Seminar looks to get 1,500 back in work
Thursday 12th February 2009, 11:30AM GMT.
A Chamber of Commerce seminar held yesterday aims to bridge the gap between Social Services and employers as it was announced that 1,500 potential employees are out of work. (Picture by Steve Sarre, 0719342)
GUERNSEY has more than 1,500 potential employees, according to Social Security deputy chief officer Ed Ashton.
There are currently 1,632 adults who are out of the workforce – including 411 unemployed, 805 on long-term sick leave and 416 single parents who claim benefit.
The figure was revealed at a seminar organised by the Chamber of Commerce.
‘We do have people who want to work, although some may need training,’ said Mr Ashton.
‘We want to have as much contact with companies as possible because it will open up opportunities for businesses and the unemployed,’ he said.
Mr Ashton said the idea that the long-term unemployed did not want to work was untrue and the majority were motivated.
‘Similarly, the perception that single parents on benefits do not work is untrue, but many are restricted by high childcare costs,’ he said.
There are a variety of return-to-work schemes available to help people who have been off work due to long-term sickness, have little or no qualifications or skills or who have become demotivated.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
I hope that a real effort is made in this area as there must be a number of “long term sick” people who could be given appropriate work. For example I know someone who, although he struggles with various ailments partially caused by a drink problem, is perfectly capable of a days work – in fact he is often offering to do little jobs.
By being signed off long term sick however, he is prevented from doing any work while being a continued financial burden to the system. At the same time he is given a victim mentality that tells him he can’t improve himself.
Granted he couldn’t be a banker or heavy manual labour and there may be times that he wouldn’t be the most reliable but there is definitely work he could do, perhaps as part of a States scheme, in return for a few quid and some self-esteem. Not to mention occupying his time with something other than drink.
I cannot help but womder that historically, rather than encouraging people like this gentleman to overcome their difficulties, Social Services are content to take the easy option by simply handing over benefits and keeping another number on the statistic book. I really do hope that this isn’t just talk but that action is taken.
Report abuse
I’m just wondering how many employers can be persuaded to take on the hundreds of zombie junkies on this Island?
How many of them will wish to employ the paranoid deluded that would kick off at the mere mention of the word work?
How many would wish to employ the many alcoholics?
What about the single mothers that spend more time at home rather than at work due to children being ill and the story keeps going.
There are many social problems that need sorting out before many of these 1632 people can be considered for employment.
A good start would be to lay on a states run play scheme with an after school club. The rates for both would have to be realistic and set out on a means tested basis.
Report abuse
Paul – granted there will always be those who simply won’t work yet if any work scheme got even a few back into employment it would be worth it.
There are many social problems in Guernsey but if we wait for them to be sorted out before trying to get people into employment, not only will it simply never happen but those who are willing to work will be denied the opportunity.
In addition to your idea for a States run play scheme (which certainly warrants investigation) surely more schemes providing opportunities for those willing to become upwardly mobile is also a good start to finding a solution to some social problems? I understand certain local employers already quietly provide opportunities for people in these situations, taking the view that if they find one gem in a hundred it’s worth it.
Report abuse
Paul Le P
I Agree!
Report abuse
This is a great start. I agree completely with Paul Le P.
Like Paul Le P says there will always be people who dont want to work – but not all unemployed should be tarnished with the same brush.
Reducing unemployment begins by breaking down barriers to participation in the workforce -skills, training, motivation, wheelchair access, work from home opportunities, quality affordable childcare etc
There should also be incentives for companies to take on and train the long-term unemployed. And battling common misconceptions, for example, the misconception that parents and older employees take more sick leave (as stated by Paul above) when statistics prove the opposite.
This is an excellent start and will be extremely useful in the future if unemployment rises as forecasted.
Report abuse
There are some heart warming stories in today’s GP about people who have been assisted to get back to work. All it takes is an employer to trust the employee and for the employee to play their part.
It is true that there will always be those who are deemed ‘unemployable’ and i think that if the States were much stricter on who could claim unemployment benefit a lot of young people would look actively for work.
I know of young people who are more than happy to loll around all day and collect a substantial amount of money each week via the social security. They have never worked and there is nothing to stop them – apart from their attitude and laziness.
Report abuse
Can anyone explain to me why employers should be burdened with the failure of the last 20 years of English influenced social and educational policies? We should help people in to work? No – government should have prepared them for work.
Liberal socialism has created this. It’s quite funny because I’m wearing my ‘I told you so t-shirt’ again. Thank god my sons were brought up well.
Report abuse
Why not focus on the idle rich? The wives and husbands of those that earn enough to keep someone unemployed through choice – they are probaly well educated or qualified to do something that would benefit society as a whole, but instead they lounge about comparing golf swings and fur coats. They use just as much resources (asides from benefit) as anyone else and are untaxed. They would likely get a well paid job and so pay more into the system. I bet there’s a few around….
Incentivise them by taking away the tax break.
Report abuse
Fast Robert
I must be missing something…what tax break are they getting ? They aren’t actually earning anything which is able to be taxed !
Has it occurred to you that perhaps they also don’t actually want to work ? Surely its better for them not to be working than it is for them to be working in a job that they don’t need, thereby preventing that job from being done by somebody who does actually need the income !
Report abuse
Haha David.
It had to provoke some reaction at some time.
These are people with means. The jobs they would fill are those above the uneducated and unmotivated. We are constantly told that jobless single mothers are a scourge on society. Maybe they choose to not work? Don’t married couples have the opportunity to ‘roll’ the indivisual tax allowance onto one person? So the income earner would have a £16500 cushion? Society needs big hitters. You are suggesting that if you are a big hitter you can choose whether or not you want to contribute. Yet scorn is poured on those barely able to contribute.
There are many folk out there with degrees, experience and brains that choose not to work, because financially they are supported. That is simply not good enough.
Take away the married couple allowance for those that choose not to work and are able to without finacial constraint.
Life is not about choice but about responsibility. The same detractors of the feckless poor should include the feckless rich.
Report abuse
Fast Robert
Life is all about choice. Some of us make good and others make bad choices. I don’t feel it is irresponsible to give up work because you can afford not to. Many of these men and ladies of leisure do lots of charitable work that makes a real difference to those less fortunate.
Money does not make itself unfortunately. If somebody has been successful in life and made lots of money they should be allowed to have time out and enjoy their reward.
Government should never be allowed to dictate how anybody is allowed to spend their money. If there are any twenty something fine ladies out there with more money than sense then drop me a line cos I am waiting desperately for somebody like you!
Report abuse
Paul
I think people mistake the ‘choice’ not to contribute to society with the ‘choice’ about what they’re going to wear today. Drug addicts have a ‘choice’ to drop out and harm themselves, but you won’t get too many folk agreeing with it. Rich people ‘choose’ not to contribute to society in the same was as anyone else, why should they be free from attention? As I say, they are more likely to be able to make a difference yet they choose not to. That is social irresponsibility. No one can force anyone to do anything but society is hellbent on protecting ‘choice’ for the well off whilst taking it away from the poor.
The idle rich should choose to work as they are more likely to know the difference between right and wrong. If they choose not to have a ‘job’ then they should work voluntarily to enable those less fortunate to get into a more productive position.
The arguments trotted out such as ‘I’ve worked hard to have this wealth’ mean nothing if you are going to use resources and not pay anything back (including hiding wealth to mitigate further expense).
It’s easy to pick on the uneducated, unlucky or disabled from a position where choice can be attained through a bank balance. That is not choice, that is privilege. Only the immoral abuse privilege.
It makes those people no better than the loiterers these boards are full of hate for. It’s just they wear better clothes.
Report abuse
From the article:
>>There are currently 1,632 adults who are out of the workforce – including 411 unemployed, 805 on long-term sick leave and 416 single parents who claim benefit.<<
Are women who have elected to take time out to bring up children factored in to these figures. There is a massive pool of resources that partly due to high cost of living and no child care support are not available to get back to work and contribute.
Do women sign on when they have children; I didn’t but I am a “kept woman”.
Report abuse
Fast Robert
Wealthy folk contribute to society in many other areas. These areas tend to create jobs for the less well off. Boutique shop staff. Conservatory companies. Painters and decorators, Pool maintenance companies and the list goes on and on.
Just because somebody chooses not to work doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t contribute full stop.
They tend to contribute more so in different areas. People should not be made to feel bad about being wealthy. It is something that we all aspire to.
Report abuse
Paul
Personally I don’t see the point in being so wealthy that I can’t see the problems that wealth disparity causes. Boutiques, conservatories and swimming pools mean nothing compared to delapidated schools and raw sewage on the beaches. What we need is to increase tax revenue to tackle these issues. This can be done in a number of ways. If the concensus is not to make the wealthy shoulder more of the burden that would be natural in any organic system, then we need to get more people working. Buying nick-nacks in shops, building a conservatory and employing someone to clean your pool is all well and good but to have the arrogancxe in thinking that these people would not have a job if you weren’t wealthy is astoonishing. All it proves is that those particular people would work whatever. The blame on society’s ills always falls on the poor and the uneducated. They are always the first to feel the effects of policies that dismiss social prioritisation.
My argument is that the strong in society, the wealthy and the powerful, are vastly underperforming, much more so than single mothers and States house dwellers.
Report abuse
Fast Robert
I think you have just confirmed that you really have lost your marbles. I would have expected you to have taken exactly the opposite tack, i.e. why should people work if they don’t need to, taking job opportunities from those who do need to ?
You seem to post things on this blog purely to try to wind people up. Sorry but I’ve got far too many heinous capitalist things to be getting on with, generating tax revenues to help the island to fund what it needs, to be bothered with such lunacy.
Report abuse
The above article referred to some of the long term sick having become demotivated.
What we have is a society that was getting on quite well when along came an industry that had the ability to outbid any other industry for the staff they required. The people in control of the island encouraged this business no doubt thinking more of the money they would personally aquire than to the consequences of what would happen if the situation wasn’t handled correctly.
Guernsey was warned at the outset of going down this road by two Swiss bankers not to allow the gap to get too wide between ‘the haves and the have nots’.
Subsequent to the finance industry arriving the cost of living, property, services etc. were all driven higher. We saw a shortage of unskilled labour which in turn was becoming more expensive threatening the viability of our tourist and horticultural businesses.
The solution was to import labour from Portugal which in turn disenfranchised the local unskilled labour. Local people started to leave the island as they realised they were being outpriced of ever owning their own house. Then the greed really set in by aquiring even cheaper labour from elsewhere to the detriment of the remaining unskilled local people whose lives were becoming reduced in quality whilst other local peoples lives were getting much better. The remaining disenfranchised local people probably cannot afford to leave the island and relocate, it’s expensive to do that, as the states well know the cost of having to relocate the teachers and police officers they require into the island. And anyway why should they relocate, the states deputies and civil servants were and are supposed to be looking after the interests of all Guernsey residents.
So there are a variety of return to work schemes to help people who have become demotivated. Well first of all you will have to remotivate them. You must be truly wonderful people to be able to do that given how they have been disenfranchised and the current global financial situation. What’s the trick? Dose them up with anti-depressants or have you employed some highly qualified social engineers?
Report abuse
How about training some of these single mothers to run a childcare system that is actually affordable? Then they have a job, and all the other single parents can leave their kids there and go out to work. Yes it would cost money to train them, but would reduce the outgoings in the long run. But surely that is to simple an idea for the states.
Report abuse
David
When have I mentioned capitalism? All I’ve said is that there are people out there who could be ‘generating tax revenue’ but who choose not to. The same arguments about the poor who live on ‘handouts’ could be applied to the spouses who are ‘kept’, who if they worked, would generate more tax revenue than an unskilled and uneducated ‘scrounger’. My argument is that the idle rich are more of a drain on society, on more levels, than the idle poor.
Why does that wind you up?
As Steven has highlighted, remotivating the workforce is key. They are disenfranchised because of policies designed to help the few at the top. Those connected to the few at the top that do not work need to ask how come they manage to have ‘choice’ when those at the bottom have no ‘choice’ but to feel bad about everything. Is it because they are lazy? They need role models as well as schemes. Who else to stand up and be counted except for those that can afford to. Where’s the entrepreneurial spirit to lift those up who are less fortunate?
It’s called a functioning society. Don’t pretend you are doing anyone vast favours, David, with your ‘generating tax revenues’, frankly its not enough is it, otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about it? We are where we are through design.
The poor don’t want handouts, they want choice.
Report abuse
Ray
An excellent idea that would free up wasted skillsets. While we’re about it, how about employers embracing flexible working hours/job sharing, even sponsored creches?
Report abuse
Fast Robert
Stop being a prat. What wound me up was the first line of your 1.57pm post yesterday.
Report abuse
Fast Robert
Steady on …. you are getting very close to branding women who are ‘only housewives’as useless members of society.
The other Ray
Report abuse
Ray
No I’m not. I’m suggesting that if we are to focus on people not working then we should include everyone.
Having been a house husband for two years of my life I know how hard the work is (especially with small children). However, I think you’ll find that my suggestions are aimed at those who would employ someone to do much of that work anyway, and would continue to employ someone if they were not a ‘housewife’.
What about all those folk that own houses just to be ‘resident’ for tax purposes. They are also included. It’s all waste.
David
Why resort to insults? You sound just like Jackie (who’s much better at this than I am). It’s that sense of self-importance existing in the upper echelons of the finance industry that winds people up and disenfranchises them. What makes you so much better than anyone else? The size of your house?
Report abuse
Fast Robert
I repeat what I said. The first line of your earlier email made it crystal clear that you are deliberately out to wind people up rather than saying anything constructive. If you are going to behave like that then you must expect to be insulted.
I will ignore your later comments.
Report abuse
Leave the sick and single mothers out of it and concentrate on the bone idle!
Report abuse
David
It’s provocative because people worship wealth beyond reason. There is a line of thought that considers this trend to be a mental illness. Considering the amount of resources that are spent on promoting the ideas behind material aspiration, and the complete lack of resources spent on promoting social coherence and wellbeing, there may well be some truth in it.
Report abuse
Andy: Apologises if my post offended you, i mostly mean the single mothers whose children are at school all day so they could work part time. Many of my friends are in in their early 20′s are and single mums, they work very hard to be able to afford somewhere for them to live, yes one does need help from the states with childcare, but atleast she is payaing some back from her wage.
Report abuse
But Ray, why focus only on “single mothers”? Why not also look at those married women or men, who choose not to work at all – even on a part time basis. That group of people should also be deemed potential employees. Just because fate has allowed someone the luxury of a stable relationship, why should they be dismissed from consideration, and not targeted in a drive to encourage people into the workplace?
Report abuse
There are several challenges.
1. Society has to attempt to give people who have been unemployed for a long period back their sense of worth.
2. The social security have to look at the young and fit unemployed – and reduce their benefits. At the moment if they are poorly educated and/or lack motivation they are able to collect a substantial amount of money for dossing around doing nothing useful.
3. There are people in the community who cannot find jobs that suit family life. Childcare is very expensive and often prohibitive – after all why should mothers work if, at the end of the day, the majority of their salary will be going to pay for childcare and they are just getting stressed trying to juggle all the responsibilities. They may as well stay home and give their children a stable home life.
As a society we are definitely seeing the difference between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ . Most people aspire to improving their lives and this has to be encouraged but it is not all about wealth – it should be about enriching our lives in other ways. Most importantly it is about teaching our youngsters that they are cherished and that they are our future.
Report abuse
Belinda: Thats a good point, but if they can afford to live on one persons wage, then why shouldnt they? This means the job is available for someone who actually needs it, and will stop them sponging off the states. They are potential employees, but they are not a drain on our economy so i say aslong as they can afford it, let them stay and be a house wife.
Report abuse
Because Ray, we have a huge numebr of licences issued every year to people as there are no “locals” to fill the posts. Many of these posts could be filled by those that choose to stay at home. I think that they ARE a drain on society. If you are married then you get the married person’s allowance, which means that if only one spouse works, they get effectively a double tax allowance. The stay at home partner is still using the infrastructure and services provided by the Government, but not contributing. Furthermore, a well educated, well qualified person would most likely contribute more in tax than the “spongers” as you so politely describe them, would in what may be low paid jobs, whilst also claiming additional care of child tax allowances.
Once again, why should the wealthy by entitled to be idle? If you are saying that they can stay at home to be a house spouse (we can’t be gender-biased now can we), why should those for whom the cost of childcare/lack of jobs with flexible hours, be criticised for electing to do the same?
Report abuse
I hope that nobody is saying that stay at home mums are “idle”.
Sure there are some lazy spongers who dont work while there kids are at school, dont teach them anything at home and then dont take them to any activities at all after school.
But the vast majority are always busy running there kids around everywhere – music, sport, dancing, esiteddfods, dance festivals etc etc supervising homework, cooking dinner, stressing out about the 11+ trying to give their children every opportunity in life (even if it is an unrealistic goal). Most try to work part-time as well if they can get a few hours here and there. It is very depressing having an array of skills being wasted, but that is the tough choice that many women make all around the world. Fast Robert and Jackie -Lets stick to the article and not make this a debate between working vs stay at home (if you can afford to) mums.
Report abuse
Wil
I hope those stay at home mums are taking advantage of our wonderful bus service when they are running the kids around here there and everywhere.
Belinda and FR appear to be avid followers of the Pol Pot school of economics.Put EVERYBODY to work in the rice paddies and be dammned.
Report abuse
Who said anything about ‘mums’? But Belinda has it dead right. License holder’s families do become a drain on Guernsey if they are not working. The kids go to school and resources get used. They won’t be here for the long run, so the impact on tax revenue from the worker is temporary and probably less than the social expense.
The only reason ‘mums’ have a tough choice is because of the shoddy childcare provision. The higher achieving nations, many of them using Nordic models, have developed far reaching systems that free up the skilled, that nurture the less skilled, and so motivate the population. Sure they pay a massive whack of tax, but in return they have the knowledge that the basics in life are provided for, and so they are freer to make life affirming decisions across the board. Here it is only the wealthy that can do that.
Oh and Ray, if I had a penny for every time someone uses Pol Pot, Stalin or Mao in a pathetic response to ideas about very real problems in our society, I’d have time to retire and hone my nineteenth hole banter.
Our system is full of holes, what’s so wrong with throwing in things that some consider alien?
We really wouldn’t be discussing these things if there weren’t flaws. The long term mentally ill are stigmatised and passed from pillar to post, treated with drugs that cause long term damage to mind and body, and are lost in unemployment statistics. The education system is failing a higher percentage of children than is acceptable in such a wealthy jurisdiction, and the adult rehaibilitation of the uneducated and socially deprived is shocking.
I’m glad people are so proud of this when they choose to insult those that are looking around at other systems and finding that real progress could be made if only we could unshackle ourselves from the false ideals of promoting personal avarice.
No, we’ll let the schools collapse and continue servicing those people that don’t need it but are able to shout the loudest due to unwarranted and undeserved privilege.
Report abuse
Ray, Pol Pot? That’s a bit harsh. I think you’d all do well to read up a bit on Marxism and heed the lessons of history, wealth will always find an equilibrium. Viva la revolution!!
Crikey, I’m SUCH a student…..
Report abuse
Would rice grow well in Guernsey? If so, Ray, you could be onto a winning idea….but back in the real world where people can read posts properly, you will see that I was suggesting we stop targeting the “usual suspects” of the single parents and long-term sick and consider the wider picture. I reiterate my point that Guernsey has a far wider pool of potential employees than 1,500.
Report abuse
Belinda
What you haven’t said is what jobs you would offer the 1,500 plus when 400 are already unemployed and allegedly seeking work.
Presumably you mean the jobs that licence holders are legitimally holding right now. I wonder how much in redundancy pay and litigation sacking these people would cost local businesses.
Student Bob
Does your teacher know how much time you spend on line.You must have very important GCSE’s due soon.Get your head into those books lad.
Report abuse
Redundancy pay? Litigation? It’s a bit of a daft point considering how little employment protection we have over here! Anyway, it won’t happen overnight – and licences expire and notice periods provide plenty of protection.
In any case, if you were to read my posts properly, I was only commenting on the fact that the pool of potential employees is greater than 1500!!! So unless your super idea of growing rice takes off, it seems we shall continue to have these potential employees lurking in the wings.
Report abuse
Isn’t our economic policy based on attracting businesses and high net worth ‘entrepreneurs’? Are we saying that it’s failing? Ah no. It won’t be failing those few who can take advantage of it!
Report abuse