tells us that the government will give support to
employers, who offer part-time jobs 1 states that employers can benefit from having two people
performing the same job 2 provides means for older people to ease into
retirement 3 implies that work-sharing schemes have so far been
unsatisfactory 4
shows that the author approves the Government’s
plan
5 indicates
that a 63-year-old man might find job-sharing against his interest 6 states that
job-sharing can offer the chance of interesting work to people who can only work
part-time 7 says that many organizations are doubting the motives of
the government in advocating job sharing
8 implies that increased payment for less
work would destroy the scheme 9
states that a rise in output does not reduce
unemployment
10 A. The Government
is going to give new "job splitting", grants to employers willing to offer
part-time work to people claiming unemployment benefit. The
next scheme, which took many union leaders and large employers by surprise
yesterday night, will be announced in detail in the autumn. It is intended to
cost die taxpayer nothing because of savings in unemployment benefit. The
proposal, unveiled last night by Mr. Norman Tebbit, Secretary of State for
Employment, will be in addition to the new Community Programme for the long-term
unemployed. Mr. Tebbit said that under the scheme a vacancy
could be offered to two unemployed people, one existing full-time employee or
two existing full-time employees if one of them would otherwise have been made
redundant. The Employment Secretary suggested yesterday that
workers reaching retirement might find the idea of sharing their job attractive,
if pensions could be secured. But he also said that firms might find it
attractive to offer one vacancy to two school leavers. In a
sharp reaction to the Community Programme, Mr. Nicholas Hinton, director of the
National Council for Voluntary Organizations, whose members will be expected to
sponsor many of the new places, said: "The Government is trying to spread too
little money too thinly among too many people and many voluntary organizations
are suspicious of its motives. " B. Few people believe that
unemployment in the United Kingdom will fall favorably below the 3.2 million
mark, or 13.4 percent of the labour force, during the next few years. The
remarkable rise in productivity over the past year will, if it continues, make
it even more difficult to tackle unemployment. Many firms are confident that
they can meet any increase in demand without hiring extra staff.
Remedies more imaginative and more permanent than those tried so far are
needed. The Government’s job-splitting scheme announced on Tuesday is one
example that should be welcomed. Another good idea is Rank Xerox’s "networking"
plan, by which executives would be able to work part-time from home. The
possibilities of work-sharing need to be more vigorously investigated, on the
lines indicated by a recent OECD study. If the total hours of work required are
not going to increase with output rising thanks to improved productivity then
let us try to share those working hours more equitably among the labour
force. Work-sharing helps to produce new jobs by reducing the
working hours of those in existing jobs. The danger with work-sharing is that
employees may expect to be paid more per hour for working shorter hours, and
that fixed labour costs will rise as the numbers on the payroll increase. Many
employers therefore fear that the effect on costs and prices would be
inflationary. The Government is therefore subsidizing employers to participate
in its job splitting scheme. Most kinds of work-sharing involve
marginal cuts of a few per cent in total working hours, and thus only modest
increases in the number of jobs. The biggest difference would be made if a
substantial number of full-time jobs could be tamed into part-time jobs. The
Government’s role would be to adapt the tax and social security system to make
part-time work more attractive to employers and employees, notably by ensuring
that as many part time employees as possible escape both tax and social security
payment. The social effects of work-sharing, are likely to be
beneficial, since it would involve an attempt to match work opportunities to a
wider variety of life styles. The combination of one full-time and one part-time
spouse might become much more universal. C. Part-timers usually
earn less per hour than a full-timer, have fewer fringe benefits and less job
security. They have virtually no career prospects. Employers often think that
working part-time means that a person has no ambition and no chance of
promotion. But job-sharing bridges that gap and offers the chance of interesting
work to people who can only work part-time and that does not mean just married
women. As Adrienne Broyle of "New Ways to Work" formally the London
Job-sharing Project points out: "There are various reasons why people want
to job-share and so have more spare time. "A growing number of men want to
job-share so that they can play an active role in bringing up their children. It
allows people to study at home in their free time, and means that disabled
people or those who otherwise stay at home to look after them, can work.
Job-sharing is also an ideal way for people to ease into retirement.
Many employers are wary of new work schemes, but an investigation carded
out by the EOC shows that they can profit in various ways from sharing. If one
sharer is away sick, at least half the job continues to be done. Skilled workers
who cannot work full-time can bring years of experience to a job.
Half-timers have to work flat out without a tea break. Another attraction
is that two people bring to one job twice as much experience, sets of ideas and
discussion. But there are financial pitfalls for the
job-sharers. If one becomes unemployed, he should be eligible
for Unemployment Benefit. But he has to sign on as being available for full-time
work. Otherwise, he can not claim the benefit. Pensions are a
big block. The EOC paper points out that the Local Government Superannuation
Scheme excludes people who work less than 30 hours a week. For
those who are attracted to job-sharing, beware. Most occupational pension
schemes are based either on the average annual earnings during membership of the
scheme or on the employee’s final salary.