IBEC Jobs Submission

The IBEC submission for next weeks “jobs budget” is available at this link. Details include suggestions on extra data collection, changes to the FIS scheme, national internship programmes, sectoral-specific recommendations in areas like energy and farming, change to bankruptcy laws and a loan guarantee scheme.

5 thoughts on “IBEC Jobs Submission”

  1. A complement to internship:

    To upskill a professional person (accountant/engineer/solicitor/architect etc) is very difficult as the trainer must be at least two levels above them in competence – so FAS training is useless.

    Instead you should have professionals train each other through work on the development of a practical idea for industry. So a firm with a specific problem would put it on a website and invite ‘groups’ of such professionals to ‘tender’ for work on the proposal. This has the benefit that the ‘group’ of professionals formed will be tailored to best deliver a solution and will be vetted by the company interested in developing such a solution. Much of the administration can be done through a simple website system. If the idea proposed is seen as poor, no group of professionals will bother tendering, if good many will.

    In working on the solution for the company the professionals will learn from each other as well as honing their existing skills through work on a particular problem. If they successfully develop a solution then they can sell it off or possibly look to become involved in it’s development themselves. Furthermore the group will manage itself and get rid of non-performers.

    In a way this is like the ‘internship’ program but doesn’t require the supervision and cost overhead associated with interns, and is more likely to drive real innovation that is of commercial value.

    From the sponsoring companies point of view their contribution might be to provide details on the problem and occasional guidance and feedback on the progress being made, possibly facilitating field trials if the development looked promising. The sponsoring company could categorise the ‘idea’ into one which required a Non Disclosure Agreement and Transfer of IP rights at an agreed level in event of success, or could simply be content with the delivery of a solution that solved their problem, leaving the commercialisation open.

    What is nice about the proposal is that it is scalable at low cost, has the potential to deliver commercial innovation and would be quick to set up with low running costs.

  2. Apart from the internship program, the IBEC document is a very tame, weak and insipid submission.

    I would disagree with one of the main points:

    The degree to which direct Government intervention can create employment in the economy is limited. Labour market recovery is more likely to follow a restoration of competitiveness in areas such as wage costs and energy, and an improved business environment.

    During the “boom”, we saw first hand how taxation policies acted as a major influence on construction activity.

    Immediately following called for “reform” of the FIS (Family Income Supplement for people working on low wages) we get the following:

    Taxes on work should not be increased any further for those on above average incomes. The tax burden for this category of workers is already too high by international standards and employers are struggling to attract and retain mobile skills.

    Remember that the major subscribers to IBEC used to be the banks. So no wonder IBEC wants to keep its subscriptions rolling in.
    And these subscriptions are now being paid for by the taxpayer.

    Overall.
    Same old. Same old.

  3. IMHO the IBEC argument against the restoration of minimum wage levels is pretty weak and diminishes the argument about transition from social welfare to work.

    Lower wage earners spend more of their income within the domestic economy which creates greater demand allowing retail and services sectors to be more competitive in their pricing.

    A higher minimum wage also places less pressure on the FIS scheme which IBEC seems to favour without actually indicating where that money will come from since it does not seem pleased with the level of reduction in employer`s PRSI for low wages.

    At the moment at least the fact that we are actually having a “Jobs budget” focuses minds on the subject . The most important stages in any recovery is recognising the problems and trying to find solutions.

    A credible “jobs budget” would also include more discussion about A)universal health care,
    B)subsidised child care,
    C)reducing the amount of hours per week necessary to make a “full” PRSI contribution
    D) extending more entitlements/social protection forcurrent and potential self employed
    These may be among the greatest barriers to incentivising work, risk taking,job creation and competitive salaries.

    In fact there is probably enough “work” to keep everyone occupied between 25 and 45 hours a week and every “nuclear” household conducting 60 hours a week work while still allowing enough possibility for profit and real capitalism:

    more work/better skills= more money,
    more risk= greater potential reward

    while maintaining a decent social threshold.

  4. This is BS. the Irish economy is exactly in the same state as it was during the “crisis”. Big corporations are making outrageous profits while paying no or little taxes, they don’t hire at all or very little.
    Salaries have gone down the gutters.

    UNEMPLOYMENT IS AS HIGH AS IN 2009, except that so many people left this country (Irish and foreign nationals) that the “official” figures show a lower % of unemployed than it should be.

    If everybody had stayed here, the unemployment rate would be like those of Greece or Spain !!!

    Ireland has officially become a US corporate colony, a EU protectorate and the real prime minister is called Merkel !

Comments are closed.