Maybe, this is going off topic. But it needs to be said. (IMO, at least!
)
Yes, indeed, Grayling's letter is appalling.
But what a shame it is, that Polly should make such a clumsy fist of her economics. Rather spoils it all.
"The protest against Tesco has done nothing but good. Now Tesco is offering pay and a guaranteed permanent job to all on the scheme – and that makes all the difference to its worth. Well done protesters!“
Except that the protesters have destroyed the whole basis of the scheme, and in typical trade union style, have raised the barriers to employment against those who need help most.
Tesco's (and their ilk) have been accused of effectively "stealing" the labours of the weakest in society, to add to their bottom line. And on the face of it, there is a point to answer. But on the other hand, Tesco are accepting people into their workforce who, in all likelihood, are not going to be the most employable, and not the sharpest knives in the canteen. There are risks and costs associated with this. That is without question. And the companies themselves have gibbed at some of the rules concerning loss of benefits if the work-trial does not work out as intended, so they are not without conscience. I think it is wrong to imply that Tesco's and others are merely seeking cheap labour. Certainly, I would be more comfortable if the system were different, but it may well be that, for whatever reason, the rules don't allow it.
The sort of solution I would like to see is that the trainees are paid the minimum wage, but that maybe Tesco's are reimbursed the equivalent of their benefits. Remember that the people they are taking on have zero experince. Tesco's will need to spend a lot of money on them, with absolutely no guarantee of any financial return.
Apparently, 50% of such trainees are taken on permanently. Of the remainder, some don't want the jobs, and others are so pathetically useless, that despite the best efforts of Tesco's, they can't even stack shelves. A proportion of them don't even last the course. Tesco's have gained precious little, and expended much. The unemployability of the candidates is not Tesco's fault. We are talking about not getting up in the morning, not caring about the task in hand, being illiterate and so on.
So, thanks to the actions of Polly and her friends, what is the situation? Tesco's go back to sifting the CV's of school leavers and choose who the hell they want. And the most disadvantaged can go hang. A student in further education is, in a sense, undergoing "unpaid labour" in the hope and expectation of landing a job, or maybe a better job. So what's the difference?
The end result is that the most disadvantaged have had a way out of perpetual unemployment snatched from them. The vital first job has been taken away from them by the arty-farty Grauniad intelligensia who think that providing a service that people want is somehow not a real job. Who think that an entry level jobis to be disparaged as a "McJob". That is a disgrace!
Polly, you misguided soul! Tesco's have no reason to "provide pay and a guaranteed permanent job to all on the scheme". They will offering "pay and a guaranteed permanent job" to those who meet their criteria, and all those who might have been given a leg up are being denied the only chance they may have had to escape their dismal future. Shame on you, Polly, shame on you. Just because you are capable of earning a living from your pen, doesn't give you the entitlement to codemn a whole raft of your fellow citizens to perpetual unemployment. Especially as they are the product of a state education system "designed" to provide them with everything they need for their future.
Grrrrr!