-
Source: ONE News -
Watch Video
-
Related
A nine day fortnight is set to become a reality in the next few weeks and the Prime Minister says it could save 20,000 jobs.
But analysts say the scheme will only target a small number of workers and questions are being raised over whether the leading job summit proposal can really help save jobs.
A nine-day fortnight is set to become a reality in the next few weeks and will target around 15% of the work force.
Although the details of the scheme are yet to be announced, it is understood that the government will pay workers the minimum wage ($12.50 an hour) on the tenth day of employment, which will be used for training.
While the scheme could see workers' pay drop John Key says at least it will save your jobs and your mates will get to keep theirs too.
"Some financial hit but a lot better than completely losing their jobs," says Key.
The programme will be run by the Ministry of Social Development but Key is keeping quiet on the specifics.
"At this stage we're not going to detail that," he says.
The idea is to ease the burden on employers and stem unemployment while adding value through upskilling the workforce.
The Prime Minister believes it will be large companies with a mostly unionised workforce who will buy into the scheme.
Helen Kelly from the Council of Trade Unions agrees that only unionised work forces will be able to negotiate the technicalities such as reduced hours, how much people will get paid, how they will get paid and what hours they will work.
Opposition leader Phil Goff says while it may work for 15% of the workforce the other 85% won't get any benefit.
And Wellington based economic consultant Simon Smelt says the plan is fraught with difficulties.
Smelt has had experience in the UK working on similar job sharing schemes and says they have a low success rate.
"The experience in west Europe where they've had a lot more trouble with unemployment is that these schemes tend to work quite poorly," he says.
In particular, he says the scheme does little for high capital intensifiers that have high fixed costs.
"For capital intensifiers and highly productive firms and those with a tight work schedule or needing very experienced personnel, they haven't got very much flexibility and they need to keep the people they've got, exactly the way they have [it]," he says.
He says it can also be difficult to measure whether the scheme actually achieves its purpose.
"You can be sure people are working nine days rather than 10 days...but have you actually saved any jobs or is it that people are just working harder in those nine days?"
Furthermore, he says reduced working hours are okay when they are worked out between employers and employees, but once the government is involved it becomes more complicated.
One problem is the scheme is vulnerable to abuse by employers, whether the abuse is intentional or not.
"Employers are under a lot of pressure, so in some cases they'd be pretty happy if they can get their employees to turn out in nine days what they previously did in 10, and get the government to fund the other bit," he says.
Smelt advocates a broader based scheme such as tax relief, which can be targeted to different categories of firms, or ACC rebates and allowances.
