Record employment...but also record vacancies

[deltic]

Its a classic catch 22 situation - there are no computing/IT teachers so no-one learns computing skiils so there is a shortage of skilled people which means they are highly paid which means they dont want a low paid teaching job so there are no computing/IT teachers. Need a different approach - while not every one can teach, there needs to be a system set up that people with computing and other scarce skills can be paid to do 2 year (possibly part-time) secondments into schools to train up the next generation otherwise we will be stuck in this skill shortage cycle for ever.

 

[The Ham]

That’s still 700k people in ZHC work. You cannot tell me that all of those are semi retired or don’t want full time hours! With employment levels at the levels they are and these supposed record numbers of vacancies there should be no one in a ZHC who wants full time work. Wages should be shooting up and the BOE should be needing to raise interest rates to keep a lid on inflation. What is actually happening? Wages are still going up less than inflation, people are still getting statistically poorer and the BOE is fearful to raise interest rates. The economy is creating poorly paid insecure work and that is not a good sign at all. Of the decent jobs that are created people in this country don’t have the skills to fill the vacancies. That is not a thriving economy.

What percentage of working people is 700,000? 50%, 25%, 10%, 5%, < 3%?

If it is >10% then there's a big problem.

Thing is it's less than 3%, so although there's some concern given that it's a falling number it's probably not something that's needing a lot of effort to try and fix at the moment.

 

[deltic]

What percentage of working people is 700,000? 50%, 25%, 10%, 5%, %?

If it is >10% then there's a big problem.

Thing is it's less than 3%, so although there's some concern given that it's a falling number it's probably not something that's needing a lot of effort to try and fix at the moment.

But only a third want to work more hours - so we are talking about 250,000 people which is less than 1% of those in work

 

[Dave1987]

But only a third want to work more hours - so we are talking about 250,000 people which is less than 1% of those in work

That’s still a quarter of a million people who are in a ZHC who want more secure work. That’s not a insignificant number. And for a supposedly thriving economy all of those should have access to full time secure employment. The Government should be pretty concerned that all these vacancies are supposedly out there yet the people who would love to fill them cannot. That’s a very broken system and systematic of the British economy currently.

 

[Dave1987]

What percentage of working people is 700,000? 50%, 25%, 10%, 5%, < 3%?

If it is >10% then there's a big problem.

Thing is it's less than 3%, so although there's some concern given that it's a falling number it's probably not something that's needing a lot of effort to try and fix at the moment.

If there are plenty of full time vacancies available but the people on a ZHC who want full time employment don’t have access to those vacancies that is a problem.

 

[greyman42]

Its a classic catch 22 situation - there are no computing/IT teachers so no-one learns computing skiils so there is a shortage of skilled people which means they are highly paid which means they dont want a low paid teaching job so there are no computing/IT teachers. Need a different approach - while not every one can teach, there needs to be a system set up that people with computing and other scarce skills can be paid to do 2 year (possibly part-time) secondments into schools to train up the next generation otherwise we will be stuck in this skill shortage cycle for ever.

Do schools actually advertise these jobs as vacancies?

 

[The Ham]

If there are plenty of full time vacancies available but the people on a ZHC who want full time employment don’t have access to those vacancies that is a problem.

You are never going to be able to have a perfect skills to job match.

Take for instance in the mid 90's the building industry was in recession, many were told "don't do that there's not the work for you". Yet by the early 2000's (at about the time that those who had been on training scheme starting in the mid to late 90's would be starting to look for permanent employment) the building industry was booming and you couldn't get a plumber easily.

Likewise the Highway (Engineering) industry laid off loads of graduates in 2009 and froze recruitment for several years. Now most good engineers could get a new job within a few attempts (probably with a better package) because there's a skills shortage.

Then there's things where the opposite happens, for instance working in a video hire shop (anyone remember Blockbuster?). In the 80's and 90's they were everywhere and expanding, now they virtually no longer exist (there's one last Blockbuster in the world).

Architects find it hard to compete with building drafting companies for small scale projects, yet Quantity Surveyors earn lots by project managing (which often used to be the job of architects on smaller projects).

That's always going to be the case because it takes time to retrain and skills shift from industry to industry.

 

[The Ham]

That’s still a quarter of a million people who are in a ZHC who want more secure work. That’s not a insignificant number. And for a supposedly thriving economy all of those should have access to full time secure employment. The Government should be pretty concerned that all these vacancies are supposedly out there yet the people who would love to fill them cannot. That’s a very broken system and systematic of the British economy currently.

When I was at college I was on a ZHC. Did I want more hours, yes. Did it mean that I wasn't able to live, no because I was living at home and my income was all just for me to spend/save.

That's not too say that there aren't those which aren't struggling on ZHC's, just rather there's probably some who want more hours but don't need it.

 

[Dai Corner]

I'm technically on a ZHC. After I retired it suited my former employer to employ me through an agency to do the odd day or week when my knowledge was required. I'm still on the agency's books.

I'm under state pension age but my pension and savings are sufficient for my needs and I don't claim any benefits. I have no real need or desire to work, though i would do the odd job if something interesting came along.

 

[deltic]

Do schools actually advertise these jobs as vacancies?

Yes posts are frequently advertised and readvertised - increasingly teaching has attracted head hunters with huge fees as they know schools are desperate to fill posts - google teachers computing and you will find lots of schools trying to find people to start in September!

 

[158756]

It is highly likely that the fall in zero hours contracts masks a move to contracts that are not technically zero-hours, but still do not guarantee a significant amount of work to the worker.

4 hours per week, for example, would avoid negative publicity but would essentially enable de-facto zero hour contract operation.

There are jobs out there offering 4 hours a week, requiring specific experience as well. You certainly don't get the impression of jobs being hard to fill when the most basic minimum wage roles are able to set bars to entry.

The fields with a shortage of workers clearly have a disconnect between the education system and the needs of the economy. Successive governments, of all parties, have knowingly failed to train enough doctors or nurses. But we are sending enough, probably too many, to university, many of whom don't get a decent job afterwards - why are we producing all these surplus graduates in other areas when we have shortages of engineers and IT professionals? IT education in schools is woeful

Then there's the aversion of British businesses to training any of their workers themselves. In the past they would have taken on apprentices and trained them up, now they don't just want the qualifications, most want experience as well, dependent on a supply of workers trained abroad - in the EU for example, which is becoming problematic.

 

[birchesgreen]

Then there's the aversion of British businesses to training any of their workers themselves. In the past they would have taken on apprentices and trained them up, now they don't just want the qualifications, most want experience as well, dependent on a supply of workers trained abroad - in the EU for example, which is becoming problematic.

Short term thinking, its all about getting the maximum return in a short time for senior management, who will move on somewhere else sooner or later anyway. So any medium to longer term planning is frowned upon as they would get the short term gain and someone else would get the gain.

Mind you thats pretty much how the country is run too.

 

[The Ham]

Short term thinking, its all about getting the maximum return in a short time for senior management, who will move on somewhere else sooner or later anyway. So any medium to longer term planning is frowned upon as they would get the short term gain and someone else would get the gain.

Mind you thats pretty much how the country is run too.

It does depend on the company and industry that you work in.

I'm aware of at least a few which are good at training staff.

 

[Dai Corner]

It does depend on the company and industry that you work in.

I'm aware of at least a few which are good at training staff.

And the individual manager, in my experience. Going back to my time at a school, teachers are entitled to 5 day's training a year (that's why your kids have those extra five days off). My first manager ensured I got the same. After he retired it was a struggle to to get any, despite them wanting new technologies to be introduced and supported.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I'm technically on a ZHC. After I retired it suited my former employer to employ me through an agency to do the odd day or week when my knowledge was required. I'm still on the agency's books.

I'm under state pension age but my pension and savings are sufficient for my needs and I don't claim any benefits. I have no real need or desire to work, though i would do the odd job if something interesting came along.

Quite a lot of people retired early - sometimes by choice , sometimes through being engineered out of organisations. I too have enough to manage comfortably - mortgage paid and 3 children now graduated , rail industry pension - but I would happily work a bit , were it not for the tax system - which would pretty much out you onto a 40%+ tax rate , thus negating much of the benefits of "working" as you are obviously taxed on your pension as well as added , earned income.

So a very few days work or a part time low wage to keep you below the £40K or so threshold , - so in that case , why bother.? - obviously a pool of resources there that could be used , but is not incentivised. Many of my generation are therefore not working at all , but could be.

 

[Dai Corner]

Quite a lot of people retired early - sometimes by choice , sometimes through being engineered out of organisations. I too have enough to manage comfortably - mortgage paid and 3 children now graduated , rail industry pension - but I would happily work a bit , were it not for the tax system - which would pretty much out you onto a 40%+ tax rate , thus negating much of the benefits of "working" as you are obviously taxed on your pension as well as added , earned income.

So a very few days work or a part time low wage to keep you below the £40K or so threshold , - so in that case , why bother.? - obviously a pool of resources there that could be used , but is not incentivised. Many of my generation are therefore not working at all , but could be.

Particularly as my skills (IT) and yours (train planning I presume) are in short supply.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Particularly as my skills (IT) and yours (train planning I presume) are in short supply.

Indeed - going back to work would need to be very well paid to make it worthwhile tax wise , though to be fair one does get used to "not working" (but do feel guilty about it) ......out of humour I did apply for a modest little job at the GPO (pre Xmas work last year) , and despite 2 degrees and a wealth of other experience , I failed the on line assessment. Must be a lesson there. Postman said in the old days , it would have been a simple chat with the local guvnor ......

 

[AlterEgo]

That’s still a quarter of a million people who are in a ZHC who want more secure work.

They said they wanted more hours, not more secure work.

ZHCs work for some people because the insecurity works both ways. The employer can just not call you in for work, but you can also leave the job at the drop of a hat, or decide simply not to work some days - at very short notice.

 

[Barn]

Ultimately, if Dave expects absolutely everyone to be in the 'right' job for them at every moment, and won't even tolerate 0.78% (250k / 32m) on the wrong sort of contact, then he appears to be advocating something like the North Korean Songbun system, because that is the level of state control that would be required.

 

[Dave1987]

Ultimately, if Dave expects absolutely everyone to be in the 'right' job for them at every moment, and won't even tolerate 0.78% (250k / 32m) on the wrong sort of contact, then he appears to be advocating something like the North Korean Songbun system, because that is the level of state control that would be required.

No what I expect from an economy that is supposedly “booming” with supposedly ultra low unemployment etc etc is for everyone who wants to be in full time secure employment to be able to do so. May made a very big song and dance about “creating an economy that works for everyone”. What has she done? Absolutely nothing as far as I can see apart from some half hearted “national retraining scheme” and attack attack attack unions. Please explain exactly what May has done to make the economy work for the ordinary working man or woman?

I see there is another report out today showing people cannot live on the living wage. I will link to it when I can. What’s the Government response? Not “yeah this is a problem we really want to sort out”, nope it’s all about fudging the figures to make them look better.

 

[Dai Corner]

No what I expect from an economy that is supposedly “booming” with supposedly ultra low unemployment etc etc is for everyone who wants to be in full time secure employment to be able to do so. May made a very big song and dance about “creating an economy that works for everyone”. What has she done? Absolutely nothing as far as I can see apart from some half hearted “national retraining scheme” and attack attack attack unions. Please explain exactly what May has done to make the economy work for the ordinary working man or woman?

I see there is another report out today showing people cannot live on the living wage. I will link to it when I can. What’s the Government response? Not “yeah this is a problem we really want to sort out”, nope it’s all about fudging the figures to make them look better.

So do you want the Government to pay people who aren't suitably skilled or located or don't fancy doing the jobs that are available to do something of little or no benefit for forty hours a week?

 

[AlterEgo]

No what I expect from an economy that is supposedly “booming” with supposedly ultra low unemployment etc etc is for everyone who wants to be in full time secure employment to be able to do so.

I don’t think there has ever been a point in our history where every single person who wanted a full time job had one, and had the right contract for them.

 

[Barn]

Please explain exactly what May has done to make the economy work for the ordinary working man or woman?

I don't really think May has 'done' a huge amount, but then I am one of those people who thinks that often the best thing the Government can do for the jobs market is to leave it alone and create a low tax, business-friendly environment.

But, just to recap on what this thread is all about, we have unemployment at a 43-year low, 3.3 million more jobs since 2010, the majority of growth since 2010 in full-time permanent jobs, youth unemployment the lowest since records began, record employment for over 50s, record employment for BME people. We have 124,000 fewer people unemployed and looking for work than we had one year ago.

We really do not have a problem with work figures at the moment. The most frequently quoted 'problem' is that we have low worker productivity and low wage growth. This is really just a consequence of high employment. With a workforce willing to work at fairly low pay, there hasn't really been much of a need to invest in things like robotics or advanced workplace skills training to increase productivity - it has been cheaper to simply take on more staff. It will be interesting to see how this changes as vacancies start to exceed workforce availability.

 

[Dave1987]

I don't really think May has 'done' a huge amount, but then I am one of those people who thinks that often the best thing the Government can do for the jobs market is to leave it alone and create a low tax, business-friendly environment.

But, just to recap on what this thread is all about, we have unemployment at a 43-year low, 3.3 million more jobs since 2010, the majority of growth since 2010 in full-time permanent jobs, youth unemployment the lowest since records began, record employment for over 50s, record employment for BME people. We have 124,000 fewer people unemployed and looking for work than we had one year ago.

We really do not have a problem with work figures at the moment. The most frequently quoted 'problem' is that we have low worker productivity and low wage growth. This is really just a consequence of high employment. With a workforce willing to work at fairly low pay, there hasn't really been much of a need to invest in things like robotics or advanced workplace skills training to increase productivity - it has been cheaper to simply take on more staff. It will be interesting to see how this changes as vacancies start to exceed workforce availability.

So stories like this don't alarm you?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45242008
Living Wage fails to cover families' basic needs, charity finds
Low-earning parents working full-time are still unable to earn enough to provide their family with a basic, no-frills lifestyle, research suggests.

A single parent on the National Living Wage is £74 a week short of the minimum income needed, according to the Child Poverty Action Group.

A couple with two children would be £49 a week short of the income needed, the charity said.

But this was better than last year, when couples were £59 a week short.

The National Living Wage is £7.83 an hour for those aged over 25.

A government spokesperson said fewer families were living in absolute poverty: "The employment rate is at a near-record high and the National Living Wage has delivered the highest pay increase for the lowest paid in 20 years, worth £2,000 extra per year for a full-time worker."

However, the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) said gains from modest increases in wages had been "clawed back" through the freezing of tax credits.

Rising prices and changes to various benefit schemes had also "hit family budgets hard", it said.

Funding essentials
The CPAG's definition of a "no-frills" lifestyle is based on the Minimum Income Standard, a set of criteria drawn up by the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University.

It calculates the income required for a minimum standard of living based on essentials such as food, clothes and accommodation, as well as "other costs required to take part in society".

The research centre asks focus groups drawn from a mixture of socio-economic backgrounds what they think a household would have to be able to afford in order to achieve an acceptable living standard.

The charity's Cost of a Child report showed that the overall cost for a couple raising a first child until they are 18 also fell from £155,100 to £150,800.

The cost of bringing up children was heavily influenced by childcare, with full-time childcare accounting for almost half the total sum.

Child costs 'substantial'
CPAG's chief executive Alison Garnham said there was "strong public support" for the government to top up the wages of low-paid parents.

She urged the government to use November's Budget to "unfreeze benefits and restore work allowances".

"Income from work alone is not sufficient to enable some to meet their families' needs to escape poverty and the cost of a child is substantial," she added.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45247655
Gig economy pressures make drivers 'more likely to crash'
Drivers and couriers who get their work from apps face a "heightened risk" of crashes, a study suggests.

Research from University College London (UCL) indicated 42% of "gig-economy" couriers and taxi drivers reported vehicle damage because of a collision.

Close to half admitted time pressure could make them break the speed limit.

Distraction by smartphones and tiredness from overwork were also flagged as risks for those delivering food and parcels.

The report draws on 200 responses to an online survey from drivers and couriers, as well as 48 in-depth interviews.

The study does not focus on any one particular company, although Uber and Deliveroo are both named as examples of companies that enable gig-economy work - where employees are not paid a salary but instead get money for each job completed.

Of those surveyed, 63% said they had not been provided with safety training on managing risks on the road, while one in 10 reported someone had been injured in a crash while they had been working.

Co-author Heather Ward said that the rise in popularity of picking up jobs through apps could "lead to an increase in risk factors affecting the health and safety" of gig-economy workers.

"As more workers enter the economy and competition rises, the number of hours they need to work and distances they must travel to earn a stable income both increase," she said.

The report indicates:

• 40% of those using an app on the job find them distracting while driving or riding
• 30% have driven through a red light while under pressure to finish a job

Uber's community guidelines advise that drivers should not text while driving and should take a break if they feel tired.

"Uber's new leadership has made safety our top priority," said a spokesman.

"We have and will continue to make changes designed to ensure drivers and couriers feel safe and supported on every moment of their journey."

In January, Uber introduced a new policy on drivers' hours in the UK, obliging drivers to take an uninterrupted six-hour break after 10 hours of driving with a passenger or travelling to pick up someone.

A spokesman for Deliveroo said the company "has led the way in putting safety at the heart of how we work with riders."

"Deliveroo has made safety equipment available to riders free of charge and we have worked with road safety campaigners to design hyper-reflective rider kit which maximises riders' visibility."

"In previous years, the UK had a good road safety record, but deregulation over the last few years has left self-employed couriers and taxi drivers at an increased risk of exploitation," said co-author Nicola Christie.

Ms Christie called for the government to heed the recommendations included in the report, which include stricter safety management and payment based on time worked rather than the drop rate of passengers or deliveries.

The research was funded by the Road Safety Trust. The charity's chief executive , Sally Lines, said that the report made for "very worrying reading and demonstrates that an enquiry into the gig economy and road safety is needed urgently".

At the moment I think May's Government would sell workers rights down the river to woo business post Brexit. We have to lowest levels of employment for years yet people are still getting statistically poorer all the time that isn't a booming economy to me. If the BOE was having to raise interest rates beyond 3% to curb inflation because wages were shooting up, yes that would be a booming economy. The UK is creating lots and lots of poorly paid work. Government needs to act and act swiftly.

 

[Barn]

I am not a fan of May and am not here to defend her. But if I were to step briefly into that role, I would note that the first article you quote indicates that the gap between earnings from employment and needs has shrunk by almost a fifth (£59 to £49) in the last year. The second article seems to me to focus largely on apps rather than employment type. Even to the extent it is about working hours, that would apply whether it was a ZHC or a full time position.

Lets go back to basic economics. Employers will pay what they need to pay to attract staff. Wages are low in no small measure because:

- For many years there has been a ready supply of labour willing to work for those wages.
- Benefits (including tax credits) have topped up wages meaning that employers can get away with paying less than living costs and thus subsidising employer profits.
- The "Living Wage" allows employers paying low wages to present that as socially acceptable.

Which of those would you tackle if you were May?

• Would you prefer to reduce availability of labour (e.g. by clamping down on immigration post-Brexit) to change the supply/demand ratio, and risk being demonised as a racist and damaging prospects for a trade deal?
  
• Or would you reduce tax credits to remove the subsidy on employers and risk being demonised as a Tory who hates the poor?
• Or would you raise the Living Wage above that suggested by the independent Low Pay Commission and reduce growth in employment, thus giving a pay rise to those in work but potentially reversing the good news in the unemployment figures and creating more workless families?

Whichever one you followed, how would you deal with inflation caused by prices rising to fund the pay rise?

These things aren't as easy as you make them out to be!

 

[Dave1987]

I am not a fan of May and am not here to defend her. But if I were to step briefly into that role, I would note that the first article you quote indicates that the gap between earnings from employment and needs has shrunk by almost a fifth (£59 to £49) in the last year. The second article seems to me to focus largely on apps rather than employment type. Even to the extent it is about working hours, that would apply whether it was a ZHC or a full time position.

Lets go back to basic economics. Employers will pay what they need to pay to attract staff. Wages are low in no small measure because:

- For many years there has been a ready supply of labour willing to work for those wages.
- Benefits (including tax credits) have topped up wages meaning that employers can get away with paying less than living costs and thus subsidising employer profits.
- The "Living Wage" allows employers paying low wages to present that as socially acceptable.

Which of those would you tackle if you were May?

• Would you prefer to reduce availability of labour (e.g. by clamping down on immigration post-Brexit) to change the supply/demand ratio, and risk being demonised as a racist and damaging prospects for a trade deal?
  
• Or would you reduce tax credits to remove the subsidy on employers and risk being demonised as a Tory who hates the poor?
• Or would you raise the Living Wage above that suggested by the independent Low Pay Commission and reduce growth in employment, thus giving a pay rise to those in work but potentially reversing the good news in the unemployment figures and creating more workless families?

Whichever one you followed, how would you deal with inflation caused by prices rising to fund the pay rise?

These things aren't as easy as you make them out to be!

Ow its very very simple when you take hatred of organised labour out of it. May and the Tories have become blinded by their war with unions and the wish to crush the unions that they seem to have forgotten what truly matters, the wealth and prosperity of citizens. If you sell change to people then they will embrace it. Discourage firms from making people redundant by making it more expensive to make people redundant than it is to invest in their workforce through employment law. Change laws in the 'gig' economy by limiting the amount of work an individual can do in the 'gig' so stoping it becoming main employment methods but does not stop people from working in the 'gig' economy for extra money. And invest heavily in adult learning making training courses in everything the economy needs freely or cheaply available to everyone though either part time or full time courses. People can train for the skills required in the future economy thereby making them embrace the future rather than fear it. I once heard a quote on the BBC Dragons Den "if your business struggles to pay you staff the minimum wage you don't really have a viable business at all". Low interest rates and cheap money has kept many businesses afloat. Because debt is so cheap people are using debt to buy everything. The BOE monetary policy has said they expect they will need to keep interest rates low for a considerable amount of time yet so debt will remain cheap. Once interest rates have to rise it will show exactly how strong the economy is because then people won't be able to use debt to buy everything.

 

[Dai Corner]

A more fundamental problem is that even the lowest paid worker here has a better standard of living, environment and public services than many those who mine, grow or make a lot of the stuff he buys.

How do we manage that? By borrowing money and taxing those whose jobs have not yet been exported to the low wage economies to supplement wages, pay benefits and provide public services. That's not sustainable forever. There aren't the resources in the world to let everyone live like we do.

 

[SteveP29]

Yes, citizens compete against each other for jobs. I'm not sure why competition is transalted as 'hate' and 'jealousy'.

So you ignored or didn't see:
The government blamed the unemployed for the need for austerity
The government blamed the disabled for the need for austerity
The government blamed immigrants for the need for austerity?

If that's not a case of creating division, jealousy and hatred in society, then I don't know what is

No what I expect from an economy that is supposedly “booming” with supposedly ultra low unemployment etc etc is for everyone who wants to be in full time secure employment to be able to do so. May made a very big song and dance about “creating an economy that works for everyone”. What has she done? Absolutely nothing as far as I can see apart from some half hearted “national retraining scheme” and attack attack attack unions. Please explain exactly what May has done to make the economy work for the ordinary working man or woman?

I see there is another report out today showing people cannot live on the living wage. I will link to it when I can. What’s the Government response? Not “yeah this is a problem we really want to sort out”, nope it’s all about fudging the figures to make them look better.

If there were the number of unfilled positions they claim there are, then wages would be spiralling out of control so that employers could fill their positions, that wages aren't rising as fast as inflation tells you someone is lying and I wouldn't begin to think it's official statistics

 

[The Ham]

If there were the number of unfilled positions they claim there are, then wages would be spiralling out of control so that employers could fill their positions, that wages aren't rising as fast as inflation tells you someone is lying and I wouldn't begin to think it's official statistics

I would guess that the reason that wages aren't spiralling is down to a few factors:
- the jobs are limited to specific industries
- the jobs are being covered by other staff working harder which works for a short period of time
- the jobs are minimum wage and there's not the scope to pay more, so no one's going to take them over another minimum wage job

There's probably other reasons, but the above may explain some of the reason why wages aren't going up by much.