Archive

Posts Tagged ‘employment’

Wage Slaves and Wage Thieves

 

5564579080_d27e051e29_z

There has been sporadic articles and documentation regarding the inflated salaries of corporate execs and how they dwarf the salaries of our most senior public servants. More outrage ensues. More condemnation from the liberal press pours forth as they use the previously mentioned comparison to offer some perspective on the gross inequality in pay that exists.

Seemingly, the implication here is the difference in pay within the higher, more senior brackets between public and private sectors is large, and it shouldn’t be. However, I do not want a comparison drawn between the bosses of each sector. A much more worthy comparison would be to analyse the pay and rights of an average worker against a boss.

In our post-industrial, service driven economy, we are even outsourcing jobs citizens here are training to secure. This is freezing the price (wage) of labour here, and in some cases, driving it down (considering inflation). This is not only making society unequal by killing off any social mobility, it raises the top bracket of earners higher and higher above everybody else.

The attitude which manifests is one of spite towards the fellow/future worker who demands more via protest too. This is not so much a natural reaction, but one born of helplessness towards the rubbish we have to put up with. When we hear vacuous sound bites like “we are all in this together”, we tend to think, “we’re putting up with it, why aren’t they?” The answer is simple: none of us should, because the disconnect we are all feeling about the labour we offer and the fruits of it we receive is a very real problem that deserves our utmost attention.

This is not to mention the heavy cuts being implemented by the government, which will result in 500,000 public sector job losses, 50,000 of which will be in NHS, and the abolition of the UK Film Council which has produced Oscar winning films, among other wild swings of the axe. These are not just figures. They represent lives, mortgages, families, and a quality of life being squashed from above. Employment is the lifeblood of an economy. One can argue there are many superfluous jobs that should be shed – really?

The large size of the public sector here and other Western economies has become necessary to offset the deficiencies of the private sector, which has failed to provide not just sustainable growth, but sustainable employment. Until our casino finance sector stops operating in boom and bust cycles, the public sector will remain a dependable crutch for those who do not wish to gamble with lives. This brings me to the meat of this article: the attitude which the management class have tried to foster in their workforce and its economic consequences.

This can be first illustrated quite profoundly with a personal anecdote: I know someone who has earned well over £1,000,000 in product sales in the last business year, yet was only paid £22,000 for their troubles. This represents a 2.2% return of the value to the worker who was made solely responsible to shift the goods. Of course, there are other costs to account for, such as production costs and transport, but it would be reasonable to surmise that a large chunk of the profits made its way to the pockets of the directors and shareholders.

This is not only unjust, but symptomatic of the economic phenomenon in our age of globalisation: the value of a product is not simply determined by the seller in a simple transaction with simple market forces, but monopolised by those with the financial clout to keep workers dependent and hungry, effectively prostituting their labour as they see fit, while manipulating market conditions for their own benefit. This means that a worker in a Western country, who is no longer the producer of one given good, cannot readily identify the worth of a product outside their own contrived salary.

Detachment with the labour ensues, and apathy blooms.

This apathy is responsible for the incredible tolerance of the workforce to brave the gluttony and greed of the management classes. We simply do not care about what we do anymore because the reward is miniscule and our labour is undervalued. Corporations understand this problem, and the solution to protect their interests is not to improve worker conditions, but to drive them down further, so that workers become desperate, and finally grateful for their lot in life. After all, a starving man will think a dry biscuit is the best meal he’s ever had if there was nothing else.

Of course, this policy has two outcomes – March 26th is a testament to that.

IMAG0019

Globalisation has fermented the economic shit-storm here and made it co-dependent on the labour situation in developing countries. Take the example of a £20 pair of jeans manufactured in South East Asia and sold on a UK high-street. The worker there is on slave pay and slave hours and just about gets by (if they’re not killing themselves en masse). The product is then priced according to the target market – in this case, the poor here. The poor producers create for the poor and the rich, it is worthy to note.

Keeping the example of the cheap pair of jeans: how about improving the pay and working rights for the outsourced labour? The price of the product increases, resulting in fewer sales and probably redundancies. All the while, the rich are unaffected and preserve their profit margins. The excuse is that the poor here cannot afford to purchase the now more expensive jeans, and have been priced out by concessions to labour movements elsewhere – which then effectively demonises development on these issues among local populations.

The sadly unorthodox reaction to such events is to support each other in a rather Marxist “workers of the world unite” fashion. It is starting to happen with messages of solidarity issued by those struggling for better conditions around the world. What needs to be remembered is that the consumers here are also producers, and the producers there are also consumers. We are not one or the other. We must not be only one or the other. The conditions one worker has to endure can be normalisedfor good or for worse. That is key.

If conditions improve for workers in the North China labour market, we should support them and demand similar. If the quality of life for the workers there improves, we should demand the same concessions and readjustments. In our globalised economy, isolated progression, i.e. one that is naive to the interconnectedness of the labour markets, will damage understanding of the true economic issues of our time. Moving together is fundamental to narrowing the chasm which exists between the classes.

A revaluation of labour is necessary for a successful redistribution of income. The general discord we have for many of our jobs finds solace in our apathetic approach to the opportunities and rewards we have available. If the poor worker/consumer here cannot afford those jeans anymore, they in fact should be paid more and given better working conditions. In effect, this unilateral progression of working rights will raise the bar for workers everywhere, while simultaneously lowering the astronomically high bar of the rich profiteers.

In a blog on Brazen Careerist, a hip career-based website, Whitney May Parker advises a worker to:

3. Never tell your boss “No, I can’t do that.” Obviously if your boss is asking you to do something illegal, immoral or otherwise, that’s a different case. But when it comes to professional tasks and responsibilities, bosses like to see a can-do attitude. Instead of reacting to a challenging assignment with a sigh and immediate reasons why it can’t be done, consider what resources you’d need to actually get the job done. Maybe you need an assistant, a bigger budget, more time, access to a special resources. Think of it as an opportunity to expand your responsibilities in a way that can lead to a raise or promotion at the end of the day.

The writer clearly has immeasurable awe for her superiors and its nauseating. It is almost as if a boss is to be viewed as a benevolent being, never wrong, omniscient and noble in their judgement. This kind of material is everywhere, and it all contributes to that feeling of gratitude the management class want to instil within the workforce. Workers must remember – they do not owe them anything. Labour is not free, and 100 workers have just as much value as 100 bosses. In reality, the ratio is 1 boss to 1000 workers, looking at salaries.

Of course, that cock-tease of a line always shows up: “It can be you! You can be the tyrannical boss one day!”.

But exploring even cheaper and grateful labour might very well be “the wave of the future of human resources” one CEO has mentioned recently:

People who work for free are far hungrier than anybody who has a salary, so they’re going to outperform, they’re going to try to please, they’re going to be creative

Kelly Fallis, CEO of Remote Stylist

They will definitely be hungrier. The scandal here is that they now want us to feel grateful for working for free, and many of us do – look at interns. Entitlement is the mentality of the management classes, and gratitude is the attitude they wish to foster in their underlings. It is reducible to slavery and it should inspire our deepest contempt. But universally, it doesn’t.

Divide and sell remains the mantra…

As Marx once commented on 19th C decadence in France:

"Since the finance aristocracy made the laws, was at the head of the administration of the State, had command of all the organised public authorities, dominated public opinion through the actual state of affairs and through the press, the same prostitution, the same shameless cheating, the same mania to get rich was repeated in every sphere, from the court to the Café Borgne, to get rich not by production, but by pocketing the already available wealth of others, clashing every moment with the bourgeois laws themselves, an unbridled assertion of unhealthy and dissolute appetites manifested itself, particularly at the top of bourgeois society – lusts wherein wealth derived from gambling naturally seeks its satisfaction, where pleasure becomes debauched, where money, filth, and blood commingle."

Such is the state of affairs now, but magnified one hundred fold. To an almost fever pitch degree of greed and debauchery by the rich, the workers are deprived of a fair wage, reside in filth, and give their blood, all for a pittance. The saga of the wage slaves and wage thieves which has blighted modern civilisation to a now exhausted extent simply must end.

And it will only if we fight in solidarity.

New British Slasher Film, Starring You.

26/10/2010 1 comment

slasher1Didn’t we sack you two days ago…? 

So we’ve seen the vision George Osborne and the rest of the Tory party have for this country (the full version can be found here – it isn’t pleasant). We were never in any doubt of the severity of the cuts, but that doesn’t make it any less worse as they go deep into the fabric of our society.

I want to mention three things which our coalition government are adamant about, ignoring, or intentionally following through with. There is the constant reiteration that these particular cuts are “necessary”, contrary advice from world renowned economists, and the consequences these cuts will have for the majority of the public, respectively.

 

“Necessity”

OK, lets break this down. Osborne has said these cuts are “necessary” to correct a deficit the previous government created. Policies are never necessary. There is always a choice. The Tories and Liberal Democrats are pushing an agenda of having no choice to firstly try to mute other solutions, and secondly to relinquish any responsibility they will have for bad outcomes.

By saying there is no choice, they are in the right if the economy magically recovers through random innovation. If it slumps and we enter a double-dip recession, they can argue that, at the time, this was the only option and thus inevitable whatever course of action undertaken. It smacks of irresponsibility and, to put it bluntly, lies.

Basic economic theory suggests that in hard times, one should invest and not cut savagely. To give a simple picture: there are assets, which are profitable entities and contribute to society, taxation, and business. Then there are liabilities, which is the jargon for irretrievable costs paid by the spending entity.

In a recession, heavy investment is needed to drive an economy and fund the very things which will ensure economic growth. Sure, debt will be accumulated, but governments have an incredibly good rate of return for their loans as interest rates for developed nations are low, while the benefits associated with spending the money is relatively high.

The assets acquired by a government which chooses to maintain funding include keeping unemployment low to ensure a decent quality of life and greater tax revenues. The liabilities of cutting deep are horrendous and would entail massive swathes of unemployment, an increased welfare bill for those who are unemployed, and a likely rise in crime levels.

These things are costs which have no return other than “satisfying bond markets” or tentative investors who will be attracted to prices being lowered. The investment relied upon will be mostly foreign, as local investment depends on reluctant banks who aren’t willing to lend to small business due to the risks, and would rather deal with already wealthy clients.

 

slasher2Danny Trejo is set to star as George Osborne in the upcoming sequel to Hollywood blockbuster, Machete 2: Cutting Deep in Croxteth

I think George Osborne and his team must be relatively intelligent and thus I am unable to call them incompetent. Additionally, I do not think he now believes himself mistaken about the legislation. This can only mean one thing: this is an ideological position, and one which only presents itself as pure necessity. It is a choice, a policy, and a traditional one of the Tory Party.

 

“Don’t do it!”

We’re all sitting here and wondering how its going to pan out – it is a gamble after all. We’re not experts, and nor is George Osborne for that matter. However, two experts, who also happen to be Nobel Prize winners – Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz – have both voiced their concerns over proposed austerity plans.

Paul Krugman states:

In short: the demand for immediate austerity is based on the assertion that markets will demand such austerity in the future, even though they shouldn’t, and show no sign of making any such demand now; and that if markets do lose faith in us, self-flagellation would restore that faith, even though that hasn’t actually worked anywhere else.

The Bad Logic of Fiscal Austerity, New York Times, June 14th 2010

And it hasn’t, as Joseph Stiglitz here recalls:

Thanks to the IMF [International Monetary Fund], multiple experiments have been conducted – for instance, in east Asia in 1997-98 and a little later in Argentina – and almost all come to the same conclusion: the Keynesian prescription works. Austerity converts downturns into recessions, recessions into depressions. The confidence fairy that the austerity advocates claim will appear never does, partly perhaps because the downturns mean that the deficit reductions are always smaller than was hoped.

To Choose Austerity is to Bet it All on the Confidence Fairy, CiF, October 19th 2010

Austerity and methods suggested by organisations such as the IMF have proven to be detrimental to the recovery of an economy in dire straits. In East Asia, countries such as Malaysia, who greatly ignored the economic advice the IMF gave them, proved far more successful at maintaining its market integrity and ensuring recovery after the crisis.

Other countries like Thailand, who followed and implemented IMF programs almost perfectly, had the most disastrous time. More than three years after the East Asian crisis began, it was still in recession with a GDP roughly 2.3% below the pre-crisis level. This makes logical sense if you rightly consider a recovery meaning a good employment rate and fairer wages.

Of course, the IMF doesn’t care about employment or quality of life. Its interests are dictated by the Washington Consensus, which among other questionable policies, promotes free market fundamentalism and intensive (and immediate) trade liberalisation to suit the business interests of Western corporations who want the best possible return for their investments.

Our government has done its best to weave this false web of necessity regarding austerity while ignoring not only contrary advice from economists who have dedicated their career to mapping economic activity and analysing consequences, but hard evidence which makes a strong case against fiscal austerity as a response to economic crises and a high deficit.

 

slasher3Caroline Lucas does not approve. 

“We’re all in this together.”

This is the mantra of our current government. It is however nothing more than a vacuous soundbite repeated over and over in a rather Orwellian way. The key to this statement is recognising that it is trying to project fairness onto the policy rather than actually letting it emanate from the policy itself. I shouldn’t have to be persuaded it is fair.

Lets look at the details. Who suffers the most? George Osborne states that within this “progressive” spending review, the richest will suffer the most. However, the Institute of Fiscal Studies (you know, the group the Tories love quoting when it suits them, and don’t when it doesn’t), specifically state that it is the poorest who will suffer the most.

Students too will have to endure market forces as young as 18 when it comes determining their life choices with the imminent removal of the tuition fee cap. The government continue to say they are doing this so the next generation does not have to suffer because of the errors of this generation, but their policies are much to the contrary.

The whole spending review was undertaken already with the intention of making wholesale cuts to public services and investment. This effectively rebrands the “review” as merely a dossier expounding an ideology which has time and time again failed the majority of people wherever it is put into effect.

What really happens? Why do it if its destined to bring about mass unemployment, poorer wages and regional impoverishment? Again, it is to serve the elites in the long run. Business can be even more selective about their workforce, and will have an excuse to pay less, offer fewer benefits, and finally, try and shape education to suit their needs.

The very value of having a job increases as they become scarce. By ensuring this, more people will be open to exploitation by companies invoking the “bad times” card we’re being dealt by irresponsible media, political cronies and the very businesses themselves.  More people will not speak up about dissatisfaction, slave hours, poor pay and poor conditions.

Austerity is a mechanism for private interests to engineer our society by making it more desperate for what they offer us, more receptive of a particular political agenda, and more understanding of their greed by “looking at the bigger picture” – you know, the picture they draw for us too, not the actual one.

It maintains the status quo, further destroys social mobility, concentrates investment to low-risk already affluent areas, shapes education, and maintains the influence of business interests in public life. We can afford to maintain investment to facilitate growth. What we cannot afford are the austerity measures we will be made to feel in the years to come.

I’ll end with another quote from Krugman: The Myths of Fiscal Austerity:

So the next time you hear serious-sounding people explaining the need for fiscal austerity, try to parse their argument. Almost surely, you’ll discover that what sounds like hardheaded realism actually rests on a foundation of fantasy, on the belief that invisible vigilantes will punish us if we’re bad and the confidence fairy will reward us if we’re good. And real-world policy, policy that will blight the lives of millions of working families, is being built on that foundation.

Debt Management to Become a Standalone Course in High Schools.

19/10/2010 6 comments

Come on, it might as well be.

Lord Browne and his team issued a report on October 12th detailing the direction higher education must go because of this economic climate. We have just seen a defence review today which is cutting 42,000 jobs in the Ministry of Defence, affecting RAF, Navy, Army and civilian positions. Where do they go? Who cares! Oh, you do.

The country is on a downward downsizing spiral because of the gluttony and risk taking from the guys at the top.

Our education system has long been identified as a sector in dire need of reform, yet has gone without the attention it deserves because of the turbulent decade we have just experienced. We have been involved in two messy wars, terrorism on our shores and endured a recession so huge the effects will be felt for many years to come.

What do we know about this system which is responsible for moulding the next generation of workers, thinkers, innovators, and moralisers? Its benefits include a tuition fee cap that normalises the financial circumstances in which one can enter higher education. Then there are drawbacks, such as the rigidity of assessment procedures and the linearity of teaching.

Browne’s report aims to address the impending spending cuts which will affect higher education institutions. The cuts, which will be announced formally tomorrow, will severely squeeze an institution’s funds for teaching and research, so the impetus is on the universities to generate their own funding through private means.

I agree with the purpose of this report – to reform higher education, and later hopefully secondary education – but this effectively means the marketisation of the higher education sector.

This is a kind of a big deal. For a country which did not even charge students tuition fees a little over 12 years ago, we have rapidly got to the point where we are thinking of removing the fee cap altogether. How can something as important as a fee cap, in terms of contributing to social mobility and offering something towards building a true meritocracy, be scrapped?

 

System not responsive to the changing skills needs of the economy.
Analysis from the UKCES suggests that the higher education system does not produce the most effective mix of skills to meet business needs. 20% of businesses report having a skills gap of some kind in their existing workforce, up from 16% since 2007.

The CBI found that 48% of employers were dissatisfied with the business awareness of the graduates they hired. This evidence suggests there needs to be a closer fit between what is taught in higher education and the skills needed in the economy. It also adds force to the argument for helping existing workers to enter part time study and improve their skills.

 Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education in England, p.23

On the face of it, all this means is that higher education must adapt to the business market and provide a business friendly skill-set. This is one of the underlying assumptions of this report, and one which it is guided by the will to massage the various business interests which would like to see students develop skills the businesses want.

This is vitally important. The question which is ignored in this report, and any report which first considers the requirements of current short-term gains focused business first, is what should be dictated by what? Should what we study determine the jobs which are created, or should the existing jobs created by existing managers determine what we study?

Again, on the face of it, it is ridiculous to consider someone graduating from a philosophy degree starting a career as a full-time philosopher. However, isn’t it equally as ridiculous (to add very unjust) for someone who has an incredible grasp of history to enter employment as a sales representative, assuming that isn’t their burning desire?

Business can never be allowed to dictate our education because a homogenised education system, i.e. one tailored to meet the demands of business, will destroy diversity and positively halt innovation, condemning us to endlessly trying to meet unrealistic targets which exist in some areas of the working world.

What about employers who value employees with unique skill and knowledge sets, who are able to contribute creatively, rather than mechanically?

But no, lets roundly blame the beleaguered education system for not producing them while largely ignoring the employment market which does not welcome them. Schools are flooded with restrictive paperwork from the government while university leavers have to endure the rhetoric of business interests. We are being made to focus on only one of the two fronts.

 

Quality.
Students are no more satisfied with higher education than ten years ago. Employers report that many graduates lack the skills they need to improve productivity. Institutions have no access to additional investment to pay for improvements to the courses they provide. In any case the incentives for them to improve the student experience are limited.

p.23

 

Why is that? Well, it is easy to see that the blame for a graduate’s frustration falls squarely on the institution or course he has just left, either by misinforming him about prospects, or teaching him self-indulgent skills which are not easily transferable. We never really look at the employment sector to identify the great disconnect between it and our education too.

Business must be put in the spotlight. Also, we must stop using the word “economy” interchangeably with “business” in the first place, as, rather cannily, “economy” seems to have this more inclusive connotation, whereas “business” seems to describe some arbitrary organisation apart from the consumer, and crucially, with little interest in the consumer.

All in all, just another marketing ploy the government and big business utilise to dull our sensibilities when faced with their simplistic solutions (to their problems). Before even looking at the outrageous numbers, the first principle underpinning this report fails quite astonishingly:

 

Principle 1: There should be more investment in higher education – but institutions will have to convince students of the benefits of investing more.

p.24

 

I have emboldened the word “convince” not only to draw attention to it, but simply to underline it’s boldness. Students evidently are not willing to pay any more for their education, but will be powerless if universities impose higher fees to generate funding. There are a lot of problems with this strategy, never mind the numbers it entails.

Firstly, government officials and the people who are behind this report actually believe universities will give their persuasive efforts some meat and backbone. Persuasion can always be simply that: persuasion. Convincing a student of the supposed benefits of studying at a particular institution could merely accelerate the growth of the universities’ marketing arms.

Secondly, every university already outlines, in paper with a high GSM, that they are incredible and innovative. Giving a university the freedom to raise prices like a business will negatively enable it to behave like a business in other areas. Costs will be minimised regardless of quality of output, and prestige will play even more of a prominent role than it already does.

 

“Increasing competition for students will mean that institutions will have stronger incentives to focus on improving teaching quality.”

p.48

 

Creating “competition for students” through a private market would be catastrophic for society on many levels. Incentivising universities with a profit motive will see profits increase at a rate disproportionate to the standards of education. When taking into account matters such as social mobility, vast debt, and regional insensitivity, the new model leaves a lot to be desired.

Browne’s report models fees up to £12,000 per year, with fees in the region of £6,000 being earmarked as the most common sum to be requested. However, they concede there would be no cap (music to the Russell Group’s ears). It is also conceded that for most universities to break even, fees in excess of £7,000 would need to be charged.

The government, the group who have produced this review, and the universities have all remained relatively tight lipped about the ramifications of removing the cap. Of course they would! The government can make savage cuts, the universities are given the freedom to extort their students, and the this group can add a popular report to their portfolio.

Everyone wins! Except us, as always. Lets live the nightmare for a moment:

 

Higher_ed_bubble_9-3-2010_10-20-44_AM 

 

To illustrate what removing the cap could (and most likely would) do, I have obtained a graph with data from the Bureau of Labour Statistics in the U.S. Browne’s review and the support it has drawn from the coalition government is explained by satisfying all the parties except the new generation of students.

By adopting more of an American model, we are in danger of letting universities, the crucial institutions which (should) shape employment, innovation, and aid social mobility, concentrate on boosting profits, employing even more administrators to do so, and lumping students with horrendous mortgage style debts before they have even begun their careers.

The mantra of it being an investment for the future is unravelled by our economic cycles of boom and bust which entail little or no job security. Our volatile economic climate is controlled by business interests, and the governments elected to appease them. Employment is slashed at whim, while credit ratings are protected religiously by incompetent regulatory systems.

My cynicism is informed by our neighbours across the Atlantic, whose free market dogma has revealed itself to be a bitter pill to swallow for society at large. Institutions such as Harvard charge as much as $50,000 (£34,000) a year, over 4 years, not 3. The total comes to $200,000. How is this justifiable, other than by regressing to matters of prestige?

George W. Bush, probably the most incompetent president in recent history (and beyond), attended Yale, a renowned university in the U.S. How? Through heavy private contributions – the same contributions we are going to be asked to make to fund our institutions. That’s fairness right there in all its star-spangled glory.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I am not keen for us to produce clowns like that, reassuring English accent or not.

The “Win-Win Situation” That Destroys Social Mobility.

20/08/2010 2 comments

I sit here a bitter man. Not because I have been recovering from a bout of food poisoning which has hampered my contributions to this space or an unexpected computer virus which compelled me to format my computer, but more crucially, unpaid internships continuing with no real sign of being reined in.

Graduates gain an experience and employers gain free labour – what’s the problem?

Unpaid internships ruin the chances of graduates from poorer families gaining valuable experience during their course and after they finish university. They contribute greatly to the very real brick wall that manifests as companies look for individuals who can basically pay them for the “experience”.

What good is it graduating from university with a degree which was at least part subsidised by the state through capped tuition costs and helpful low interest loans, only to emerge looking for a job in an employment environment populated by organisations who largely offer only unpaid internships?

The result of this process is the creation of two working worlds – one for the rich and one for the poor. Both the public and private sectors are guilty of this practice.

Below is the job description of a post I have recently found.

 

jobdesc1 …and make us a coffee. Cheers.

 

Now, that seems like a decent amount of work suitable for a graduate in their second role. The above is actually a position advertised on a British website inviting graduates to apply to an internship in the heart of Berlin. To compensate the graduate, a monthly “honorarium” of 500 EUR is offered to cover costs. Clearly, 500 EUR is not nearly enough to cover rent in the heart of Berlin, let alone the flight there and living expenses (nevermind actually doing the above).

This occurs everywhere, and nobody is really that bothered. Given the saturated job market due to the number of graduates, there must be some mechanism to filter out the applicants who do not make the grade required yet(?). This is necessary in today’s working world, but I believe the practice of unpaid internships unfairly discriminates against those who cannot even apply because they know they cannot afford it.

I don’t have to go to Berlin for such an example either, there are plenty much closer to home. With Thatcher’s realignment of everything valuable being in the heart of London and nowhere else, businesses have had to “go where the money is” and set up base in London, depriving the rest of the country from outlets graduates can apply to to practice their skills.

For example, a graduate from the North East of England who wants to start his career must be able to afford an internship in London to gain a foothold in their industry of choice. They cannot compete with those who are from London because Londoners simply have more opportunities to start and grow their career through unpaid internships they can afford.

This is not meritocratic; it is basically dynastic.

There remains little incentive for businesses and organisations to offer paid internships when there are affluent graduates who can depend on their parents to subsidise the “impressive” unpaid work they can choose undertake home and abroad. This is especially true in the nigh impregnable NGO sector where elitism is rife and managers tend to “revert to type”.

Many such organisations more recently complain of the economic downturn as the reason for the cycles of free labour they employ. Plain lies. I have seen very small organisations who comply with law by granting the National Minimum Wage, and I have seen some of the largest organisations make it explicitly clear they will not even pay expenses.

None are more guilty than the United Nations. Their internship offers no expenses whatsoever, despite the requirements of a flight to New York, rent and living expenses (a quoted sum of $5,000 for the internship in total). Not only do you have to pay this hefty fee to work for them for nothing, you have to be currently enrolled in graduate study.

This means the student will just have to have the money if they want the experience, with no option of working to save up for it available given the requirement to be already in full time education. Daddy’s wallet comes into play and the affluent graduate has their edge against the competition. If this isn’t simply buying experience, I don’t know what it. How is this fair?

 

UN Internship “Thanks dad!”

 

The simple fact is this: nobody should have to pay to be employed. When someone has parted with money to gain experience, a market system is in place where none should be. Of course the demand is high for careerists to scribble “United Nations” on their CV, but the supply of that experience should never be determined by how much money the applicant has to offer.

This is why interns must be paid at least the National Minimum Wage.

The employment process has lost its integrity given its marketisation. Tuition fees are capped for a reason – so the top universities in the country cannot charge more than the smaller less established universities. This is fair because admission should be primarily based on merit, not quantity of payment. Employment should operate similarly, but it doesn’t.

Whenever there is an avenue to influence, to gain and demonstrate power, and to accumulate wealth, the rich will devise ways to segregate the population and distract us with other problems. Powerful positions are simply reserved for those who have the “material pedigree”. Social mobility is intrinsic to what a democracy actually means, but it is lying dead in the water.

It must be said, the common myth is that social mobility has been in sharp decline for the last 20 years. This isn’t true; it has merely stabilised – not improved or worsened noticeably. The sharp decline commenced because of the free-market religion created during the height of the Cold War, with the unholy alliance of Thatcher and Reagan, its two most prominent advocates.

What we’re experiencing now is a “don’t rock the boat” approach undertaken by market-speak neo-liberals who are bereft of ideas. The answer always seems to be “charge for it” if it is free, or “charge more” if it is supposedly in high demand. The only market regulation which seems to exist is to deprive the poor of the product or opportunity to maintain its value.

Fairness is must be rooted in equal opportunities. It is those first few jobs which shape our attitude to life and help us identify what we truly want to do. When opportunities are unnecessarily limited at this stage, we “settle” for things we otherwise would not settle for. Our dreams become distant and naive, and we accept exploitation as if it defined maturity.

It doesn’t; it simply defines exploitation.

An old funny tweet created to rib conservatives goes: “if you have inherited hard all your life, you should be able to pass it on to your children”. Too right; here’s a load of money, my mansion, the keys to the BMW and your first job. None of these things bother me at all apart from the last gift enabled by our “job market” – that phrase alone is turning my stomach again.