The unemployment rate is now 8.4%, although the number of job vacancies rose to 476,000 in the three months to January. The ONS data also showed that average earnings increased by 2.0% in the year to December, unchanged from the previous month.

Commenting on the latest data, REC Chief Executive Kevin Green, says:

“To see unemployment rise for the eighth month in a row is disappointing but not surprising as the first quarter of this year was always going to be difficult”.

“However, we can look ahead with more optimism than in previous months. The feedback from recruitment professionals confirms that demand is increasing in some sectors. At the same time, the latest REC/KPMG Report on Jobs showed some real glimmers of hope for the jobs market with an upturn in permanent placements for the first time in four months. This will hopefully be reflected in next month’s employment figures”.

“The fact that the number of job vacancies has risen to 476,000 confirms an urgent need to address the disconnect that currently exists between what employers are looking for and what jobseekers have to offer.”

On the part-time and flexible work issues, Kevin Green says:

“Increased flexibility in terms of working patterns is likely to be one of the lasting legacies of the economic downturn”.

“It’s important to make the distinction between under-employment and unemployment. Of course it is frustrating for people to be in part-time work if they are after a full-time role, but some work has to be better than no work. People in part-time work can avoid falling into the benefits trap by earning an income, keeping their skills fresh and making themselves more attractive to potential employers for when the right job comes along. People working flexibly is good news for them and the economy”.

“Alternatives, like the state training programmes suggested by the TUC to boost public sector employment, are not the solution for getting people into work and could result in higher rather than lower unemployment”.

“In contrast, flexible working is an immediate solution to unemployment and we encourage both jobseekers and employers to consider the potential of working this way - whether it’s through temporary, contract freelance or part-time roles.”

 

 

 

‘Take a chance on hiring a young person’ urges Grayling

Ministers have urged employers to claim their share of a £1billion government wage subsidy to recruit up to 160,000 young people.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and employment minister Chris Grayling announced today that the wage subsidy will be available through the government’s ‘Youth Contract’ for firms taking on young unemployed people from April this year.

Employers can collect up to £2,275 for every person aged 18-24 years old that they hire from the government’s Work Programme, to cover costs such as National Insurance.

Payments will be made once the young person has been employed for 26 weeks.

To help smaller businesses with their cash flow and make the jobs viable, the subsidy will be paid in two instalments, with the first payment after eight weeks and the rest after 26 weeks.

Part-time roles are also eligible for the incentive with the government offering £1,137.50 for someone employed for between 16 and 29 hours.

Clegg said: “This is a long-term boost to help business get young people into jobs before long-term damage is done. Employers have a huge part to play in this and the subsidy we’re announcing today benefits business and young people.”

The Deputy Prime Minister is writing to thousands of employers – from global corporations to small local firms – to urge them to look at what’s available through the scheme. He said that it aims to promote long-term opportunities for out of work young people.

Grayling said: “With the wage incentive we are encouraging employers to take a chance on a young person who otherwise may have been over looked for a lack of experience or skills.

“Over the three months since we announced the Youth Contract we have consulted with businesses large and small to develop a system that works for them.”

In addition, the Youth Contract, which launched last November, plans to offer at least 20,000 incentive payments worth £1,500 each for employers to take on young people as apprentices.

source: peoplemanagement.co.uk

 

The case is set to throw into the spotlight, the question as to whether forced retirement should be justifiable to make way for young talent coming through.

With the removal of the default retirement age, and the fact age discrimination claims overtook race discrimination claims in 2011 in terms of numbers, whatever is decided in Seldon will have much broader application.

Commenting in advance of the hearing, Paul McFarlane, partner in the employment team at law firm Weightmans, said: “It will be interesting to see what view(s) the Supreme Court takes on whether the legitimate aims are justifiable. What makes this Supreme Court decision potentially more significant than when it was first heard; is that the default retirement age provisions, previously contained in the Regulations, have now been repealed. Accordingly, all employers, who continue to use a retirement age, will now have to show what the legitimate aim(s) is/are for its continued use; and show that their legitimate aim(s) are proportionate i.e. both necessary and appropriate.

“With the removal of the default retirement age, it must be questioned whether having a congenial and supportive culture in a firm, which does not need to have performance management, is both necessary and appropriate?

“Similarly, will it now be enough to put forward as a legitimate aim of enabling associates to move up the ranks? Even if this is considered to be a legitimate aim, will its continued use be considered proportionate?

“A retirement age could be said to assist in the fight against youth unemployment as when vacancies are created towards the top end of an organisation, this will have a drip down effect and create new posts at the junior end of an organisation. Yet this argument only works if you work on the assumption that junior roles are filled by junior (read younger) members of staff and vice-versa – which would appear to go against the very thing that age discrimination law has been brought in to prevent i.e. employers making assumptions on an employees’ capabilities based on their age.

“It will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court considers these issues and, if so, what its views are on them.”

Lou Marshall, solicitor at Fladgate the law firm, added: “The Seldon case, which opens in the Supreme Court this week is now more relevant than ever given that the default retirement age has been abolished and so more people may be affected by the outcome especially in an economic climate where are looking to work for as long as possible. My hope is that the outcome of this case will move us away from the assumption that there is necessarily a link between an individual’s age and their ability to carry out their role. And simultaneously, move us a step closer to a more inclusive and merit-based approach to employment (where outmoded assumptions are abandoned).”

Source: www.HRMagazine.co.uk