Unite: Govt arguments ‘perverse’
Gail Cartmail, Unite assistant general secretary for services, said in response to the publication of the welfare bill:
“It is clear that the coalition is speaking with two different voices. Iain Duncan Smith appears to want to use the benefit system to drive the unemployed to seek jobs that don’t exist – mainly due to his colleague, George Osborne’s tunnel vision policy of pursuing the Holy Grail of deficit reduction which is already throwing thousands of people out of work.
“There is a large degree of dysfunction in government policy as there seems to be no policy to boost manufacturing industry and support exports – ministers want the private sector to create the jobs lost in public services, but without creating the climate and mechanisms to achieve this.
“UK unemployment rose by 44,000 to almost 2.5 million in the three months to the end of December, with youth unemployment particularly serious, reaching a record high, with more than one in five 16 to 24-year-olds out of work. The unemployment rate is now 7.9 per cent, with youth unemployment running at 20.5 per cent.
“The ‘work shy’ argument is that these changes will tackle long term unemployment, however, as the data shows, young people simply have not been given a chance to do any job and prospects for young people getting into work diminish as their period of unemployment goes on.
“So, the arguments put forward are perverse. The government today pointed to an increase in jobs available – but we know there are record numbers of men and women forced to work part-time when they want full-time employment, as either their hours have been reduced or that’s the only work on offer. I challenge anyone in the Cabinet – especially the 18 millionaires – to exist on low paid, part-time hours.
“The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has said that only 13 per cent of sickness absence is regarded as suspect – and they say employers should be more proactive in involving occupational health specialists.
“On a technical level, there may be a case for reducing the number of benefits, as outlined in the bill, to a fewer number, as they can be confusing. A simpler system would be better and this needs to be explored further. But it should not be at the expense of fairness and supporting people seeking work or those who need a roof over their head.”
