Internships

[newwave]

Cleggers wants competition for unpaid internship how wonderful, all it will mean is one overprivileged rich bastards offspring competing with other rich bastards offspring.

Nick FFS wake up! the poor need to work that is if their are any jobs for them when you and the Tory filth have finished you quisling scum

newwave That's the whole point. Pay in free schools isn't set according to national standards. It is set by the head, according to merit.

Good because it means it will only need the vote of those working in the school to start industrial action if the head gets above himself.

Not at all. I think that latin is far more useful than those wishy-washy subjects like ICT and design and technology and art. I mean, it would be very hard to get a job these days without it, wouldn't it.

I think Clegg is making a bit of a prat of himself in view of the fact that he got an internship because of his father's contacts and his first job through one of his father's friends. I certainly don't believe he is setting things right.

This morning on radio four it was said that the new social mobility agenda would be all about helping those people who are most disadvantaged and then went on to say it was aimed at helping the squeezed middle! if these dumb arses don't even know the difference between the real poor and those that simply feel entitled then what hope have they of making policies that will help anyone.

There is no need for any collective bargaining on wages, conditions, or job security. It fosters a culture of mediocrity. It prevents the sacking of bad workers, and the promotion of good workers.

And in todays society where your party is destroying jobs and is sending unemployment through the roof what is to stop the workers being exploited by greedy bosses. Dont say you can leave and go to another job as their are very few "other jobs".

It's precisely in the public sector where unions are more vital than elsewhere lfn. I understand you have a neoliberal, corrosively capitalist agenda but I fear you must know it'll lead us to extinction.

It will be set by heads according to the bottom line. Merit will have nothing to do with it.

newwave You do realise that the number of jobs is not constant, right? Wealth and jobs can be created by entrepreneurs.

It would be interesting to see how many sacked community outreach officers, diversity co-ordinators and five-a-day consultants set up their own company. I don't think most of them even know the meaning of self-motivation and entrepreneurship.

I think thats because everyone who isnt a millionaire is the same to them? Everyone is pretty scummy in their eyes, unless you got an 'off shore'.

glasnost Why? Democratically accountable and democratically elected politicians make decisions on behalf of the public. If a public sector worker feels hard done by, they can publicise their case through our free media, and ultimately, by standing for election themselves, making their case to the public. If the public disagrees, then why should the public sector be immune from the public will?

newwave You do realise that the number of jobs is not constant, right? Wealth and jobs can be created by entrepreneurs.

Sure do, I do tend to notice whenever the Tories are in power hundreds of thousands of jobs disappear.

All these people you seem to despise and want to be made redundant are these the same ones you want to punish by cutting benefits for not having a job?

Cutting benefits and cutting public sector headcount will lead to more jobs, longer-term.

This is because the ideal public sector proportion of GDP is probably around 20-35%. In Britain it is well over 50% if you include PFI, because of Labour's borrowing-fuelled spending binge.

If we get public spending down, we will get borrowing down in the short term, and taxes down in the long term. Low taxes create an environment where entrepreneurs can thrive.

Cutting benefits and cutting public sector headcount will lead to more jobs, longer-term.

And it will lead to evictions, squalor, misery, child poverty, rough sleeping in the meanwhile or do you think that is a price worth paying.

newwave They are sadly inevitable consequences of Labour's actions.

You blame the Tories (and probably the Lib Dems) because they are having to take these actions.

Instead, you should be blaming Labour for getting us into the positions where those actions have to be taken. There has been a structural deficit since 2003. If Gordon Brown had run a surplus in the boom years instead of wasting so much public money, it could have cushioned the bust. Instead, he thought he had abolished boom and bust, and borrowed and borrowed and borrowed.

There is no alternative. We have seen what happens when governments lose control of their finances in Greece and Portugal. Thank heavens we have pulled back from the brink of national bankruptcy.

So are you saying it is a price worth paying ?

I blame the New labour goverment for many things, as you rightly say PFI where we were robbed by big business, outscourcing to companies like Serco and making sure that in house groups could not compete with them on a level playing field.

But mostly for not having a big boot on the necks of the bankers and for them grovelling to the City.

"Democratically accountable and democratically elected politicians make decisions on behalf of the public. If a public sector worker feels hard done by, they can publicise their case through our free media, and ultimately, by standing for election themselves, making their case to the public. If the public disagrees, then why should the public sector be immune from the public will?"

No lfn you ARE Chris Morris, aren't you? You're a weird one. I oscillate between thinking you're a loon and then thinking you're a brilliant satirist. Come on talons, fess up. Which is it???????

I a bit on the fence about internships realy, main reason being, my husband followed someone around for a couple of months and was offered a full time job from it! He had one day every week off, with his then job as it involved working weekends, and he approached a firm (through a business contact) to offer himself for free, on a trial basis, as he wanted a change of direction. I know its slightly different, as he did have a full time job at the same time.

His company get a lot of letters from unemployed people in his line of work offering themselves for free, and they have just taken some one on, as they are moving offices later this year and will be recruiting. So come November that person will be getting a full time job, where as the other option was weekly job club!

It is somewhat ironic that the practice of unpaid/unadvertised internships is most common in politics.

Most big companies run summer placement schemes/grad schemes which they advertise on their website, have a formal application process and are paid, so not an issue. This also includes most of the banks, who NC decided to target. This has been the case for decades.

Then of course there are informal, unpaid internships which are more likely to be through contacts but as someone already mentioned, these are usually more akin to work shadowing, and a personal favour. Those type of arrangements are never going to be formalised- they will just disappear.

eg if DH said "My friend's son wants to follow me around for a few weeks for nothing. Is that ok?" his HR department would probably grumble and then maybe agree. He's not going to wake up and say "I know, just to make life harder, I'll advertise for someone to follow me around at work for 2 weeks and pay them"

Er, longfingernails, I'm a teacher and as far as I know I'm not allowed to be a teacher without being a member of a Union? In fact I'm a union rep at the moment (highly glamorous job) and I tell you, when it comes down to the bare facts, we really, really don't have much of a say.

mdavza You mean to say that teachers are being forced into being members of a union, even if they do not wish to be?

How sinister.

It makes me even more proud of Michael Gove's achievements in neutering the teaching unions, thereby unleashing opportunity and possibility to millions of children.

Yes, being a member of a union has never been a choice, when you become a teacher you have to join a union 'for your own safety' of course (in case a child accuse you of something etc.) And I am the first one in line to say sack the poor teachers, and there are loads of them, hiding behind unions, human rights and now, in Scotland, CfE.

As bagged says the City has formal schemes which are blind to social class. The vacation schemes for the bar and other lawyers are paid. Here is one £265 a week - year we offer 65 vacancies across our winter and summer programmes. We pay our vacation students £250 per week.

Politics is diffferent and journalism is one of the worst - they don't have paid schemes open to all from which they recruit most graduates unlike other professions.

Most parents in all classes seek to help their children. Many a builder or plumber has got his son or daughter into that. We certainly don't want to stop that. We have a temporary problem that there are masses of graduates and no jobs for most of them which makes everything harder at present. These times will pass.

Mdavza, it is not compulsory for a teacher to be a union member; as a union rep, how can you not know this?

I will 2nd that Earthworm! I know working teachers who are not in any union. Also, I don't know any rubbish teachers .

Wouldn't it be the case though, that as a teacher it makes sense to be in a Union because if you were suspended on an unfounded allegation, the Union would back you and pay your legal fees?

(that might not be true - just my understanding of it)