THERE is a happy medium between exploiting young people and regulating them out of any hope of finding a job.
Caoimhe Archibald, Sinn Féin’s economy minister, warned last week that Northern Ireland’s youth unemployment figures are “going in the wrong direction” and there must be “a concerted effort across government” to address it.
She noted that Britain and the Republic are experiencing the same problem. Across the world, social, economic and technological changes are making it harder for young people to start their working lives.
The number of people aged 16 to 24 not in education, employment or training here was 23,000 at the end of last year, or 12% of their age group. It was just 7% the year before.
DUP education minister Paul Givan has been making his own plans to keep young people in training or education up to the age of 18.
Jobs and further education fall under Archibald’s remit. Any policy involving the benefits system would bring in DUP communities minister Gordon Lyons, and everyone depends on Sinn Féin finance minister John O’Dowd for their budgets, so Dr Archibald is correct that the Executive would have to work together on this issue.
That does not mean there would be much difference of opinion. Any new proposals would almost certainly involve more government schemes and rules for employers.
The idea that Stormont might be better getting out of the way scarcely occurs to our political parties, including the supposedly right-leaning DUP.
On the contrary, the Executive is heading in the opposite direction with what Sinn Féin calls its “Good Jobs Bill”.
This upcoming legislation, similar to changes Labour is planning in England, will strengthen protections around trade union recognition, zero-hours contracts and work-life balance.
Workers will be able to request guaranteed hours for part-time jobs, for example.
Although most of the Bill seems uncontentious, it will inevitably increase the cost and risk to employers of taking on someone new.
Nothing revealed about the Bill so far contains anything specific about younger workers, so its provisions will apparently apply in full to employees of all ages.
Two months ago, Sinn Féin planted an assembly question for Dr Archibald asking how the Bill would help “young people”.
She replied by mentioning flexible working for parents and carers, indicating that by ‘young people’ Sinn Fein means people with young families, which is fair enough – but irrelevant to almost everyone under the age of 20.
Helping most young people into work, especially a first job, means not burdening prospective employers with all the responsibilities of hiring an experienced adult.
This is partly recognised through the minimum wage, with its lower rates for under-21s and under-18s.
Apart from lower cost, the main advantage of hiring young people should be flexibility for the employer.
Most teenagers can work part-time on short notice without facing financial insecurity or hardship, or work full-time for short periods without needing or expecting a permanent job.
Exploiting these advantages should not stray into taking advantage. Plenty of rules are still required for employing the young, including extra rules on maximum working hours.
However, granting young people all the protections in the Good Jobs Bill will simply squeeze them further out of the job market.
Stormont has not just ignored this issue but actively denied it.
The Bill has gone through several legally-required ‘equality screenings’ by the Department for Education as it has been developed over the past two years, with officials repeatedly declaring there are “no anticipated different needs, experiences and priorities as a result of this policy” with regards to age.
As far as Stormont is concerned, treating young people differently would be inequality and discrimination.
This view extends into wider society. The Bill has been through extensive consultation with employers, trade unions and other interested groups.
Although some respondents mentioned that zero-hours contracts can suit students, there is no record of anyone expressing concern that entry-level jobs for teenagers will dry up.
Tellingly, Stormont has also failed to devolve the minimum wage, despite agreeing to in New Decade, New Approach.
Nobody in politics or businesses would want to be associated with giving the young fewer employment rights.
However, civic and political leaders should be able to explain the necessity of ensuring the young can still find jobs.
At the very least, they should feel free to discuss the possibility that less may be more on this particular question.
The fact that none have done so shows how stultifying our soft-left political consensus has become.
If you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article and would like to submit a Letter to the Editor to be considered for publication, please click here.
Letters to the Editor are invited on any subject. They should be authenticated with a full name, address and a daytime telephone number. Pen names are not allowed.