Oh ... quotas!

Harriet Harman says half of Labour shadow cabinet should be women. She wants this because 81 of the 258 Labour MPs are women which, to the non-mathematicians, means that 177 are men.

She doesn't want this because these 81 lady MPs have already proven themselves to be good at their job and she doesn't want this because of their experience in the world of work. She wants this because

"It's time for Labour women to step out of the shadows,"

and because

"The Labour men are great - but they are not twice as good as the women"

Hah! Mrs R rather likes the put-down, but it's neither Churchillian nor Wildean. It's demeaning, and it's sexist.

In a fair job market each of those MPs should be considered and each should be considered on merit and experience, not because of their lack of 'Edwards'.

Do we, indeed does anybody, want somebody doing a job just because - only because - of their genetic make-up?

Some of these MPs have been elected as a result of all-female shortlists. They might think it was a nice way of getting an important job, and maybe they think it was their 'right', and perhaps don't realise they have only been chosen because they can wear skirts to work without any raising of eyebrows. They were only chosen to fulfil a quota - that's it, nothing more.

And Mrs Rigby thinks that sort of non-equal and divisive quota should be illegal, and it should be as illegal as the not-jobs masquerading as a training programme, where applications are only open to

... candidates from black or ethnic minority backgrounds because the "normal recruitment process was not rectifying" under-representation.

Bristol claims that their two year 'training programme' with a wage of £18,000 is not a job, and claims that

"Race Relations Act 1976 allows for authorities to offer training to specific groups of people if they are under-represented"

It's a convenient loophole that may well have been closed by later legislation. Even if it wasn't, Mrs R believes that both Bristol Council and Harriet Harman are wrong and are abusing 'the system' in order to satisfy arbitrary, made-up, quotas that eventually satisfy nobody.

Here's why.

First of all, those MPs. We know some of them were elected via all-women shortlists - which prohibits fair competition - and now they're to be given even more preferential treatment. If the 81 names were put in a hat then each woman would stand more chance of getting a well-paid job than if the men were put through the same selection process.

Mrs R can see it's wrong and will, ultimately, cause resentment and divisions amongst both Labour MPs and their male supporters who, even though they are the 'faithful', are pretty sick of being pushed to the bottom of the pile because they're male. The only people who can't see it's wrong are those who don't seem to care about the quality and suitability for the job - and have little understanding of the damage caused when people are promoted way beyond their capabilities solely to satisfy an arbitrary quota.

They can't understand how difficult it might be for somebody to turn up to work knowing full well that they've only got a job because of either their gender or their race - no other reason.

And they can't seem to work out why ordinary people don't like this sort of selection. It might be because we have children who are both male and female, and because we want them to have equal chances on their way through life - and not have doors slammed in their faces because of their gender.

As for Bristols?

Well, the article says that

The authority has a total of 9,000 members of staff of which 8,370 are white and 630, or seven per cent, are from ethnic minorities.

Because 12 per cent of Bristol residents come from minority backgrounds the council has begun searching for more employees to redress this imbalance.

Sorry, it shouldn't work like that. In making the same quota-hunting mistake as Harriet by excluding 88% of the local population from applying for jobs well-paid 'training opportunities' the authority is being discriminatory.

And it doesn't make a jot of difference if Kerry McCarthy gives the scheme a verbal pat on the head by saying

"I would support schemes like this. It gives people an opportunity."

It is denying opportunity - and at what price?

It clearly doesn't matter to the quota-ists that 88% of the population of Bristol are excluded, and it clearly doesn't matter to Harriet that about 66% of Labour MPs could be excluded from the selection for ministerial posts.

All that matters is 'the quota'.

....

A new supermarket, FJF and the taxpayer.

Lauded by those who created it, this scheme was met with scepticism by some, including Faiza Shaheen in the Guardian who said

Without a clear focus, the £1bn fund will remove young people from the claimant count for 6 months only to see them return, more demoralised than ever.

The decision to close the scheme to new bids has been met with some opposition, including Richard Exell over at Liberal Conspiracy, who wrote

The Future Jobs Fund has shown what a Job Guarantee for all unemployed people could be like – it pays the minimum wage (and in some cases a bit more) for work that has to be of benefit to the community to get funding. FJF jobs are real jobs: they may only be temporary, but workers have the same employment rights – and duties – as any other workers.

So, let's look back at what FJF was supposed to do

The Future Jobs Fund is a fund of around £1 billion to support the creation of jobs for long term unemployed young people and others who face significant disadvantage in the labour market.

These will be aimed primarily at 18-24 year olds who have been out of work for a year.

If your organisation creates a new job, we will cover the cost of that post, at national minimum wage levels, for 25 hours a week over six months.

It does sound good, doesn't it. But ... there's always a 'but' somewhere or other and the Telegraph found it in July 2009

The list of new vacancies - most of which will be filled by 18-24 year olds - will include sports coaches, classroom assistants and social carers, department sources said last night.

However, in a move that attracted claims that public money is being wasted on "soft jobs", others include positions for forestry workers, loft laggers and child carers.

Jobs based around refurbishing council houses and in local recycling projects are also to be created.

"Soft jobs like these would be indulgent even in good economic times let alone in the current climate."

and

young adults who have been unemployed for a year will be forced to take one of the new jobs - or a place on another government training scheme - or have their benefits cut.

It sounds to Mrs R as if it was a bit like an extension of the work experience schools ensure their students do, but for a bit longer and with the benefit of a wage of some sort. Not a bad idea, on the whole, as long as those being pushed into work have some say over what they do. It wouldn't be very fair, for example, if they were made to do a job just because the job was there and it was something they had no interest in. And it wouldn't be right if they felt they were being used by an employer.

The scheme, on the surface at least, seemed to be offering a genuine opportunity to experience going to work, and all it entails, for a period of at least six months - and for it to be something useful to the individual as well as the local community. But, no point discussing it really, because it's in the past isn't it?

And that's why you're probably wondering what this post is about. You're probably wondering why Mrs Rigby has bothered to write about a scheme that's being dismantled. We know the coalition government has decided that no further bids will be accepted, although existing commitments will be honoured?

Well, it's because Mrs R read this in today's Telegraph. It's about a brand new, soon to be opened, 'co-operative supermarket' in London, which is to be the subject of a television documentary.

The article explains how this new supermarket is to be staffed entirely by volunteers who, in return for paying £25 to join the club and working hard, will be allowed to claim a 10% discount on anything they buy and benefit from member's only 'artificially low prices', such as "£1.85 to ordinary shoppers: £1 to members, loaf of bread".

Anyhow, the owner of the new shop needed 500 people to join, pay their £25 subscriptions, and commit to working one four-hour shift each month. So far there are only 110 names on his list, which isn't enough.

He isn't, however, in the least worried about trying to run a commercial business that relies on non-existent volunteers or volunteers who might forget to turn up, because

He is allowing for a 30 per cent no-show from volunteers, and intends to plug the gap with 18-24 year olds on the Future Jobs Fund.

Errrm ...?

And that, you see, is what left Mrs Rigby scratching her head, because it seems to her that this is either against the principle of the FJF concept or it's against the principle of the volunteer-run co-operative supermarket.

You see, Mrs R can't get her head round the business plan. She can understand how the idea of the supermarket is praised because, except for management, it's to be staffed by volunteers and run as a volunteers' co-operative. Members of the co-operative will choose what goes onto the shelves, although if their choices are too whacky (or uncommercial) they can be overruled by management. Then, if there aren't enough volunteers the owner of the co-operative plans (planned?) to plug the gaps by 'employing' young people who were to be paid by the taxpayer, via FJF. Either that or he's expecting these young people to do the same as all the rest, and be volunteers.

The owner goes on to explain why he hasn't managed to recruit enough volunteers.

"People keep on saying 'I can't spare the time' and 'What's in it for me?'," he says. "The minute they ask 'What's in it for me,' you know there is no point explaining the point."

So, Mrs R wondered what might be "in it" for anybody, anybody at all - including herself and the rest of the Rigby family. Selfish, isn't she?

According to the figures quoted in the article (and, initially, blithely ignoring that pesky 30% quoted - because there aren't enough volunteers) let's look at the figures. The business owner needs 500 volunteers, each working 4 hours a month. This makes 24,000 hours worth of volunteer staff over a year (12(500x4)=24,000) - which ends up at about 16.5 hours a day over 363 days - but up to the time the article was written has only 4,800 hours worth of volunteers ( (100 volunteers x 4 hours)x12 ). The shortfall is around 19,200 hours, significantly more than the 30% quoted, which could to be staffed, and funded, by the taxpayer via FJF.

Minimum wage for 18-21 yrs = £4.83 per hour.
It would cost £92,736 to employ FJF-funded staff aged 18-21 for 19,200 hours

Minimum wage for workers aged 22 years and older = £5.80 per hour
It would cost £111,360 to employ staff age 22 years or older for 19,200 hours.

But that's being silly and alarmist, so let's go back to the 30% shortfall that was mentioned earlier. 30% of the total 24,000 hours is 7,200 hours. Wages for FJF at an average of £5.31 = £38,268 - which is a whole lot less scary.

It could be how much the taxpayer would be paying to staff the nice new co-operative supermarket with 18-24 year olds, and it could be money the owner of the business never planned to spend on staff wages, because they planned for all their staff to be volunteers who would each pay £25 each to join the club and then work four hours a month and get cheaper food. The paid employees would be state funded via FJF.

So Mrs R wonders if this 'co-operative' was actually going to be 'state run', or not? You see, to her unbusinesslike eye (and she knows she's repeating herself) it would seem that, apart from management, the plan was that any 'temporary permanent' staff (i.e. not volunteers who only work 4 hours a month) were to be sourced from the pool of unemployed young people targetted by FJF, and whose minimum wage wages are paid by the taxpayer. And, you know, somehow that doesn't seem altogether right, so Mrs R is sure she's got the wrong idea - unless, of course, as a taxpayer she could turn up, fill a basket with food and demand a discount.

The idea of FJF was that long term unemployed young people and others who face significant disadvantage in the labour market would be employed, possibly even compulsorily employed for at least six months. There isn't anything, at least not at first glance, that says these 18-24 year-olds could be forced to be unpaid volunteers instead of earning money, and there isn't a suggestion that they should be used to provide temporary but full time, semi-permanent, staff for a permanent business, which would then be funded by the public purse.

Or was that bit hidden somewhere amongst the pages and pages of small print rules and regulations?

And maybe that is one of the reasons why FJF had to go.

....

Reasons not to vote Labour #7 (unemployment)

The man who has applied for 4,700 jobs.

The 56-year-old IT professional lost his job at a City investment bank five years ago and has been out of work ever since.

He has applied for 4,700 jobs over the past five years and been invited to just two interviews. Alongside jobs at senior management level and banking he has also applied for taxi driving, warehousing jobs and baggage handling at nearby Stansted Airport.

"I hit rock bottom last year and applied for a job at Harlow crematorium."

More from the Guardian

Forbes is angry when he hears talk of the jobs market recovering. For a start, people like him do not show up in all the statistics. Because of means-testing, a married man like Forbes who has a home and savings, does not draw any benefits. Instead he is working through his savings.

and

Insurance professional Peter Martin, a 52-year-old father of three, lost his job last November. Ken Holland, a computer security specialist, was made redundant at the end of 2008. Now 51, he too has been living off his savings. "We have been cash cows for the government up to this point and in our hour of need we don't get anything," says Holland.

National Statistics Office tell us that

The employment rate for the three months to February 2010 was 72.1 per cent. The rate was down 0.3 on the quarter and it has not been lower since the three months to October 1996.

and

The inactivity rate for the three months to February 2010 was 21.5 per cent. The rate has not been higher since the three months to October 2004 and it is up 0.3 on the quarter. The number of inactive people of working age increased by 110,000 over the quarter to reach a record high of 8.16 million. This increase in inactivity was largely driven by the number of students not in the labour market which increased by 71,000 on the quarter to reach 2.30 million.

Here are the charts

Mrs Rigby's family knows the situation only too well. One member of the family lost their job five years ago, was turned away from the JobCentre because their 'partner' was in work, working more than 16 hours a week and earning more than £16k. That Rigby was not even able to get help filling out what they referred to as 'new fangled application forms'. They have done their best, but have not been able to find work since then.

Walking into shops that advertise vacancies they are met with a blankly quizzical stare, that says, "You want to work here?" The application is completed, delivered, and never responded to. That, they think, is the worst. Prospective employers never respond to an applicant, there is nothing, not even if an sae is provided - just a void.

They say that, if unsuccessful, a candidate should contact the employer and ask why. These requests are also ignored, so they have no idea if they're filling in the forms wrong, if they're 'overqualified' or simply unemployable and on the scrap heap.

The out-of-work Rigby thought about retraining, but when they looked at the costs they realised they couldn't afford it - not with the essential belt-tightening the loss of income involved, and the lack of employment opportunities in their home area. So they're stuck, stuck until the savings run out, and until they are forced to sell their home and live off that capital too.

Statistics released this week suggest there are 2.5 million unemployed people in Britain.

Statistics can only count those who are on a list, statistics cannot count those who are not allowed to be on a list.

Those who are not allowed to be listed as unemployed are those not allowed to claim any sort of benefit and also those over 60. University students are not allowed to be unemployed during their vacation, because being a student is counted not being available for work.

We will, perhaps, never know the true scale of the current employment/unemployment situation. What we do know is that Harlow, and also the various towns and villages around Britain where members of the Rigby family live, are hard hit - and few of those out of work have their names on a list, although they may be included in the ONS list for the "economically inactive".

Vote Labour - for even more of the same.

....

Jobs lost.

Quoting the Express

More than 3,300 cuts were announced or confirmed, hitting council, retail and manufacturing workers in different parts of the UK.

The most drastic news came from Birmingham City Council, which is planning to shed up to 2,000 jobs over the next financial year as it strives to "do more for less".

Administrators of discount retailer Ethel Austin and sister homeware chain Au Naturale cut 469 jobs and launched a closing-down sale at 129 stores.

German manufacturer Bosch confirmed it was pressing ahead with plans to close a car parts factory in Miskin, near Cardiff, employing 900 people, by the middle of next year.

and

The black day followed announcements of 1,600 job losses on Tuesday, including 400 at Cadbury's Somerdale factory in Somerset

And the reaction

Jack Dromey, deputy general secretary of Unite, said: "Jobs and services in Birmingham are being blitzed by an uncaring Tory council. Services to the community will suffer from savage job cuts in a city already hit by high unemployment."

Unite, that'll be the Union that made sure Cadbury's workers kept their jobs.

Cadbury @ Keynsham

It's a terrible pity .....

Kraft Foods has announced plans to close Keynsham's Somerdale factory by next year.

Kraft's confirmation that it is standing by the previous Cadbury decision to shut the plant, taken in 2007, means that the 400 remaining workers at Somerdale will now lose their jobs.

..... but not really a surprise.
.

Unite - against Cadbury's chocolate.

.
In July and August members of Unite Union were involved in a consultative ballot on strike action over a pay deal, the results are now in and mean there will be a further ballot of the 12,000 workers to decide whether or not to take strike action.

A representative of Unite said,

Cadbury had agreed a deal of RPI inflation plus 0.5%, with a minimum of 2% for 2009, and ... accused the company of imposing a 0.5% increase because of falling inflation"

A Cadbury's spokesman said,

"We have said all along that we have kept to our three year pay deal and in the light of current pay freezes for all other Cadbury employees this increase is fair, particularly given current economic conditions."

Unite wants what it believes is the right thing for its' members, so wants Cadbury to keep to the exact letter of the agreement.

Mrs Rigby tends to agree with them, she agrees that promises and contracts should be honoured.

But ... and in this instance there is a fairly large BUT ... these are unsettled times. All around the country people are losing their jobs and are desperate to find work. Plenty of people who thought their jobs were safe have seen their employers close down, so they've lost a regular salary. The lucky ones have been able to find more work, the less fortunate have taken hourly paid jobs, for which they get National Minimum Wage of £5.73 an hour. Many of these jobs are part time.

Some people will do almost anything to get work, including Alex Kearns who took a place on the spare plinth in Trafalgar Square to advertise himself. He's been lucky. Many haven't, including some of Mrs Rigby's extended family who are very worried about their future and wonder whether they will ever work again, especially those past their 40th year.

People who have lost their jobs have been promised all sorts of support by central government, but when they ask for help it isn't forthcoming. There's always an excuse, a loophole of some sort, especially if they're married and their husband or wife is working for more than 16 hours a week - irrespective of their wage. It would appear that some promises can be broken.

Recently workers at a wind turbine factory staged a sit in, because they didn't want it to close. They had support from the RMT union, but after eighteen days they gave up, nothing positive came of their protest and 625 jobs were lost - a huge number for the Isle of Wight.

So Mrs Rigby would like to say to these Cadbury workers - you aren't alone in your frustration. You threatened industrial action in 2007 when Cadbury wanted to move a production plant to Poland. Everybody objected to this, including local MPs, but the reality is that if a manufacturer wants to move production to another country they will - even one like Cadbury, that has invested £40m at Bournville.

Looking around the chocolate and confectionery industry Mrs Rigby notices that Mars moved production of its Twix bars to France and Starburst to the Czech Republic - 500 jobs have been lost in Slough.

Nestlé moved production from York and now make Smarties in Germany, Black Magic in the Czech Republic, and Dairy Box in Spain - 645 jobs have been lost in York.

Kraft closed the Terry's chocolate plant - Terry's All Gold and Chocolate Oranges are now made in Sweden, Poland and Slovakia - with the loss of another 316 jobs in York.

Why do you think these firms have move their production away from their historical bases in Britain? - It's because other countries are cheaper, people are willing to work long hours for less money than here in UK, business rates are lower, taxation is lower, transport costs are lower and, in general, so is the cost of living.

She urges you to be careful, and think long and hard before you decide to take strike action because no company is tied to this country. No manufacturer can print money, nor can they exist on debt - they must make a profit otherwise there's nothing to invest in new machinery or new technology and when that happens they cease to be competitive ... and cease trading.

Mrs R urges you to do some more talking, to think carefully about why you think production line staff should be treated differently from the rest of Cadbury's employees - who have accepted the pay deal - and try to reach an agreement that is good enough for now to tide you all through the bad times, so that when the good times come there will be work for you all - and also a chance of even higher wages in the future.

If you can't reach a deal then you risk losing everything, which would be a disaster for you, your families, your town and your children's future employment prospects.

Mrs R wishes you good luck.
.