It was something I read on Facebook the other day. The discussion was based upon long-term unemployment in the US, but there were implications that were universal in their application.
It was based upon a piece that had appeared in the Boston Globe entitled "Casualties of the Recession: Little help for long-term unemployed", and the discussion focused upon the following:
"Tucked away in this excellent but depressing piece on the lack of policy focus to address the needs of the long-term unemployed... "Suffolk University economist David Tuerck said he supports eliminating unemployment benefits and other social safety-net programs, such as food stamps, because they discourage workers from doing whatever it takes to get a job.... workers have strong incentives to stay unemployed"".
My comment to that, echoed by dozens of others, reads as follows:
"What always gets me no matter where you are in the world when I hear this, you would think that there were dozens more jobs available than people looking for them. In fact the reverse is the case, by some 4 to 1 in the US, and try Spain or Greece where the jobs have dried up almost entirely. Cut the benefits, people will look for jobs? What jobs???? Dozens of people are looking already and finding none!".
One of the stories that really hits home though came from a lady who pointed out that she had many years experience working in a professional role and had a Master's degree. Jobs at the level that she had been working had almost dried up, and when she applied for lesser positions she was invariably told that she overqualified.
Job shy? Hardly!
This is a story I have encountered time and time again in my life.
The argument I suppose is that when the economy picks up (if it ever does! I wouldn't count on it at least where jobs are concerned), you will pack up your professional bags and be on your way.
Why you do not get the person to sign an agreement for a fixed period of time (I agree to stay in this job for at least 5 years, and will pay compensation if I break this contract usw) to get round this possibility, would be interesting to know.
And anyway, isn't the style of the job the choice of the applicant rather than the employer's place to decide who is overqualified and who isn't? At my point of life, I will happily go back to doing what I was doing in IT 20 years ago. Status isn't that important - the job and the income are! And I would agree to a 5-year contract expecting me to stay with the company. And I would very likely enjoy the job as well! The only limitation I would place on it would that it would have to pay a living wage. Getting into debt just to work makes no sense!
Overqualified for the position in my own industry? Not a problem? What after all is the alternative? Filling supermarket shelves? Flipping burgers? Cleaning out office buildings?
NO! THAT WOULD BE BELOW MY STATUS!!!!!
I find it more than a bit curious that people want to have this double standard. They will not have you overqualified for a position in the industry where you have years of experience but they think that you should be working in a lesser menial job and that should not be a cause for concern?
Isn't the argument a bit stupid?
The answer in a perfect world is to have far more jobs which provide for all levels of ability. And allows for a removal of ageism and other nonsensical thinking that prevents full employment from ever occurring.
Get to the point where there are four "good" jobs for every applicant rather than the other way round, then I will agree with Mr Tuerck as quoted above. When the jobs exist and everybody who wants to work can work (and is not underemployed unless they so choose) then fine. Starving people back to non-existent work though is simply not a feasible option.
No comments:
Post a Comment