This House believes EU member states should guarantee people under 25 a temporary workplace when the

The EU member states should rely more on public employment services, which should be focused on finding jobs for young people. With government funding, they can work with the private sector to offer decent temporary jobs to young people. This model is common in the Nordic states[1] and other countries, such as Austria, Germany and Switzerland also have similar programs.

Youth unemployment is already far higher than for older people. Less than a third of under 25s who were looking for a job in 2010 found one in 2011[2] – this may be due to ageist discrimination against young people, and employers seeking people with experience.

People over 25 are also considered as a high risk group. They have little experience so the employer is taking a risk in employing them. There is also a desire for stability; those who already have a family are unlikely to want large changes so employers feel they can bet on them for the long term.

If the problem is a lack of experience then this proposal solves the problem. Giving younger people a temporary job and the experience that goes with it will help give everyone an equal chance at getting a job, irrespective of age. Therefore, the EU should step in and help provide jobs for younger people.

[1] International Labour Office, ‘Youth guarantees: a response to the youth unemployment crisis?’, International Labour Organization, 2012 http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/documents/publication/wcms_209468.pdf

[2] European Commission, ‘Youth employment’, ec.europa.eu, 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1036

Age ‘discrimination’ runs both ways. Many companies operate policies of age discrimination against older workers. Older employees are often likely to have more out of date skills. According to a survey of businesses, the reasons for not hiring older workers are their lack of flexibility and unwillingness to learn new techniques, lack of foreign languages, little knowledge of technology and a dislike of change[1]. Those who are nearing the end of their career and are just as likely to be unable to find a news job because of these problems and are therefore likely to find themselves forced into early retirement.

When this happens these people will no longer be counted among the statistics for unemployment so much older unemployment is hidden. If a ‘lack’ of experience is a good reason for the government to provide a job then having the ‘wrong’ experience should be just as good a reason. Focusing just on youth would be wrong.

[1] Daskalova, Nadezhda, ‘Company attitudes towards employing older workers’, EWCO,  10 July 2009, http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/2009/05/BG0905019I.htm

Rising youth unemployment can be considered an international timebomb. Young people are the next generation of workers and consumers in the economy. When they are unemployed, the situation can be alarming. This is because of the importance of getting a job early on so as to avoid becoming long term unemployed. The UN Secretary general, Ban Ki-Moon, has called for stronger policies involving young people[1]. The ILO has warned that youth unemployment can lead to apathy towards government and political instability[2]. The lack of experience in work may cause a lost generation.

This must be averted, and the EU is one of the best placed to do this. The temporary work scheme would encourage business to change their attitude and hire more young workers. Having to hire young people, even for a short time, would help break negative stereotypes and often the employers would then offer longer term work. This would help to fill the 2million unfilled vacancies that exist in the EU with young people.[3]

[1] Youth Business International, ‘Global Youth Unemployment: a ticking timebomb’, The Guardian, 27 March 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2013/mar/26/global-youth-unemployment-ticking-time-bomb

[2] Youth Business International, ‘Global Youth Unemployment: a ticking timebomb’, The Guardian, 27 March 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2013/mar/26/global-youth-unemployment-ticking-time-bomb

[3] European Commission, ‘Youth Unemployment’, ec.europa.eu, 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1036

Guaranteeing a temporary job for young people is a temporary solution. Having a job for a short period of time will not guarantee more permanent employment. Britain’s Mandatory Work Activity scheme does some of this proposal by having very short term unpaid job placements however a study has shown that having this placement had zero benefit when it comes to getting a job.[1] Even if it did impact on those who took part in the scheme it is no help if it does not increase the number of permanent jobs as there will be the same number of young people in the same small pool. A more long term solution is necessary. This would require more jobs, and more training to ensure that skills fit the jobs that are available.

[1] Malik, Shiv, ‘Mandatory work scheme does not improve job chances, research finds’, 13 June 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/jun/13/mandatory-work-scheme-government-research

While we often think of workplace diversity as being about having people from all over the world and both men and women a good age balance is necessary too. By bringing in this policy, younger workers will be in the same workplaces as older employees, and vice versa, making for more workplace diverse. Employees will learn from those with more experience, in addition to the other advantages of a more diverse workforce.[1] One of these is more engagement and engaged workers perform 20% better and are less likely to leave.[2] Another is that young people will contribute new and innovative ways of thinking, with different viewpoints pushing the business forward.[3] Finally a company needs to have all ages in the business to ensure that there are people with experience when older workers retire.

Diversity is also crucial for the appearance of a business. The kind of company that attracts a broader pool of individuals means a greater range of talented candidates to choose from. Businesses who create more diverse workplaces perform better.

[1] Dutta, Pallab, ‘Importance of Workplace Diversity’, the Houston Chronicle, accessed 30/09/13, http://smallbusiness.chron.com/importance-workplace-diversity-43235.html

[2] Anand, Dr. Rohini, ‘How Diversity and Inclusion Drive Employee Engagement’, DiversityInc,  accessed 30/09/13, http://www.diversityinc.com/diversity-management/how-diversity-and-inclusion-drives-employee-engagement/

[3] Ingram, David, ‘Advantages and Disadvantages of Diversity in Workplace, The Houston Chronicle, accessed 30/09/13, http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-disadvantages-diversity-workplace-3041.html

While there is a benefit to diversity it does not have to be obtained by employing younger people but instead by having racial and gender diversity.

Companies have the right to choose their own recruitment practices. It is up to them, and them alone, who they choose to recruit. If they believe in such benefits and that they outweigh any other priorities then they will already be recruiting young people. That they are not doing so shows that businesses do not believe the benefits are as high as they are made out to be. Government should not be compelling business to employ people government should only be interfering with business in order to create a level playing field between companies.

If the government is employing people then it is going to be boosting the economy. Providing a fiscal boost by spending money is one of the most accepted ways of boosting the economy. In this case spending money on temporary workers is good in several ways.

First it is a fiscal boost to the economy. The government will be paying the temporary workers. These workers will have more money to spend and will probably mostly spend it rather than saving. This in turn boosts demand for other goods and services so meaning there needs to be more output with the result that some jobs will be made permanent. There is therefore a positive feedback loop.

The second way in which this helps the economy is that it is investment. It is investment because the government is paying for young people to gain experience and for companies to be training these temporary workers. The result of this is a more skilled workforce who in the long term will be more productive.

There is a final possible benefit. With government paying for workers they are effectively subsidizing firms. Even if they are new trainees the young temporary workers will be providing output for companies at next to no cost. This then makes that firm more competitive against its global competitors.

These placements will only be for six months. This combined with the intent not to make the program too expensive means that the benefit will be limited in terms of the fiscal boost provided. Those who are getting a salary only for six months are not likely to feel rich from getting that money so will probably try to save any they can.

Also, these roles would be most likely to be unskilled. The benefit in terms of investment would therefore not be particularly great. Yes the young people involved are getting experience but this is different from providing them with technical skills that make them competitive in a global marketplace.

The EU member states should rely more on public employment services, which should be focused on finding jobs for young people. With government funding, they can work with the private sector to offer decent temporary jobs to young people. This model is common in the Nordic states[1] and other countries, such as Austria, Germany and Switzerland also have similar programs.

Youth unemployment is already far higher than for older people. Less than a third of under 25s who were looking for a job in 2010 found one in 2011[2] – this may be due to ageist discrimination against young people, and employers seeking people with experience.

People over 25 are also considered as a high risk group. They have little experience so the employer is taking a risk in employing them. There is also a desire for stability; those who already have a family are unlikely to want large changes so employers feel they can bet on them for the long term.

If the problem is a lack of experience then this proposal solves the problem. Giving younger people a temporary job and the experience that goes with it will help give everyone an equal chance at getting a job, irrespective of age. Therefore, the EU should step in and help provide jobs for younger people.

[1] International Labour Office, ‘Youth guarantees: a response to the youth unemployment crisis?’, International Labour Organization, 2012 http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/documents/publication/wcms_209468.pdf

[2] European Commission, ‘Youth employment’, ec.europa.eu, 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1036

Age ‘discrimination’ runs both ways. Many companies operate policies of age discrimination against older workers. Older employees are often likely to have more out of date skills. According to a survey of businesses, the reasons for not hiring older workers are their lack of flexibility and unwillingness to learn new techniques, lack of foreign languages, little knowledge of technology and a dislike of change[1]. Those who are nearing the end of their career and are just as likely to be unable to find a news job because of these problems and are therefore likely to find themselves forced into early retirement.

When this happens these people will no longer be counted among the statistics for unemployment so much older unemployment is hidden. If a ‘lack’ of experience is a good reason for the government to provide a job then having the ‘wrong’ experience should be just as good a reason. Focusing just on youth would be wrong.

[1] Daskalova, Nadezhda, ‘Company attitudes towards employing older workers’, EWCO,  10 July 2009, http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/2009/05/BG0905019I.htm

Rising youth unemployment can be considered an international timebomb. Young people are the next generation of workers and consumers in the economy. When they are unemployed, the situation can be alarming. This is because of the importance of getting a job early on so as to avoid becoming long term unemployed. The UN Secretary general, Ban Ki-Moon, has called for stronger policies involving young people[1]. The ILO has warned that youth unemployment can lead to apathy towards government and political instability[2]. The lack of experience in work may cause a lost generation.

This must be averted, and the EU is one of the best placed to do this. The temporary work scheme would encourage business to change their attitude and hire more young workers. Having to hire young people, even for a short time, would help break negative stereotypes and often the employers would then offer longer term work. This would help to fill the 2million unfilled vacancies that exist in the EU with young people.[3]

[1] Youth Business International, ‘Global Youth Unemployment: a ticking timebomb’, The Guardian, 27 March 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2013/mar/26/global-youth-unemployment-ticking-time-bomb

[2] Youth Business International, ‘Global Youth Unemployment: a ticking timebomb’, The Guardian, 27 March 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2013/mar/26/global-youth-unemployment-ticking-time-bomb

[3] European Commission, ‘Youth Unemployment’, ec.europa.eu, 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1036

Guaranteeing a temporary job for young people is a temporary solution. Having a job for a short period of time will not guarantee more permanent employment. Britain’s Mandatory Work Activity scheme does some of this proposal by having very short term unpaid job placements however a study has shown that having this placement had zero benefit when it comes to getting a job.[1] Even if it did impact on those who took part in the scheme it is no help if it does not increase the number of permanent jobs as there will be the same number of young people in the same small pool. A more long term solution is necessary. This would require more jobs, and more training to ensure that skills fit the jobs that are available.

[1] Malik, Shiv, ‘Mandatory work scheme does not improve job chances, research finds’, 13 June 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/jun/13/mandatory-work-scheme-government-research

While we often think of workplace diversity as being about having people from all over the world and both men and women a good age balance is necessary too. By bringing in this policy, younger workers will be in the same workplaces as older employees, and vice versa, making for more workplace diverse. Employees will learn from those with more experience, in addition to the other advantages of a more diverse workforce.[1] One of these is more engagement and engaged workers perform 20% better and are less likely to leave.[2] Another is that young people will contribute new and innovative ways of thinking, with different viewpoints pushing the business forward.[3] Finally a company needs to have all ages in the business to ensure that there are people with experience when older workers retire.

Diversity is also crucial for the appearance of a business. The kind of company that attracts a broader pool of individuals means a greater range of talented candidates to choose from. Businesses who create more diverse workplaces perform better.

[1] Dutta, Pallab, ‘Importance of Workplace Diversity’, the Houston Chronicle, accessed 30/09/13, http://smallbusiness.chron.com/importance-workplace-diversity-43235.html

[2] Anand, Dr. Rohini, ‘How Diversity and Inclusion Drive Employee Engagement’, DiversityInc,  accessed 30/09/13, http://www.diversityinc.com/diversity-management/how-diversity-and-inclusion-drives-employee-engagement/

[3] Ingram, David, ‘Advantages and Disadvantages of Diversity in Workplace, The Houston Chronicle, accessed 30/09/13, http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-disadvantages-diversity-workplace-3041.html

While there is a benefit to diversity it does not have to be obtained by employing younger people but instead by having racial and gender diversity.

Companies have the right to choose their own recruitment practices. It is up to them, and them alone, who they choose to recruit. If they believe in such benefits and that they outweigh any other priorities then they will already be recruiting young people. That they are not doing so shows that businesses do not believe the benefits are as high as they are made out to be. Government should not be compelling business to employ people government should only be interfering with business in order to create a level playing field between companies.

If the government is employing people then it is going to be boosting the economy. Providing a fiscal boost by spending money is one of the most accepted ways of boosting the economy. In this case spending money on temporary workers is good in several ways.

First it is a fiscal boost to the economy. The government will be paying the temporary workers. These workers will have more money to spend and will probably mostly spend it rather than saving. This in turn boosts demand for other goods and services so meaning there needs to be more output with the result that some jobs will be made permanent. There is therefore a positive feedback loop.

The second way in which this helps the economy is that it is investment. It is investment because the government is paying for young people to gain experience and for companies to be training these temporary workers. The result of this is a more skilled workforce who in the long term will be more productive.

There is a final possible benefit. With government paying for workers they are effectively subsidizing firms. Even if they are new trainees the young temporary workers will be providing output for companies at next to no cost. This then makes that firm more competitive against its global competitors.

These placements will only be for six months. This combined with the intent not to make the program too expensive means that the benefit will be limited in terms of the fiscal boost provided. Those who are getting a salary only for six months are not likely to feel rich from getting that money so will probably try to save any they can.

Also, these roles would be most likely to be unskilled. The benefit in terms of investment would therefore not be particularly great. Yes the young people involved are getting experience but this is different from providing them with technical skills that make them competitive in a global marketplace.

In a free market the core concept is freedom of choice. The consumer chooses what they want to buy. And by the same measure there needs to be freedom of choice for employers. They need to be able to decide what products to make, how to market them, and who to employ. Companies should be looking for those who are best qualified for the job rather than satisfying a government quota to provide temporary contracts to young people.

Even if the government is paying for this employee they are still utilising the resources of businesses. Businesses will often have limited space so having some of that space taken up by mandated temporary workers is not the most productive use that the company could be making of that space.

It is clear that this would be a ‘make work’ scheme because there are already only around two million vacancies, compared to five and a half million unemployed under 25s, in the entire European Union[1]. Moreover that these vacancies exist shows that the real problem is with matching jobs and workers with the right skills. This is best done by training not temporary, probably unskilled, employment.

[1] European Commission, ‘Youth Unemployment’, ec.europa.eu, 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1036

Eurostat, ‘Unemployment statistics’, epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu, modified 30 August 2013, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics

Businesses are already regulated in who they can hire and on what terms– for that reason there are child labour, minimum wage and anti-discrimination laws. These kind of regulations come both from national governments and the European Union. Governments have always had this right.

This policy is therefore not damaging freedom of choice any more than many other regulations. It will most likely not be necessary to make taking on the temporary jobs compulsory because the government is paying for it and how many companies will turn down something that is essentially a subsidy?

Even though there are large numbers of young people unemployed, they only make up around a fifth of the total unemployed population. 26.654 million men and women were unemployed in July 2013 in European Union. Only 5.560 million of them are young people.^[1]

The result then is clearly going to be discriminatory against those who are not among the young. This would simply mean that more qualified, equally unemployed people would be passed over due to their age.

It should be remembered that the youth will be more capable of bouncing back when the recession finally ends and there are jobs available. They are more flexible, they have more of the skills necessary for modern work such as knowledge of computers, and they are more willing to retrain to get a job. The result is that when the jobs are available they will be the ones who are able to find work. Older people on the other hand will find it much harder to find another job without government help even when the economy picks up.

Young people can wait to get their careers off to a start. Older workers can’t.

[1] Eurostat, ‘Unemployment statistics’, epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu, modified 30 August 2013, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics

It should not be assumed that today’s unemployed youth will be the target for recruiters in the future. In four or five years’ time there will be more graduates from high schools and universities looking for work and those companies that want to employ young people will look to them rather than people who have been out of work for several years. The result then will be a generation who have never worked and never picked up the skills for a job and may never get the opportunity to do so without government help. Older people who are unemployed at least have the skills they have learned in the workplace and a past record to fall back on. 

Job guarantees for young people may place them in employment for some time at a low cost, but does not offer a permanent solution. The Swedish job guarantee scheme has been criticised for this reason[1]. They will not create a solution based on skills, qualifications and economic growth because employers have little incentive to train up workers who are only temporary. If the company is not looking to expand there will be little point in wasting resources on someone they are not going to take on over the long term.

Training has to be the solution to youth unemployment. The government should be training young people to fill the gaps that do exist in the market place such as care workers. When young people have skills that are in demand then they will be able to get full time employment without having to rely on temporary employment schemes to ‘make work’ for them to do.

[1] Eurofound, ‘ Youth Guarantee: Experiences from Finland and Sweden’, Eurofound.europa.eu, EF/12/42/EN, 2012, http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2012/42/en/1/EF1242EN.pdf

Training is indeed the answer but it makes sense for this to be done on the job rather than simply in lecture theatres. Where there are skills gaps these gaps should be filled by encouraging and paying for temporary jobs to help fill those roles. In this way the young people involved will gain the skills for an area of the economy where there are vacancies.