On Labour’s Youth Employment Policy

August 5th, 2014 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

A reader e-mails:

Maybe your  readers can figure this one out….

’s Youth Employment policy announced today includes  the Kick Start Apprenticeship scheme. This will offer a payment of $9,100 ( the equivalent of the dole) each time an employer provides a full time permanent job, salary and training to an unemployed youth who is 18 or 19, been on the dole for at least 3 months and is at medium to high risk of being on the dole full time. 

This might make sense if it weren’t for the fact  that Labour’s Work and Wages Policy will significantly increase the minimum wage and remove youth rates and 90 day trial periods! 

I can just see employers flocking to grab $9k for the privilege of putting huge effort into inexperienced  unmotivated youth with no comeback if they don’t work out, and paying them the same as experienced workers…..Not much chance of government being a player either as Labour has promised that government employers will to pay at least $18.40 to first time employees .  It will be cheaper to leave them on the dole!!!

Very good points. 90 day trials allow employers to take a risk on a young inexperienced voter.

Tags: ,

19 Responses to “On Labour’s Youth Employment Policy”

  1. duggledog (1,557 comments) says:

    New Zealand – the country where the government PAYS you to get off your arse. And pays you to save. And pays for your legal bills.

    I expect the Chinese are saying to each other ‘this is going to be too easy’

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. OneTrack (3,104 comments) says:

    Labour. Completely disconnected from the real world. Again.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. duggledog (1,557 comments) says:

    I say provide no benefit for able bodied men or women if they refuse to go and work on the Christchurch rebuild. We will never get an opportunity to rid ourselves of the parasites in this country like this again because THERE ARE JOBS DOWN THERE, but we have to get foreigners to do a lot of it. And don’t even get me started on all the immigrants working on South Island dairy farms, because kiwis are unable to get up at 5.30 a.m. and / or unwilling to do an honest 8 hours.

    It’s compound bullshit that we have to keep forking out taxpayer’s money to people who sit in Kaitaia or Gisborne and expect the government to ‘do something’ about jobs.

    If they won’t move to where the work is, f*** ‘em.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Nigel Kearney (1,013 comments) says:

    What about those who are applying for the same jobs but are older than 19 or haven’t been on the dole long enough? I don’t imagine they will be pleased that the government is bribing the employer to hire someone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. EAD (1,086 comments) says:

    These inconsequential policy differences underscores a core truth about New Zealand’s election season: the vast majority of the most important & consequential policy questions are completely excluded from the political debate. This fact is squarely at odds with a primary claim made about National & Labour – that they represent radically different political philosophies – and illustrates how narrow the range of acceptable mainstream political debate is in the country.

    If someone like Jamie Whyte suggests that people should be treated equally before the law, or Winston Peters suggests that we shouldn’t sell farmland to Communist Government proxy entities or Colin Craig suggests that people should be allowed a voice in the political process via referenda (as in Switzerland)the media comes down on them like a ton of bricks as if these are somehow crazy ideas when the vast majority of people in fact agree with them.

    The harm from this process of talking endlessly about minor differences is not merely the loss of what could be a valuable opportunity to engage in a real national debate. Worse, it is propagandistic: by emphasising the few issues on which there is real disagreement between National & Labour, the election process ends up sustaining the appearance that there is far more difference between the two parties, and far more choice for citizens, than is really offered in New Zealand’s increasingly one party state political system.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. greenjacket (465 comments) says:

    No surprise. I recently spoke to a Labour MP and pointed out the contradiction between wanting “value add manufacturing” and then imposing a system of 70s style national awards and wage arbitration. He just did not get it. I didn’t get anything rational from him – he just repeated tired slogans about “value add” but was totally detached from reality. Labour are incapable of listening to people outside their bubble – complete epistemic closure.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. FeralScrote (217 comments) says:

    Once again La-bore shows us how utterly out of touch ,incompetent and unfit to govern they really are.
    I suspect the real lolly scramble will begin the closer the election and the more desperate they become.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. redqueen (562 comments) says:

    DPF, surely you didn’t mean, ‘…young inexperienced VOTER.’ ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    ’90 day trials allow employers to take a risk on a young inexperienced voter [worker?]‘
    Yes, because no one took such a risk before, ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Pita (373 comments) says:

    One thing that Labour does understand; it doesn’t matter how vacuous their promises or policies are so long as it resonates with those amongst us who still believe in Santa Claus.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Simon (724 comments) says:

    Labour admission that min wage causes unemployment.

    National should scrap min wage but they are utterly fucking useless.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. big bruv (13,894 comments) says:

    And if paying employers to take on low life does not work, Labour can always revert to what they did last time. They will simply reinstate the invalid, and sickness benefits. Then they simply transfer the scum who have no intention of ever working onto which ever one does not add to the official unemployment statistics.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. itstricky (1,831 comments) says:

    Then they simply transfer the scum who have no intention of ever working onto which ever one does not add to the official unemployment statistics.

    I bet Paula’s got some good tips on how to do that, having done the Harlem shuffle already. Ask her how it went.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. WineOh (630 comments) says:

    As a small business owner, I would look at the detail of this with interest. Most lines of work require at least a modicum of skill-set, but were I running a business that required low-semi skilled workers, I’d happily consider being bribed $9K per worker – assuming I was hiring anyway. Manual labour, garden work, factory line, etc. Give someone a chance for a hand-up instead of a hand-out.

    I’d expect a significant number would quit by 6-months, in which case there’s always another $9K for the next one. Could be quite lucrative for the right kind of business!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Macfre (22 comments) says:

    Ironic too that the Kick Start idea accounts for 60% ($109m out of $183m) of Labour’s package yet is the bit with least chance of success!!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. big bruv (13,894 comments) says:

    itstricky

    Paula is doing a half decent job. Now if she really wanted to go the whole way and simply kick the scum who have no intention of ever working off the benefit then she will have done a really great job.

    Tell me, why is it that working for a living is optional in NZ?, why is it that most here have to go to work at least five days a week so scum like Philip Ure can sit at home smoking dope all day?

    Please defend that, I would love to see you give it a crack.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Sponge (181 comments) says:

    mikenmild (10,805 comments) says:
    August 5th, 2014 at 7:51 am
    ’90 day trials allow employers to take a risk on a young inexperienced voter [worker?]‘
    Yes, because no one took such a risk before, ever.

    I just employed a new account manager. I would not have done this had I thought I may be saddled with him forever if it did not work out. I fully expect it will work (I would not have employed him otherwise) but as a small business I simply can’t afford to take the chance if it might not.

    This is policy designed by people with no idea how business actually operate.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. louie (96 comments) says:

    I hear Ms G Beyer on RNZ still repeating her claim that she lost a job because of the 90 day policy – even though it was not in force at the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Rich Prick (1,705 comments) says:

    louie, I heard that too. She is a bare faced liar. Little wonder she can’t hold down a job and is looking to get her snout back into the public trough.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote