The question is; Do you agree that firms should be paid to take on poorly-qualified British teenagers instead of older or migrant workers?
John Cridland, director general of the Confederation of British Industry, said the Government should consider offering firms £1,500 subsidies for each young Briton they employ to limit the effects of youth unemployment. He was speaking days after figures showed that around 500 foreigners landed a job in Britain every day over the past year while the number of UK-born workers plunged.
I don’t really agree with this proposition. It’s perfectly reasonable to seek to maximise the employment of British people BUT no firm should be expected to take on a lesser qualified employee purely on the grounds of National ID. I am a meritocrat and reckon that the best qualified person with the best potential should get the job. If we abandon this by encouraging employers to choose a poorly and evidently sub-optimal candidate just because of their passport then we weaken our economy.
The best solution is to focus on WHY we have so many poorly qualified young people- given the huge salaries lavished on the teaching profession. Each year we are told that students are getting smarter and smarter, with more and more gaining top grades. And yet there is a serious disconnect in play here and I fear we are in danger of compounding the issue by providing an answer to the wrong question.