We?re talking about two things bob - the work experience scheme for young people (sorry, I don?t recall the correct title) and the Work Programme which is aimed at adults.
I?ll start with the Work Programme. My objection to it is quite simple. If there is a job to be done then the going rate should be paid. Anything else distorts the job market and artificially depresses the price of labour.
Currently there is a large and growing number of unemployed adults who don?t need work experience. They already have it. What they need is work. Unfortunately there?s not much of it about and the Government are hiding their plans for growth up their sleeves.
The Work Programme, in which people are compelled to work on pain of losing their benefits, does not appear to be generating a meaningful number of new jobs.
In fact it may be creating unemployment by tempting employers to recruit from the Work Programme at no cost (except to the taxpayer) rather than creating real jobs on a seasonal or longer term basis. These new employees would of course pay income tax if liable.
It does however benefit the government by masking unemployment, removing people from the register for perceived non-compliance and mollifying those still lucky enough to have jobs yet who resent the unemployed with the idea that the ?scroungers? are doing something for their £67 a week.
That?s if the scroungers are still eligible for contributions-based allowance which in all but a few cases runs out after 21 weeks. So these people are working for nothing except their Stamp for no time limit.
No wonder many of them leave the register which is another bonus for the Government.
Large companies, in which I include charities which should be paying staff except for clearly defined volunteers, are benefiting from free labour.
My other objection to charities's revered status is that they are directly responsible for the decline of the High Street and loss of more jobs. Charity shops operate on a peppercorn rent and do not pay for their stock or labour.
Many charities, Oxfam is one, open specialist bookshops or other specialist shops dedicated to unusual clothing or other donated goods.
When shopkeepers struggle to compete against this unfairness I struggle to maintain my warm and cosy feelings towards charities.
Add to that the fact that the Govt has hurled money without proper scrutiny to the so-called ?work provider? A4E which as you must know is currently under scrutiny for fraud. There is the added worry that there are other 'work providers' who may be honest but operate under the same lax regime so it's impossible to be sure .
All in all it?s looking like a very bad deal for the taxpayer.
I have no objection in principle to work experience for those under 21.
I benefitted from such an arrangement which led to my first job. However the placement lasted for a week at Christmas and another at Easter. I received expenses and lunch which any company should be able to pay.
An employer doesn?t need any more time to decide whether the person is suitable or not. Unfortunately many companies abuse it including some in my own industry, journalism. I can?t see what can be done about it and wouldn?t want to legislate to control an arrangement arrived at by free will. But it is immoral to exploit anyone who wants a job and is something I have never allowed when in management.
If the work experience scheme is something to be operated by the Government it needs to be very tightly controlled to ensure quality for both parties and value for money for the taxpayer.
Placements should be short. A month would be pushing it. Companies should be required to set out the training they are offering and prove that they give it.
They should not be compelled to recruit from the scheme but any company continually fishing from the pool without offering a job should be monitored for the quality of its training and expelled if found to be abusing the scheme.
Companies should be allowed to dismiss a work experience trainee but there should be no element of compulsion or working for benefits ? I believe the compulsion element was dropped today after public pressure.
Schemes set up in this way would hae a chance of creating long term employment by matching the needs of employers to the existing or potential skills of those on them.
There should also be proper training schemes run alongside them either as apprenticeships or by accredited organisations - not the likes of A4E.
Unfortunately, though they would be more effective they wouldn?t create the impression of doing something big, which is what the Govt is really after in the face of rising unemployment and no idea what to do about it.
I fully accept now that Labour was operating the scheme under the New Deal. I maintain that just because I didn?t know about it then doesn?t mean I can?t strongly object to it now. Information campaigns are a good thing.
You didn?t ask me a question about Greggs and I didn?t talk about it or the Newsnight episode to which you refer. I think you?re mistaking me for someone else.