Talk

Advanced search

To think the idea that Britain is creating loads more new jobs is not to be trusted

(23 Posts)
Figmentofmyimagination Thu 21-Jan-16 09:48:34

I'm surprised that this is being reported so widely as a 'good news story'. For example the easiest way to create new jobs is to take one full time job and split it between two (or even more) people. Hey presto three jobs!

Pensions auto enrolment is a big spur to this sort of behaviour (roll out began in 2012 but it has now reached employers of 30 or less). Employers can avoid these new pension obligations if their workers earn less than £10,000 a year - so if you are in, say, retail, hospitality, tourism, construction etc, your employer can save by taking a full time job paying, say, £17,000, and splitting it in two.

The unprecedented rise in 'self' employment is another reason. There are many others.

A closer look shows that it is not at all surprising that there has been no wage growth alongside this 'increase' in new jobs.

Sallyingforth Thu 21-Jan-16 10:08:34

I think you are trying too hard to find a fault, for political reasons.

There is nothing wrong with part time work for the many parents who need it. It's called job sharing.

As for suggesting that employers would actually sack full-time staff and recruit part-timers instead, it costs a lot more in administration to manage the extra staff. Not to mention training.

ChampaleSocialist Thu 21-Jan-16 10:16:10

Sallyingforth
But part timers have less legal protection and pension rights so no, its not unreasonable to be skeptical of these claims.

StitchesInTime Thu 21-Jan-16 10:30:03

part timers have less legal protection

Really? confused

I thought part timers had the same legal rights as full timers?

thecitydoc Thu 21-Jan-16 10:38:41

the real issue here is the quality of the jobs being created not the number. The recession, created by the bankers, led to millions of full time reasonably paid jobs being lost. Since then lots of part time zero hours contract jobs paying minimum wage have been created so the figures look much better than they actually are. Some people do of course prefer part time employment but those who lost their well paid full time job have struggled to find something equivalent to what they had pre-banker induced recession. For most people the fell good factor is still many years away.

icanteven Thu 21-Jan-16 10:41:16

I strongly feel that the acceptance of part time as a legit option in a wider range of roles would be fantastic. How many men and women (and I am purposely including men in this, even though there would probably be fewer of them) would LEAP at the opportunity for a role - management, sales, marketing, admin, manufacturing, HR etc - that that only requires 20 - 25 hours a week instead of 35 - 40? The perceived inflexibility of a number of roles keeps a lot of parents out of the workplace for more years than is necessary.

And not even just job sharing - lots of small businesses can't AFFORD full time, but could manage part time for some of these roles.

ComposHatComesBack Thu 21-Jan-16 10:47:24

The creation of jobs is only part of the story. It is important to ask what sort of jobs.

I work on a zero hours contract, which averages out at two days a week in winter and four days a week in summer (tourism). It is a no-skill, no-prospect and low-pay position which requires no qualifications. I am easy and cheap to get rid of when the next recession hits.

I count as being employed, but the job doesn't reflect my qualifications (I have a PhD) nor does it cover my living expenses for six months of the year and I've all but used up my savings on living day to day. I can't spend on goods or services that would create other jobs and as my earnings will be below 10k, I won't be contributing any tax.

Coffeethrowtrampbitch Thu 21-Jan-16 10:48:04

You are correct, there are more jobs but they are mainly for less hours and lower wages.

I watched a documentary about six months ago which stated that Tesco were suspected of doing what you have alleged, op, splitting full time roles into 2 part time roles. It estimated that Tesco had avoided nearly a billion pounds in NI payments by doing this.

It also helps massage employment statistics though so it is unlikely the government will try to stop it by amending the law to include PT workers in NI.

We need more well paid jobs, especially in manufacturing which is still down by nearly 10% from before the recession. All of the recovery is dependent on consumer spending, but as households are now on an average of £14k debt, consumer spending will slow down and risk another recession if we don't find a new source of money for the economy as rising personal debt levels cause consumer spending to slow.

molyholy Thu 21-Jan-16 10:52:28

If you are on a sanction, you are not included in any figures. So last year, approx 1 million people were sanctioned, potentially taking these out of the 'unemployed' category.

The data is so manipulated to the point, that is means nothing.

Figmentofmyimagination Thu 21-Jan-16 11:06:41

Sallyingforth I'm not suggesting that employers actually go out and blatantly sack individual full time staff to replace them with part time workers. I did frame the example in fairly simplistic terms. I'm saying that structurally, employers make changes - for example increased use of people who work small chunks of hours - over time, driven by a desire to cut costs, and the government does make it rather easier for them in all sorts of ways (eg charging nearly £2000 to bring a tribunal claim). If you think this is a too political point, well it depends on what you consider to be a 'political' issue.

Advances in payroll technology - and the growth of a huge new sector offering 'payroll intermediary services' on the back of this, has made it far easier to run a workforce where bite size jobs are shared among lots of workers.

As for training and skills, well sadly these sorts of developments go hand in hand with de-skilling.

cleaty Thu 21-Jan-16 11:14:29

In the company I work for, there used to be lots of full timers. The Company has much less income now, and rather than getting rid of its best workers, it has made a lot of people part time. So no reduction in jobs overall, but a lot less money being spent on wages.

HelenaDove Thu 21-Jan-16 14:48:45

The ONS classes workfare as being in work.

Binkybix Thu 21-Jan-16 15:51:54

I expect the ONS distinguished between full and part time work. Have you looked at the stats in detail, OP?

I remember from a radio snippet that wage growth was low but higher than inflation, although I guess that was an average so doesn't tell us much about what the individual winners and losers look like (although I have my suspicions).

wasonthelist Thu 21-Jan-16 16:25:28

I remember from a radio snippet that wage growth was low but higher than inflation, Mine isn't (higher than inflation) nor has it been for nearly 10 years - and I don't know many people for whom this is true. Perhaps average wage growth is being skewed by the massive increase top execs keep getting?

Figmentofmyimagination Thu 21-Jan-16 16:37:19

Binky bix you'd think so wouldn't you but no, the ONS figures on numbers of new jobs created do not distinguish between full and part time work. Indeed these figures include new 'self-employed' workers. Writing in august 2014, the ONS itself ascribed Britain's jobs miracle to the rise in the number of self employed workers. Average income from self employment fell by 22% between 2008 and 2014.

Figmentofmyimagination Thu 21-Jan-16 16:42:08

Cuts in overtime are another reason for flatlining wages. If we are all willing to work 24/7 and non unionised workers have no bargaining power, why should pay be any higher in, say, the night than in the day?

prh47bridge Thu 21-Jan-16 18:46:46

But part timers have less legal protection and pension rights

No they don't. Part timers have exactly the same legal protection and pension rights as full time workers.

Binky bix you'd think so wouldn't you but no, the ONS figures on numbers of new jobs created do not distinguish between full and part time work

Oh yes they do. Try looking at the tables rather than just the highlights.

In the Sep-Nov period last year the number of people in employment went up by 87,000. This rise consisted of 80,000 full time and 7,000 part time. The rise in part time jobs was entirely among self employed people. The number of employees working part time went down.

Over the last 5 years the number of people working has risen by 2.1M. Of that 1.6M are full time jobs and 1.5M are employed.

Of those working part time 69% say that they did not want a full time job. A further 16% are unable to undertake full time work due to illness, disability or being in full time education. That leaves 15% that have been unable to find full time jobs. The proportion of part time workers unable to find a full time job is falling and has been for a while.

It is true that over the 2008-2014 period looked at by the ONS the rise in employment was driven by a rise in self employment. If you look at the 2010-2015 period you get a somewhat different result.

HumptyDumptyHadaHardTime Thu 21-Jan-16 18:50:06

But part timers have less legal protection and pension rights so no, its not unreasonable to be skeptical of these claims.

Rubbish. No they don't.

Kreacherelf Thu 21-Jan-16 20:07:43

My stepdad posted 3 new jobs at his company last week. So far, he has had one applicant...

HelenaDove Thu 21-Jan-16 21:42:38

Ahem...

www.standard.co.uk/news/london/theresa-may-plans-to-replace-traffic-wardens-with-army-of-unpaid-volunteers-a3160611.html

Binkybix Thu 21-Jan-16 21:49:39

perhaps average wage growth is being skewed by the massive increase top execs keep getting?

Erm, that was exactly my point about it being an average!

thecitydoc Thu 21-Jan-16 21:56:48

kreacherelf - what is your point. As I pointed out in my post the quality of jobs is key here. Maybe the jobs are crap, maybe he has a reputation as a crap employer - all kinds of reasons why he has only one applicant - I think you might be implying that this is evidence that the unemployed don't want to work - you are wrong

Sallyingforth Fri 22-Jan-16 22:38:21

HelenaDove

It's only reasonable that stretched police resources are used for their primary purpose of protecting the public from crime, rather than being wasted on booking parking offenders.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now