New government, new unemployment, no New Deal?

With the new Cleggeron government, we all looked forward to renewed economic growth, efficient spending and an improvement in unemployment figures. Unluckily, since Dave and Nick decided to cut spending on everything worthwhile, it seems that even more people are at risk of losing their jobs. A leaked treasury report - publicised by The Guardian - revealed that 1.3m jobs could go by 2015, 120,000 of these from the public sector. Although the government say that experts predict a fall in unemployement and a rise in employment, many are dubious. The TUC General Secretary, Brendan Barber, warned of 80's reminiscent dole queues, widespread poverty and a widening north-south divide. There was a 7.9% drop in unemployment to 2.47m in the three months to April, and over the quarter an increase of 23,000 - less than expected. Jobseekers Allowance claims fell by 30,900 to under 1.5m, the fourth consecutive monthly decline. I don't know about you, but I find it confusing to be told that unemployment has risen whilst JSA claims have dropped - are people therefore not claiming even though they are out of work? Or are they, instead, claiming allowances such as Income Support, or Employment and Support Allowance (preciously Incapacity Benefit) due to illness or disability? More worryingly, there was an increase of 85,000 to 772,000 people who have been out of work for over 12 months - the highest since April 1997. One million young people are unemployed and struggling to even start a job or career.

Those of us who are lucky enough to remain employed are still suffering from the backlash of the credit crunch. Whilst we all hoped for house prices to drop and stabilise, they have again started to rise, even if only by 0.1% in June. This still means that the average house price in the UK is £170,111. Compared to the average salary of £25,428 (£489 per week), this is still high enough to prevent first time buyers and those on low incomes from getting mortgages. Although pay rose in the quarter to April, by 1.9%, this was still well under the retail inflation rate of 5.1%. The cost of living is rising for everyone, and it is the unemployed that are worst hit.

Speaking of unemployed, it looks like Fabio Capello might be on his way out. It's still too painful to talk about the England v Germany fiasco that was Sunday afternoon's entertainment, but suffice to say it seems likely that he will be sacked, albeit with a massive golden handshake. Perhaps one of the worst ways to be sacked, publicly... but you can't help feeling he deserves it. Other great public sackings include General Stanley McChrystal, the former staff of Lehman Brothers and Chelsea Taylor, a 16 year old waitress who was sacked via... wait for it... Facebook. How embarrassing. Still, she can always sign on and benefit from one of the government New Deal back to work schemes. Oh no, she can't, can she? Because they're all on hold pending the new government's decision about whether to carry on with them or not. Of course, it would make perfect sense to scrap such schemes, just when even more people are doomed to be put out to pasture over the coming year and years.

I was under the impression that the Tory-Lib Dem government had some cunning plans to boost the economy and drastically lower unemployement figures. So I can only hope the Cameron-Clegg marriage knows what it's doing... before we start to feel nostalgic for Gordon and his New Deals.

Time off to watch the Footie? Work and the World Cup

The World Cup is once again in the limelight... and it doesn't feel like four years since the last one! As employees all over England begin the countdown to the excitement, employers are feeling an all-too familar sense of dread, wondering just how the footie might impact their business. According to The Chartered Management Institute, the World Cup could cost businesses an uncool £1 billion, with SMEs losing £400m of this. Ouch. They also say that 54% of employers are worried that online coverage will distract their workers, 53% fear that chatting about the matches will stop people working, and 40% suspect that sickies will be pulled to allow their employees the time to watch the beautiful game. And that's before people start chatting to their friends on Facebook or Twitter about the footie, rather than catching up with their work. According to a survey by Blue Coat Systems, 54% of workers plan to watch the World Cup AT work - even though an equal number of IT managers reckon this should be banned.

The HR Dept (www.hrdept.co.uk) are warning employers to watch out for higher levels of absence, or hangovers caused from the previous evenings celebrations - or commiserations! Last year the UK economy lost £2.5 billion on 27 million bogus sickies... even with no World Cup to encourage them! Sky News reports that 1 in 7 people plan to watch all games this year, compared with under 13% for the 2006 competition, so it seems that some of the worries are justified. HR Dept suggest introducing some sort of flexibility to minimise disruption. Asda, for example, are offering a shift swap system whereby staff can negotiate their own shift exchanges with colleagues who don't want to watch a match (who on earth wouldn't want to watch?!) Call Centre Helper are urging employers to plan ahead. Suggestions include screening matches at work, offering flexible working, encouraging people to use annual leave and using watching matches at work as an incentive. Watching the game together can, apparently, bond team members... assuming they all support the same side!

Director Magazine (www.director.co.uk) debates whether EXTRA time off should be given to footie fans during this competition. But should we really be rewarded for preferring to watch the World Cup, rather than go to work? Professor Gary Cooper of Lancaster University Management School says YES. He claims that this will keep people focused, encourage autonomy and bonding, stimulate discussions and show employees that they are trusted to work hard in recompense, rather than be micro managed. Hilary Griffin, Professional Support Lawyer at Clyde & Co., says NO. She feels that it would be unfair on non-football fans as well as those who prefer other sporting events, and that employers would be better off encouraging holiday time is taken, giving time off later as a reward, implementing a policy on internet access (perhaps some viewing if work is made up later). What a spoilsport.

Employers also have to be careful about the risks of discrimination. Why should someone be allowed time off to watch an World Cup match, for example, but not Wimbledon? If people are using holiday time just to watch England play, then those who request leave to watch other teams must also be given preference. With the World Cup being such a huge deal for us here in the UK - as well as everywhere else - it seems mean not to allow people to join in wholeheartedly with the celebrations, but at the same time is a bit impractical. It's just a good thing that most of the games are in the evenings and weekends this time round, so the office workers are only at risk of being intensely hungover rather than skiving to actually watch the matches, I suppose. Unlucky for the evening workers, then - those who cannot take annual leave to watch will have to put a cunning plan in place to get their footie fix.

Personally, I'm only in it for the obligatory beer, but have been forced by my kids to display England flags from every orifice of my house and car. I may as well bother to watch some of the footie now, I suppose - nobody wants to be left out, work or no work.

Strike me down, BA's off again...

British Airways is in the news - again - with the announcement of yet more strikes to come... and this time, targeted at disrupting the Bank Holiday weekend. As if the BH isn't going to be bad enough what with the forecast of rain and predicted motorway congestion, now anyone who booked BA flights to whisk them off to sunnier climes has also lucked out. BA last announced massive strike plans back in December, to cover the Christmas period, causing massive panic among management and customers alike. The staff were set to strike over pay freezes, and working conditions. Airline bosses believed that the measures were unavoidable and essential to keep the business afloat. Having reported losses in early 2009 of £401 million, they felt that, seeing as most of their staff already earned almost twice as much as those working for Virgin, it made sense to keep pay as it was. The cabin crew disagreed, and 13,500 of them agreed to support the strike. Thankfully for the estimated one million passengers who may have found themselves living in an airport for the festive period, a high court injunction banned the strike - describing it as illegal - and business went on as normal. So people slowly began to forget, and book their BA flights once more. Until now.

Yes, the cabin crews have decided to implement not one but two strikes over the coming weekend, citing the removal of travel perks (discounted tickets) for those staff who staged a walk out back in March. They feel that this is punishment for participating in industrial action. Heaven forbid that anyone should be punished for causing discruption to flight schedules, financial loss for their employer, misery and stress for passengers and complications for their fellow workers. Anyway, that's what it's all about this time. British Airways had its injunction to block industrial action turned down last week, and refused an offer by Unite to call off the strike if perks were reinstated. Although they are planning further court action as I write, the situation for travellers this weekend seems bleaker than ever, with reduced, delayed and cancelled flights.

There is an ominous lack of public support for the strikes. BA are well known for their higher than industry average salaries, and complaining about them just seems, well, ungrateful perhaps? Public sector strikes, on the other hand, are able to glean more public support, and are generally accepted as more necessary. The strikes of public service staff back in July 2008 saw thousands of government workers backing up complaints of inadequate payrises. In March this year, they were awarded an extra 0.3% rise, making an overall 2.75% rise at all points, backdated to April 2008. People such as cleaners, librarians, teaching assistants, refuse collectors and social workers are generally seen as more "worthy" of a higher wage, possibly because they are paid less than those in the private sector. If British Airways are already paying top whack - senior cabin staff earn up to £56k a year, hardly peanuts - then if they haven't got the budget to pay more, what's next?

In any strike action, whether by public service or BA workers, who loses out most? The British public, that's who. But we can overlook not having our bins emptied for a few weeks, or the schools shutting for a day or two (which is a huge source of joy to our children anyway). We can't overlook having paid good money for a premium travel service and then being messed about, or having our holiday ruined by airline staff who are, in many people's opinions, taking the mickey. EasyJet are having a field day with their new ad - "Why trust BA? EasyJet has over 500,000 ways to help!" They, at least, are overjoyed with the strike news. As for everyone else, all we can do is keep our fingers crossed. And vow never to book a flight with BA ever again.

I'm just glad I'd already decided to spend the Bank Holiday enjoying the glorious UK wind and rain, as I sit stuck in endless traffic listening to screaming kids in the backseat. Bliss.

Jobs for the Girls?

I haven't been to the Jobcentre in years, but last time I was there was looking for admin/clerical work and was advised on a few relevant vacancies by staff. In Birmingham, Warwickshire and Shropshire last week, women looking for these types of jobs were also advised by Jobcentre staff - but rather than office work, were handed information about sex lines! The company recruiting, Faceclick, are offering up to £700 a week if you strip off, plonk your bits in front of a webcam and have sexually explicit chats with punters. Naturally, it all came as a bit of a shock to the jobseekers, especially with words such as "fetish", "Just 18 legal", and "role play" being mentioned in the adverts. Sky News HD readers leapt into the comments section, with predictable results - shock and horror from most women, smut from the men, and lots of blaming the government for the downfall in society due to advertising sex. Blah blah blah. There were one or two women boasting that they had similar jobs, and were the best they'd ever had, and a few more "liberated" people who couldn't see the harm in advertising adult jobs in the Jobcentre. There was also some concern about whether benefits would be affected if, say, someone was ungrateful enough to turn down such an opportunity. Prior to 2003, the Jobcentre wouldn't allow recruiters to advertise work within the sex industry. However, Ann Summers sucessfully took their case to court, and set a precedent for advertising such roles. The general consensus, though, is that selling lacy knickers and a few sex toys is worlds apart from working in the porn industry, and the DWP is taking advice about withdrawing their Faceclick adverts after pressure from Mediawatch- UK.

It's not the first time the Jobcentre has landed itself in hot water thanks to its policy on sexy jobs. In July last year, they carried an advert for a porn TV presenter - applicants needed to have good communication skills for explicit chat, and be happy to work semi-naked. This too sparked outrage, not surprisingly. In 2007, adverts were placed in Byker and Gateshead branches by a company specialising in dominatrices, looking to recruit escorts for £200 a shift. Due to complaints, the ad was withdrawn - but not until ten girls had happily signed up to the agency, tempted by the cash and the whips. And in 2006, there was a Scottish scandal over a gamut of lap dancing jobs being openly advertised as a viable job option.

Although the Jobcentre has an extremely liberal stance on advertising sex industry jobs, seeking women for X-rated work, they aren't as generous with "normal" job adverts. In February this year, a salon owner in Newcastle had her advert for a junor stylist refused by Jobcentre officials - for being discriminatory. She was told to drop the word 'junior' if she wanted her advert to be shown. It gets even more ridiculous. Back in January, a recruiter looking for a "reliable and hard-working" cleaner was told that her wording discriminated against unreliable people. The Jobcentre wouldn't comment on the conversation in question, but stressed that the advert was posted on its website afterwards.

The whole question of what is acceptable - and legal - for the Jobcentre to advertise is an interesting one. People seem to feel that, as a government-run agency, it should take a moral stance on the types of vacancies made available. Legally, however, the Jobcentre has had its hands tied after the victory of Ann Summers over the ban on sex industry adverts. The DWP have to be careful about discrimination, but the Jobcentre rules seem to be going a bit far. On the other hand, recruiters advertising elsewhere have to be careful how they word adverts, in order to avoid discrimination. Surely advertising for female sex workers is discriminatory, both towards women and men. Women because they are being handed the inappropriate adverts - and men? Men aren't offered the chance to apply! Yet there seems to be no legal standpoint over this, unlike sexual discrimination in other types of jobs. It will be interesting to see how this story develops.

Anyway, I'm off down the Jobcentre after lunch. £700 a week sounds ok to me...

Snog Marry Avoid

One day to go until the General Election, and you'd think that everyone has decided who they are going to vote for. It ain't necessarily so. The good old swing voters are still undecided, and last minute changes of mind (and heart) are possible over the next 34 hours. And it's women - again - who make up the majority of the swing voters, and who the three main parties are desperate to convince before time runs out.

During the 1997 General Election, pollsters coined a phrase for the typical woman swing voter - "Worcester Woman". These middle-income female swing voters living in a West Midlands marginal were part of a heavily targetted group whose votes were crucial. Helen Witherick, one of the so-called "Worcester Women", told The Independent three weeks before polling day that she would probably vote Conservative. Tracked down years later, she now admits that she changed her mind at the last minute, and voted for Blair. Out of ten Worcestershire women interviewed who were all Tories before Blair, none now say they will go back to voting Conservative. This group - which can be extended throughout Britain into other middle-income female rich areas - are still a force to be reckoned with when it comes to persuading them to make up their minds.

This Election has become known as the "Mumsnet Election", due to the massive influence that the members of the online forums will have on the outcome of the next government. Many are still undecided, and there is still time to sway them either way - according to Associate Editor Catherine Hanley, "Women don't tend to vote on party lines", rather, on policies affecting them and their families. Whilst women make up over 50% of the voting population, they only account for 19.5% of UK MPs, with only 4 on the Cabinet and 7 in Cameron's Shadow Cabinet. They are also more likely to wait later to decide and cast their vote and less likely than men to have an attachment to any party. This is why they are the key swing voters, especially in the marginals.

So how do we decide who to vote FOR? The Mail reported that polls in late 2009 showed that Labour were likely to win if only women vote... but they are also more likely to change their minds and vote Tory. Women aren't as impressed by David Cameron as much as men are, but at the same time are disappointed with Gordon Brown. In a recent Red Magazine poll, over half of the 2000 women questioned hadn't yet made up their minds. Women are cited as being swayed over policies on public services (NHS and schools), tax breaks for married couples and climate change, says Viv Groskop in The Mail. A survey from NetMums shows that a third of its members would vote for Cameron, with less than 1 in 5 going for Brown.

The party leaders have all launched a strike offensive in their quest to get women on side and on board this election. Whilst the usual party political broadcasts and Newsnight interviews have still been taking place, Cameron, Clegg and Brown (sounds like a comedy trio) have jumped on the media bandwagon big style to pimp their parties. Buffed and scrubbed, humble and engaging, dynamic (Brown excepted) and smooth... they have all been pasting their faces across TV, the press and the internet. Interviews with Piers Morgan, lunches and photo shoots with Glamour magazine, and interviews with Grazia have all pushed the three men into the spotlight with women voters, especially the 18-35 year group, many of whom will be voting for the first time.

So, how TO choose? With many of the polls suggesting a close-run first place, and the Tories pushing us to vote for them to avoid a hung parliament, for those of us as yet still undecided (yours truly included), what is going to make us settle for one of the three chirpy chappies asking us to support them? We can go for the policies most important to mums - extended nursery provision and flexible working; or most important to the Townswomens Guild - immigration, post office closures and mixed-sex hospital wards. Some of us will vote for the policies that we feel would work best for the country, some for those that seem best for us and our families, and some for the ones that might benefit our local communities.

There's a perfect solution to this dilemma facing us lady swing voters... Snog, marry, avoid. We tried this in the office today, and I won't tell you the results due to not wanting to swing the vote - all I can say is that nobody wanted to snog Gordon. Obviously, the results depend on who you'd rather have running the country - the man you want to play tonsil hockey with, or the one who'd make husband material. That's for you to decide. But go on and try it... you know you want to.

(For some sensible ideas to make your last-minute voting decision, try www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com or www.takethequiz.co.uk)

I want my money back...

An article published in The Times (Online) caught my interest this morning. James, who gave up his home to his ex-wife in a divorce settlement, found out a year later that the daughter he had lavished with love - and maintenance, school fees etc - for seventeen years was not his child. He suspected and accused his wife of having an affair three years into the marriage, which she denied, and at the end of the year their daughter was born. By the time she was ten or eleven, James says that he had doubts about her paternity - but he didn't do anything about it. His wife and he were seperated, although not divorced, by this time. A few years later, he felt he finally had to find out for sure, and had the test done without telling his daughter first. Devastated, and feeling betrayed, James has informed his daughter of the result - and he is taking his wife to court to get back his share in the family home, which he chose to relinquish as part of the divorce settlement. So, effectively, he wants a refund on his daughter, as she is not his and he was been tricked into believing she was (although his ex-wife claims she had no idea he wasn't the father either). One has to wonder if it will be worth his while - not only has he deeply hurt his daughter, he also has a court case costing an estimated £250,000 looming over him - but he claims it's the principle of the matter.

This made me think about refunds, and rebates in recruitment. There is a train of thought here - we're basically dealing with human capital. Most recruitment firms have some sort of rebate period to ensure that, should a candidate not work out, the client has some sort of financial safety net. Rebate periods are usually calculated on a sliding scale, with the average being three months - although some can be for as long as a year. I wonder though, at what point could the issue of a candidate leaving (whether by their own choice, or having to be dismissed) be unclear about which side should bear the costs? It is the job of the recruitment company to nuture the best candidates, rather like James nurtured his daughter, so yes - they should be 1000% sure that the person who moves into a role is suitable, reliable and capable for the job, and if they fail to do so, then the rebate is fairly claimed by the client. On the other hand, with the average company undertaking three interview stages before hiring, the client often has an adequate and lengthy period of time to make the best decision of whom to employ.

James says he was suspicious of his daughter's biological parentage well before he and his wife divorced - so why not have the test done and confirmed before signing over his share of the house to his wife on the premise that his daughter needed to remain secure in her home? Rather like an employer who has doubts at interview stage but chooses to hire anyway, James perhaps should have done a bit more research, and trusted his own judgement before making a costly mistake. So, say, if a company requests a business analyst with excellent SPSS skills for £42k, and the recruiter finds them someone whom they interview and subsequently employ, whose fault is it should they fail to match expectations? The candidate is the only one involved in the process that has nothing to lose if they underperform or simply change their mind about the job. I suppose it's much like a warranty on an electrical item - if you buy a new kettle, which six months later stops working, then John Lewis or whoever will replace it or refund your money. John Lewis genuinely thought it would work when they sold it to you, but it wasn't up to the job after all. In a recruitment sense, this could apply to a candidate - not knowingly mis-sold, but not up to doing the job that they were bought for.

For James, his case revolves around his being deliberately "mis-sold" his daughter. In the recruiter/client relationship, we may have to deal with rebates, disappointments and mistakes - but at least we miss out on the heartache and massive financial cost to both James and his daughter.

Has social media killed the cultural star?

I could hardly believe my eyes when I read an article by the BBC, reporting that Shakespeare's romantic tragedy Romeo and Juliet is to be told across Twitter. The joint venture between Channel 4 and the RSC (Royal Shakespeare Company, philistines) will see "Such Tweet Sorrow" - ah, the witticism - being tweeted across the social network in 140-character chunks, due to go live on 12th April. Romeo and Juliet? On Twitter? Who the heck thought that up? Apparently Channel 4 have vowed to double their arts coverage budget to $6m, so maybe they're just trying to save the advertising costs. Will it really work, though? Who is going to see this insane "broadcast" and think, 'Oooh, Shakespeare is really great after all, innit?' I get it, I really do. Channel 4 getting down with the kids, making Romeo and Juliet a funky, real love story, in small doses so that the over-hyped, information overdosed ADHD ridden teenagers can process it, making Shakespeare cool. Of course, then they will be making sure they watch Channel 4 arts programmes, asking their parents for tickets to the RSC's next production of Hamlet, and begging their teachers to let them read a Shakespeare play a week for their GCSE English Literature. I thought all this stuff had been done before. Shorter versions of Shakespeare published for kids, along with stage performances of the same. Baz Lurhman made R&J sexy for a while in the 90's, thanks to Leonardo Di Caprio and Clare Danes as the star-cross'd lovers in his abridged, camp and West Side Story-esque film. How quickly we forget. I'm surprised it's taken so long for someone to dumb down Shakespeare even more, that's all. Will it work? Who knows. Can social networking promote the arts, or will using it in this way serve only to simplify literature, music and art, alienate those amongst us who enjoy these pursuits, and give the kids something else to sneer at?

It seems that people are starting to take seriously the idea that social media CAN be good for the arts. Manchester Digital Development Agency (MDDA)
have been running two-day courses, Understanding Social Media for the Arts, funded by Arts Council England. There is already a social networking site aimed at fans of classical music, www.dilettante.com. According to its founder Juliana Farha, the site aims to "lead the classical uprising", and open classical music up beyond Radio 3, and London concert halls. It is a place where people can not only chat and blog about classical music, but also post their own compositions and work, developing their career as well as friendships with fellow enthusiasts. For arty types, www.myartspace.com is the place to go, to connect with other artists, display work and generally keep in the loop about the contemporary art scene. If you love reading, you can join an online book club at www.shelfari.com, where people gather to see what other people are reading, discover new books and even build a virtual bookshelf to show off your books. Obviously, this may declassify itself as "the arts" if, say, your bookshelf consists entirely of Kerry Katona autobiographies and Dan Brown, but I guess any book is better than nothing at all.

In a different twist on promoting literature in the social media, try the concept of "Twitterature" for size. Yep, it's what you think it is - an amalgam of Twitter and literature for the new technological age. Penguin even offered two University of Chicago students a book deal based on this, eventually named "Twitterature: The World's Greatest Books, Now Presented In Twenty Tweets Or Less". Apparently, now that the Twitterati are used to reading literature in short bursts, writers are starting to self-publicise their work on Twitter.

I suppose that, being a woman of a certain age now and no longer young and hip, I just don't understand why people would want to read a novel in hyperactive two sentence chunks rather than sat down in a nice comfy armchair with a cup of tea and a chocolate Hobnob - and a proper, made-of-paper book. If I want to read Romeo and Juliet in small chunks, I'll have a wee break every five minutes. Or I could watch it on DVD and press pause between each character's part. See how daft that sounds. So why would anyone want to do it whilst surfing the net? Beats me. All I know is, I can't see how Tweeting one of our country's finest playwright's works will inspire anyone to read further, or go to the theatre. After all, once we're used to this method of delivery, all others will seem long-winded and tedious without the liberal dosage of ritalin to keep bums on seats.

But what do I know? I'm merely one of the fuddy-duddies who don't understand where it's all at with literature nowadays. The Dimwitterati, perhaps.