What a Real Jobs Guarantee Would Look Like
The government's Kickstart programme is nowhere near enough – the only way to avoid widespread unemployment and a race to the bottom is by guaranteeing public investment in living wage jobs.
Last week, the government announced its £2 billion Kickstart programme. It’s a jobs guarantee scheme for young workers, subsidising six-month work placements for people aged 16-24 who are at risk of long-term unemployment.
The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has been calling for a jobs guarantee scheme for the past few months. If done well, such a scheme has the potential to not just help prevent an unemployment crisis, but revitalise our economy with decent, well-paid jobs that benefit society. We want to see a jobs guarantee with this level of ambition, and one that’s backed up by a strong and supportive social safety net.
While this new government scheme could be a start, it lacks ambition. And the meagre changes made to Universal Credit since the beginning of the pandemic mean that our social security system remains cruel and punitive.
Decent Jobs
A simple improvement to the Kickstart programme would be to increase the pay rate to a real living wage, or the union negotiated rate for the job. The current plan is for the scheme to pay the National Minimum Wage. This is £8.20 per hour for those aged 21 to 24, and just £6.45 for those aged 18 to 21.
Both of these rates are short of the government’s own National Living Wage, which is the legal minimum for those 25 and over, and substantially short of the Living Wage Foundation’s real living wage (£10.75 per hour in London, and £9.30 per hour in the rest of the UK).
If the existing scheme doesn’t change, employers should do the decent thing and top up young people’s wages to a real living wage. That’s what trade unions will be campaigning for in workplaces.
The jobs created by a jobs guarantee scheme must be new, additional jobs. Without this requirement, the Kickstart programme runs the risk of incentivising employers to sack existing staff and replace them with young workers through the scheme.
These new jobs should also include an entitlement to on-the-job training, and workers must have the right to get the advice and support of a union on-site, so their health, wellbeing and safety is assured.
As well as this, we want these new jobs to provide a community or public benefit, and/or help to decarbonise the economy. The government could help to create new jobs that meet these requirements by fast tracking spending on projects such as broadband, green technology, transport and housing. Research carried out for the TUC by Transition Economics estimates that this could deliver 1.24 million jobs by 2022.
Ensuring that jobs are new, additional and of a public benefit could be done by delivering the scheme, and creating accountability, at a regional level. Regional recovery panels, made up of local authorities, trade unions and businesses, should be put in place to ensure that the scheme is working as it should. And the scheme should be overseen by a national panel bringing together unions and business to make sure there’s consistent quality across the country.
As part of this, government should work with trade unions and businesses to design a basic standard contract for Kickstart jobs – setting out terms and conditions, and an entitlement to on-the job training.
Youth Employment Crisis
We also believe that the scheme should go beyond just young workers, although a focus on them makes sense. Two industries have been hit hardest by the lockdown: accommodation and food, and arts, entertainment and recreation. One-in-five young workers are employed in these two industries, compared to just 6 per cent of workers aged over 25.
Young workers are therefore over three times more likely to be working in industries hit hardest by coronavirus, and therefore likely to be most at risk of unemployment. Young women are even likelier to be employed in these at-risk industries.
And things weren’t going great for young workers before the pandemic hit. The unemployment rate for those 25 and under was already over three times higher than it was for over-25s, and young workers are the most likely age group to be employed on a zero-hours contract.
Real median weekly pay for young workers was still lower in 2019 than it was before the financial crisis. The government’s national living wage, which is already substantially lower than the real living wage, currently only kicks in once you’re 25. The already-low Universal Credit standard allowance is £70 per month less if you’re under 25.
It’s not just the labour market, the housing market is broken. Home ownership is a pipedream for many young people, leaving them at the mercy of the unfair private rental sector. And despite myths about their millennial decadence, young people are much less likely to be able to fall back on savings if they face a drop in income, and the least likely to be able to cut back on spending as more of their budget goes on essentials.
It therefore makes sense to prioritise young workers, but a jobs guarantee scheme should be available to all who would like to work. This could mean, for example, guaranteeing a job to those 25 and under after three months out of work, while those over 25 would be eligible after six months.
This is especially important because a job guarantee scheme for all will help to tackle inequalities in our labour market that are likely to be exacerbated by an unemployment crisis. Black and minority ethnic (BME) workers are slightly more likely to employed in the two industries at most risk of unemployment, and previous recessions have seen the structural discrimination faced by BME groups reflected in a rise in unemployment.
We also remain years off closing disability employment gaps, and while the female employment rate was hitting record highs in early 2020, it remains lower than the male employment rate.
A Social Safety Net
It’s important that a jobs guarantee scheme sits alongside a strong social security system. Those who lose their job, and those who can’t work, currently face a social safety net that’s been torn apart by a decade of brutal austerity policies.
Universal Credit, even with the £20 per week increase announced at the start of the pandemic, remains measly by both international and our own historical standards. The system has cruelty built into it throughout: punitive sanctions, the five-week wait for first payment, and the two-child benefit cap are just a few examples. Universal Credit has been a disaster, pushing people into poverty and debt, and its introduction has hit women and BME people hardest.
Universal Credit needs an immediate overhaul, with the basic payments (as well as legacy benefits) increased to £260 per week during the crisis, as well as the five-week wait and the two-child benefit scrapped. Advance payment loans must be switched to grants. And this should be the start of replacing Universal Credit with a more generous and less punitive benefits system.
A jobs guarantee that provides good, well-paid green jobs to everyone who wants one, and a social safety net that supports people rather than punishing them, would be a benefit to all. The current government scheme falls short of this.