Ideas to promote fairness in opportunity within the UK workforce

[PTR 444]

I feel that one of the issues with the UK is that it lacks the support structure to enable people to change jobs and reskill if they want to. We have the Universal Credit system, but this only really helps people who are unemployed or working part time to get into an entry-level role, rather than helping people already in entry-level roles move up to a better paying job. Also, we have this outdated idea that education is a one-shot opportunity and that if you fail your GCSEs at 16, you are stuck in a dead end job for life. This shouldn’t have to be the case, as some people don’t thrive academically until later in life, and giving people the opportunity to go back into education as an adult might enable them to get better results, while having more maturity and a better sense of what they want to do long-term as a career.

With this in mind, I have a few ideas for universal policies to promote fairness, opportunity and social value across the UK workforce, rather than giving an unfair advantage to a select portion of society. The idea is that the British working population are free to always have the opportunity to work towards the job that they want to do and change careers as they wish, something more prevalent in modern society. Additionally, I feel that many people are put off working certain jobs they have an interest in due to unsociable hours and low pay, so better rewarding unattractive elements of jobs will go a long way to promote equity and fairness in the UK workforce.

My ideas are:

• A universal basic income to replace all existing benefits, available to all citizens on condition of improving themselves through work or education.
• A higher minimum wage for graduate level roles, set at £2 per hour above the National Living Wage for non-graduate roles.
• An “unsociable hours” government salary top-up for essential workers (such as nurses, police officers etc) working outside the usual Monday-Friday 9-5 working hours.
• Tax breaks for people who work in jobs that require working with challenging members of society, including security guards, SEN teaching assistants and social workers.
• An armed forces open to everyone, with less able-bodied and neurodiverse citizens able to participate in desk-based roles, and with a less strenuous fitness reigime. I feel that with many defence roles now requiring minimal physical activity on the job (admin, cyber security, IT etc), there is no need to exclude people who don’t meet all the physical attributes in certain roles.
• A contribution-based student finance system to replace the existing tuition loan system, where prospective students can receive an unlimited amount of tuition funding over their lifetime provided that they have made the equivalent amount of contributions in national insurance through employment. Students can use this to fund their own college and university studies, as well as shorter courses and MOOCs (mass open online courses).
• A German-style apprenticeship scheme open to everyone over the age of 16, with a mandate for companies with 1000+ employees to offer degree apprenticeships rather than relying on students to go to university on their own accord.
• A nationally recognised self-employment qualification open to everyone, covering essential elements of running a business including filing taxes, safety regulations, employment rights and how to sell.
• A government bonus or tax breaks for citizens that undertake voluntary or non-profitable work that is beneficial to society, such as raising a child, building a home or mentoring someone with a learning disability.

I am not suggesting that all these policies are implemented at once, but feel that they are definitely worth discussing. Which of the above policies would you fully support, or feel that have some merit? Would there be some that would certainly be implemented if the UK treasury was in a much better position?

 

[Egg Centric]

I support a UBI with no preconditions whatsoever as part of a flat tax system, replacing all but disability benefits. It's extremely difficult to transition to though but I think it'll happen eventually. I could get behind the tax breaks for voluntary work too. The rest of it either seems unworkable or I'm against in principle (why on earth should graduates get a higher minimum wage?)

 

[PTR 444]

(why on earth should graduates get a higher minimum wage?)

Because they have worked hard for it? Graduates generally provide a greater economic benefit to society within the workforce, so it is only fair that their efforts are rewarded, particularly now that the National Living Wage for working full time is approaching £25k per annum.

 

[GusB]

Because they have worked hard for it? Graduates generally provide a greater economic benefit to society within the workforce, so it is only fair that their efforts are rewarded, particularly now that the National Living Wage for working full time is approaching £25k per annum.

So if two people happen to be working for the same employer and do exactly the same job, the one who has the degree should get two quid more per hour?

 

[PTR 444]

So if two people happen to be working for the same employer and do exactly the same job, the one who has the degree should get two quid more per hour?

Well there is the argument that a graduate and non-graduate shouldn’t be working the same job, as the graduate will certainly be overqualified for it and perhaps better suited to a role of higher ability.

That is of course only really applicable though if there are enough graduate level roles for every single graduate.

 

[Egg Centric]

Because they have worked hard for it? Graduates generally provide a greater economic benefit to society within the workforce, so it is only fair that their efforts are rewarded, particularly now that the National Living Wage for working full time is approaching £25k per annum.

If they're providing an economic benefit to society their wages will be higher*. Someone who's sucked up tens of thousands of tax payer funding to do film studies can piss off expecting to get be paid better than their fellow barista.

*This is a simplification but the solution is to improve the price signalling mechanism for the societally beneficial jobs with poor wages such as care workers, not reward pointless degrees.

 

[AlterEgo]

That is of course only really applicable though if there are enough graduate level roles for every single graduate.

Well there aren't, because we are overproducing graduates, and there are loads of mediocre ones.

 

[GusB]

Well there is the argument that a graduate and non-graduate shouldn’t be working the same job, as the graduate will certainly be overqualified for it and perhaps better suited to a role of higher ability.

Yes, but if the graduate is unable to find a job that matches their degree and ends up doing an entry level job in a supermarket or contact centre as a stop-gap, do you still think that they should be paid more simply because they have a degree?

Your original post refers to "graduate level roles", but you would expect such roles to be more highly paid anyway - why bring minimum wage into it?

 

[PTR 444]

Yes, but if the graduate is unable to find a job that matches their degree and ends up doing an entry level job in a supermarket or contact centre as a stop-gap, do you still think that they should be paid more simply because they have a degree?

Your original post refers to "graduate level roles", but you would expect such roles to be more highly paid anyway - why bring minimum wage into it?

I was thinking in terms of wage compression, when the minimum wage rises but higher paid roles don’t see an equivalent pay rise. This eventually leads to the minimum wage catching up with the graduate level jobs.

Well there aren't, because we are overproducing graduates, and there are loads of mediocre ones.

Then perhaps one of the other ideas suggested in the OP might work better, such as:

A contribution based student finance system, since this will incentivise young adults to enter the workforce full time before university, and thus have a better idea of what they want to do later in life. There is absolutely no harm in starting university as a mature student in your mid to late 20s or 30s.

A German style apprenticeship scheme, since this will encourage more young adults to consider the apprenticeship route, and hopefully get a guaranteed job at the end of it.

An Armed Forces open to all, since a more inclusive defence sector might encourage more people to enlist at a young age, with the perks of accommodation (with most entry level jobs, it’s impossible for young people to afford to fly the nest) and a generous pension scheme.

There also needs to be a more concerted effort for schools and colleges to promote alternative options to university, and a move away from correlating their success based on how many students go straight on to university.

 

[Egg Centric]

I was thinking in terms of wage compression, when the minimum wage rises but higher paid roles don’t see an equivalent pay rise. This eventually leads to the minimum wage catching up with the graduate level jobs.


Then perhaps one of the other ideas suggested in the OP might work better, such as:

A contribution based student finance system, since this will incentive young adults to enter the workforce full time before university, and subsequently have a better idea of what they want to do later in life.

A German style apprenticeship scheme, since this will encourage more young adults to consider the apprenticeship route, and hopefully get a guaranteed job at the end of it.

An Armed Forces open to all, since a more inclusive defence sector might encourage more people to enlist at a young age, with the perks of accommodation (with most entry level jobs, it’s impossible for young people to afford to fly the nest) and a generous pension scheme.

There also needs to be a more concerted effort for schools and colleges to promote alternative options to university, and move away from correlating their success based on how many students go straight to university.

For 1 & 2 you need to explain more clearly what you mean tbh. I'm neutral till I understand.

For 3 I essentially think it's up to the armed forces. The biggest thing that electronics type intelligence could do is a) pay competitively (this is a massive problem for all sorts of public sector stuff - they need to pay far fewer people a far larger amount of money. But it's stymied by daily mail headlines that think 100k is a large wage these days and recruitment practices that mean those who would get it if it were permitted would be the wrong people anyway and b) allow shenanigans by those involved of various kinds (eg weed, getting up late in the morning, saying things people don't like on WhatsApp). This is a totally different discussion though and orthogonal to what you're talking about. All I'm saying is it should be their competence.

 

[PTR 444]

For 1 & 2 you need to explain more clearly what you mean tbh. I'm neutral till I understand.

For 3 I essentially think it's up to the armed forces. The biggest thing that electronics type intelligence could do is a) pay competitively (this is a massive problem for all sorts of public sector stuff - they need to pay far fewer people a far larger amount of money. But it's stymied by daily mail headlines that think 100k is a large wage these days and recruitment practices that mean those who would get it if it were permitted would be the wrong people anyway and b) allow shenanigans by those involved of various kinds (eg weed, getting up late in the morning, saying things people don't like on WhatsApp). This is a totally different discussion though and orthogonal to what you're talking about. All I'm saying is it should be their competence.

For 1, the idea is that a young person leaves school/college with a plan to work full time for 2-3 years (can be any job), then start university once they have built up national insurance contributions equating to one year’s worth of university tuition. This would enable them to apply for a grant from the government which doesn’t need to be paid back, and the process repeats for subsequent years of study (albeit with the student working part time during university to account for study priorities). This reduces the burden that unpaid student loans place on the UK treasury.

For 2, this essentially needs a far wider variety of apprenticeships to be available, and perhaps a UCAS style application system to make it easier for applicants to find roles suited to their preferred line of work.

 

[GusB]

I was thinking in terms of wage compression, when the minimum wage rises but higher paid roles don’t see an equivalent pay rise. This eventually leads to the minimum wage catching up with the graduate level jobs.

Surely this is down to "market forces". Perhaps your degree isn't as valuable as you think it should be and heaven forbid that someone who hasn't been through university should dare to earn the same as you do.

Would you define what "graduate level jobs" actually are?

 

[Harpo]

Would you define what "graduate level jobs" actually are?

If there isn’t a specific university-trained set of skills needed for the role, then I’d define them as the lazy employers sifting process. The universal ‘educated to degree level’ acts as a very blunt societal sift too.

 

[spyinthesky]

Re

Armed forces open to everyone

Most of the desk jobs are filled by civil service roles or retired officer status. The former open to all.
All Army jobs are ‘Soldier first’ as everyone is able to transform themselves into the Infantry role for deployments.
Reducing the availability to deploy would impact operational duty turnaround times and reduce a Regiment’s capability to fully staff a deployment calling other units to backfill more than they already do.
I also think that cases of harassment/bullying would increase.

 

[PTR 444]

Surely this is down to "market forces". Perhaps your degree isn't as valuable as you think it should be and heaven forbid that someone who hasn't been through university should dare to earn the same as you do.

Would you define what "graduate level jobs" actually are?

Basically any job that requires a degree to enter, although as Harpo mentioned, many employers mention “degree required” on job adverts for roles which don’t require specific university-taught skills, so there should be a method to exclude these.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2025 ==

If there isn’t a specific university-trained set of skills needed for the role, then I’d define them as the lazy employers sifting process. The universal ‘educated to degree level’ acts as a very blunt societal sift too.

All this does is push more young people to go to university when they don’t really need to, which in turn exacerbates the issue of grade inflation as there will be far more top quality candidates to compete with.

 

[PeterC]

Well there is the argument that a graduate and non-graduate shouldn’t be working the same job, as the graduate will certainly be overqualified for it and perhaps better suited to a role of higher ability.

That is of course only really applicable though if there are enough graduate level roles for every single graduate.

Reminded me of when I worked for a well known bank in the 70s and was expected to teach a graduate trainee to perform a role one grade above my own.

 

[Magdalia]

With this in mind, I have a few ideas for universal policies to promote fairness, opportunity and social value across the UK workforce, rather than giving an unfair advantage to a select portion of society.

There are lots of opportunities in the UK labour market. Unfortunately lots of them are opportunities that people are unwilling or unable to take.

For a while now more people have been leaving the labour market, mainly through retirement and ill-health, than those joining the labour market after education and/or training. Demand for labour exceeds supply, and it should be a good time for employees to be in the jobs market.

The main reasons that it isn't are mismatches of supply and demand in sectors and regions.

One of the best books that I have read about this is Head, Hand, Heart by David Goodhart. It is 5 years old now but, if anything, more pertinent now than then.

• head is work that requires intellectual capacity, the skills usually learned in an academic education culminating in a University degree
• hand is work that requires manual skills, usually learned on an apprenticeship
• heart is work that requires empathy, skills usually learned through experience

Most jobs are dominated by one of these, but many will also require a bit of one or both of the others.

A big part of the mismatch comes from a long period of over-valuing head skills and under-valuing hand and heart skills, both economically and socially. As a result we have graduates who can't find the work that meets their aspirations, while we don't have enough people to work on building sites or in care homes.

Technology has been changing that since the book was written. In particular, artificial intelligence is eroding the need for head skills. A very good example of this is foreign languages, where artificial intelligence has already eliminated lots of the need for skilled translators.

helping people already in entry-level roles move up to a better paying job.

Furthermore, the people are not always in the places where the jobs are. Job mobility, allowing people to progress, is enhanced when they can move to find work. The housing market makes that very difficult, and creaking transport infrastructure doesn't help either.

It is much easier to diagnose the problems than to devise the remedies. Policymakers frequently reach for tax breaks, but they are not free. Tax breaks mean less tax income for the Treasury and less money to spend on public services. In particular, any tax breaks (or higher minimum wage) for graduates are going to make the problem worse not better.

An “unsociable hours” government salary top-up for essential workers (such as nurses, police officers etc) working outside the usual Monday-Friday 9-5 working hours.

Tax breaks for people who work in jobs that require working with challenging members of society, including security guards, SEN teaching assistants and social workers.

If we want more construction workers and more care workers then they have to get better pay and more recognition that what they do is valued by society. For the latter, that includes the people working the unsocial hours and "working with challenging members of society". The employers should be doing that, not the government. What the government needs to be doing is better funding for the organisations delivering those services so that they can pay their workers properly.

A nationally recognised self-employment qualification open to everyone, covering essential elements of running a business including filing taxes, safety regulations, employment rights and how to sell.

The self employed are an important part of the economy, particularly in the work that requires manual skills. Those people need to be able to call on the support they need to run their businesses, but they definitely shouldn't have to get a certificate before they have even started.

Would there be some that would certainly be implemented if the UK treasury was in a much better position?

A universal basic income to replace all existing benefits, available to all citizens on condition of improving themselves through work or education.

I have been a fan of universal basic income for 40 years, ever since Sam Brittan used to write about it in the Financial Times. The UK public finances now could not support it, and that will continue to be the case unless we can get back to economic growth, and stay there.

And it isn't universal if there are conditions!

 

[PTR 444]

There are lots of opportunities in the UK labour market. Unfortunately lots of them are opportunities that people are unwilling or unable to take.

For a while now more people have been leaving the labour market, mainly through retirement and ill-health, than those joining the labour market after education and/or training. Demand for labour exceeds supply, and it should be a good time for employees to be in the jobs market.

The main reasons that it isn't are mismatches of supply and demand in sectors and regions.

One of the best books that I have read about this is Head, Hand, Heart by David Goodhart. It is 5 years old now but, if anything, more pertinent now than then.

• head is work that requires intellectual capacity, the skills usually learned in an academic education culminating in a University degree
• hand is work that requires manual skills, usually learned on an apprenticeship
• heart is work that requires empathy, skills usually learned through experience

Most jobs are dominated by one of these, but many will also require a bit of one or both of the others.

A big part of the mismatch comes from a long period of over-valuing head skills and under-valuing hand and heart skills, both economically and socially. As a result we have graduates who can't find the work that meets their aspirations, while we don't have enough people to work on building sites or in care homes.

Technology has been changing that since the book was written. In particular, artificial intelligence is eroding the need for head skills. A very good example of this is foreign languages, where artificial intelligence has already eliminated lots of the need for skilled translators.



Furthermore, the people are not always in the places where the jobs are. Job mobility, allowing people to progress, is enhanced when they can move to find work. The housing market makes that very difficult, and creaking transport infrastructure doesn't help either.

It is much easier to diagnose the problems than to devise the remedies. Policymakers frequently reach for tax breaks, but they are not free. Tax breaks mean less tax income for the Treasury and less money to spend on public services. In particular, any tax breaks (or higher minimum wage) for graduates are going to make the problem worse not better.





If we want more construction workers and more care workers then they have to get better pay and more recognition that what they do is valued by society. For the latter, that includes the people working the unsocial hours and "working with challenging members of society". The employers should be doing that, not the government. What the government needs to be doing is better funding for the organisations delivering those services so that they can pay their workers properly.



The self employed are an important part of the economy, particularly in the work that requires manual skills. Those people need to be able to call on the support they need to run their businesses, but they definitely shouldn't have to get a certificate before they have even started.




I have been a fan of universal basic income for 40 years, ever since Sam Brittan used to write about it in the Financial Times. The UK public finances now could not support it, and that will continue to be the case unless we can get back to economic growth, and stay there.

And it isn't universal if there are conditions!

Universal Credit isn’t universal if there are conditions!

Personally, I believe with the onset of automation through AI, it will become inevitable that some form of UBI will need to be implemented eventually (say at least 30 years away) to compensate for the mass loss of jobs. I imagine that with UBI, a 4 (or perhaps even 3) day working week will be the norm and people will have more time to pursue hobbies and go back into education.

 

[Magdalia]

Universal Credit isn’t universal if there are conditions!

You are right, but Universal Credit is not a Universal Basic Income.

My view, going back 40 years, is that, to succeed, Universal Basic Income needed a different name. I would call it National Dividend, a payment to all shareholders in "UK plc", and linked to economic performance.

Personally, I believe with the onset of automation through AI, it will become inevitable that some form of UBI will need to be implemented eventually (say at least 30 years away) to compensate for the mass loss of jobs.

Lots of jobs won't go, especially in the hand category, I doubt that AI and robots will be able to construct a building without people. Also in the heart category, while some work may be taken over by robots, there will always be a requirement for the human touch. In 30 years time there will be lots of demand for that.

And all technological advances create new jobs, they don't just destroy old jobs. The advance of computers early in my career wiped out the jobs of clerks and typists, but there was different work to do instead.

 

[PTR 444]

You are right, but Universal Credit is not a Universal Basic Income.

The fact that Universal Credit is called that does imply that it might eventually evolve into something more akin to UBI, or at least a benefit that can be claimed by anyone regardless of their financial circumstances.

 

[Magdalia]

The fact that Universal Credit is called that does imply that it might eventually evolve into something more akin to UBI, or at least a benefit that can be claimed by anyone regardless of their financial circumstances.

No, the Universal Credit name does not imply that.

It all depends on the definition of the universe.

When Universal Credit was introduced, its universe was the people who had previously received various other benefits and/or tax credits.

In a proper Universal Basic Income, as recognised by economists, the universe is all of the population, irrespective of financial circumstances. It is an entitlement, not something that needs to be claimed.

If we restrict the universe to people of state pension age, then the recent change in eligibility for winter fuel allowance illustrates the difference.