The chancellor, Rishi Sunak, has treated low-paid people in the North and Midlands in a way that reminds us of Margaret Thatcher By failing to devise an alternative to the vacation plan that would save their jobs, the Labor Party’s corresponding figure said.
In an interview with Foreman, Shadow Advisor, Anneliese DoddsHe said that the new job support system announced by Sunak will fail to provide employers with sufficient incentives to keep workers in a state of work, and leave them facing nefarious decisions about who should be laid off.
The failure to take action, and the absence of new measures on training and retraining the UK workforce, has risked a period of high unemployment not seen since the 1980s.
“The new job support system was supposed to incentivize employers to retain more employees, rather than making paying one person less expensive than bringing back two part-time,” Dodds said. This risks putting all pressure on the employer to decide who stays and who goes.
“It’s the drowning or swimming mentality that goes back to the worst of Thatcher years. And just as it happened in the 1980s, it is the people with the lowest incomes in the North and the Midlands who will pay the highest price.”
Revealed the work He has developed a new model that shows that Sunak’s plan to support companies that keep workers part-time will mean, in fact, that employers keep two employees working half their regular working hours, much more expensive than keeping one employee fully employed. time.
After Sonak won huge acclaim from large sections of the pro-conservative media His latest announcement, Labor is keen to highlight what it sees as the devastating effects on employment that ineffective measures will have in the so-called Red Wall seats – those that knocked the Conservatives out of the Labor Party in the December election.
In his statement to the House of Commons on Thursday, Sunak declined to speculate how high unemployment would be, but said that JSS – which economists estimate will cost around 5 billion pounds, plus the nearly 40 billion pounds spent on the vacation plan so far, will help with Reducing totals.
Under the plan, the employee would be able to get at least 77% of his full-time wage, even if he was only working a third of his regular hours, with the treasury and the employer making up for the difference. The Treasury will pay a maximum of 22% of normal wages. The more hours worked, the lower the percentage of wages paid by the government.
But critics say the scheme will do nothing to convince many companies in financial trouble to stick with low-skilled workers.
The scheme’s effectiveness has also been questioned by the Resolution Foundation. Its chief executive, Torsten Bell, said: “The chancellor has rightly sought to combat the coming rise in unemployment with a new plan to encourage part-time work. But the design flaws mean that the incentives for firms to use the system are weak, especially in low-wage and high turnover sectors like Hospitality which is at the heart of the unemployment crisis we are facing. With small changes, the consultant’s plan can make a real difference in keeping unemployment low by encouraging companies to cut working hours instead of jobs. ”
Dodds said Labor was calling for a job restoration plan that would allow companies in key sectors to allow employees to work reduced hours, backed by generous subsidies to pay a percentage of wages for the rest of the week. It will reward companies that have brought back more part-time workers, rather than the government scheme that Labor says is encouraging companies to keep some employees full-time and let others go. “Once again, the government has shown its lack of understanding of our economy and the companies that drive it,” said John Longworth, Chairman of the Independent Business Network. The new job scheme equates to an increase in wages for unemployment. Much like the vacation system, the government pays people to not work rather than offering them incentives to work.
“For those eligible workers, the new system will see taxpayers pay 22% of the worker’s salary, while the employer will pay 55%. This equates to a 22% wage increase for these employees. It’s bewildering.”