect for the issues facing young people .

EKIMIKE

coriordan wrote:

Forcing new government to solve all the short term misery they created so they cant focus on long term

I know you were trying to avoid blaming one party e.t.c. but i have to be pedantic here. This is not something created out of the Labour years. What we have is a further degradation of workers rights which stems from years and years of turning the screw. All under the name of the 'free market'. Go back to Thatcher, Reagan and Milton Friedman.

Labour under Blair/Brown subscribed to the same ideals. Wage repression has been in action since the 80's. The Unions have become progressively weaker. It services corporate interests. As does this bizarre 'work experience' scheme which somehow manages to circumvent the minimum wage (we all know the free marketeers hate the minimum wage). Everything here shares the same genus.

This scheme cannot be a unilateral governmental act. There must have been an agreement with the employers who are taking on these unemployed people. Thus we have a clear hierarchy of interests with those of the corporate world being primary and those of society and workers being distinctly secondary.

rick_chasey

I just don't understand the gov't's currently policy on the economy.

a) they seem to think unemployment is fine, when it's the worst of all economic malaises

b) it's like not a single one of them has read about the '30s and the great depression.

EKIMIKE

It's very very depressing.

I guess someone has to take a loss somewhere. The origin of the loss was financial crisis. The financial sector couldn't/wouldn't take it so the government did. The govt. are now passing it on to us, the (vulnerable) people.

Granted, had the financial sector taken the entirety of the loss it would have had social repercussions but society has taken on the vast majority (evidenced by the financial sector bouncing back relatively quickly). Within that the middle and lower economic classes have also taken on an un-equitable portion of the burden.

Seems like the loss spreading has taken precedent over every rational decision the govt. could make about the economy. They need to spend more on socially beneficial causes (employment being the biggest one) and less on socially destructive ones (the military being the biggest one, corporate tax breaks being another key one, quantitative easing/inflation another).

Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.

rick_chasey

If it makes you feel better e-financial news has this article > (just the headline and sub line)
The week of the long knives
Matt Turner
16 Nov 2011
The City of London has long expected a wave of job cuts, as investment banks have launched strategic reviews of their business lines this year, but this week has been one of the bloodiest so far for employee layoffs.


Bad news for my business...

pb21

Rick Chasey wrote:

I just don't understand the gov't's currently policy on the economy.

a) they seem to think unemployment is fine, when it's the worst of all economic malaises

[cynic mode]I expect some tories are pretty happy with rising unemployment, as it will help drive down labour costs, scare people into working long hours and reduce the rate of inflation which benefits those in work.[/cynic mode]

EKIMIKE

I'm a law student - alot firms have been through 3, 4 or 5 rounds of redundancies. Sh!tting my pants frankly.

Anonymous

Good luck Ekimike. The other half has just gone through LPC and is meant to start her training contract in Feb. I try to keep up with the legal industry (not very well, mind) and keep reading about redundancies, training contracts being pushed back up to 1 year and others, even when busting a gut and doing an excellent job, just being cut when they come to the end of their 2 years, not to mention fewer and fewer being offered.

I get the impression law firms are under very high pressure from customers to be more reasonable with pricing, so margins are now much smaller, and read about the administration of one of them last year

I have my final set of results for my exams on the 16th, and 1 of them is a resit so the firm would be well within their rights to fire me if I fail it again

I think we need to go on a bike ride to destress.

EKIMIKE

Cheers coriordan. Best of luck with your results!

Yup it's a right old mess! Long gone are the days when getting a training contract was a guarantee of a job (exam passes permitting). The retention of newly qualified's was a little better last year than they year before but still low.

Partners profits are still getting bigger year on year though. No surprises there.

The costs issue is HUGE. It's another messy debacle. The principle makes sense. The proposals/practices are lacking.

Anonymous

Havent CMS:CM started outsourcing to the far east? Just when clients want a more personal service? Its madness

I imagine there is a big difference between US/UK firms, as I hear that US firms still nail the grads to bill as many hours as possible to drive revenue, whereas UK firms are much more billing conscious (my mate nailed himself, accounting for 20-30K of a project, and watched the partner put a line straight through his timecode....) haha.

Will be in bangkok airport about to fly back from a 3 week vaycay when I get them. Hopefully I will be allowed back on the flight after my stop off in Doha!

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

I just don't understand the gov't's currently policy on the economy.

a) they seem to think unemployment is fine, when it's the worst of all economic malaises

b) it's like not a single one of them has read about the '30s and the great depression.

I'm not sure they think it's fine, but rather they aren't sure what to do about it. It was meant to be the private sector, but the economy is pretty stagnant, and finance is hard to come by. Small companies are struggling to survive, larger companies are often laying off/not growing. So jobs just aren't being created. The government is I think loathe to pump any amount of money into the economy because they got elected on a wave of belt tightening and economic frugality.

Combine this with the fact that the unemployment is hitting what (I would guess) is a typically non-Tory demographic, and I think we can see why they are shying away from unemployment