As the recession bites, there has been a great deal of publicity surrounding the fact that workers, in fear of losing their jobs, have accepted a shorter working week and/or a reduction in their wages. However, there appears to have been little or no coverage of the cost to the taxpayer associated with these reductions.
Gordon Brown is keen to tell us that there are 500,000 jobs in the UK, even though he will be only too aware that some 40% of these vacancies are for part-time work. My concern is, that a shorter working week or even a reduction in salaries may keep the unemployment figures lower, but there is almost certainly a cost associated with the reduction in income which is not being considered. This relates to income support and/or benefits.
As we all know, the Labour government has introduced a raft of income support benefits and various other allowances that are available to people that fall below a pre-determined threshold. It is, therefore, highly probable, that many of these workers that have had to make a financial sacrifice on their take home pay to remain in work, will now be eligible for some form of benefit payment or income support. It is not my intention to focus on whether or not they should be entitled to these benefits, but whether or not the government is being candid about the additional cost to the taxpayer. Because, whilst the workers will not be registered as unemployed and therefore in receipt of job seekers allowance and benefit payments, they will in fact, be entitled to a taxpayer funded subsidy.
I would argue that government should be completely open with the taxpayer. For example, they must distinguish between how many full-time jobs are available and the number of part-time. This would provide everyone with a number that reflects the true situation rather than introducing false hope. Similarly, when the number of unemployed is published, the government needs to be more open, for example, identifying how many are unemployed, how many are on a disability payments etc., but now, they must include how many people are on a shorter working week and therefore entitled to some form of benefits payment.
This would not change the situation, but it would, at the very least, provide the people of this country with a more accurate picture of the effects of shorter working weeks and/or salary sacrifices. That is to say, if employees opted to go to a 3 day week, rather than have the lottery of losing their job through a comparable reduction in the workforce of 40%, then this loss would not be accurately reflected in existing statistics. For example, if an employer with a 1,000 strong workforce reduced the working week from 5 to 3 days, many employees would be entitled to state benefits or support, but the published statistics would not reflect this. Whereas if they reduced the workforce by 40%, the statistics would pick up the fact that there was a further 400 people unemployed. I would hate to think that this government would be able to massage the true state of our employment situation in the same way as they do everything else!
I live in hope that an enterprising journalist or an MP will, respectively, use the freedom of information act, or a parliamentary question to find out the true state of affairs. Otherwise, we will all be lulled into a false sense of security believing that it is not as bad as it seems, whilst struggling to secure an interview. I hope, at the very least, Alistair Darling has considered this aspect before he presents his budget, otherwise he could find himself missing yet another target. Par for the course when it comes to this government, but increasingly unacceptable.
