Gi's a job

This article talks about the increasingly common practice of expecting young people to work without pay to gain experience.

I am quite clear that I come down on the side of banning it as a practice.  If we claim to be a meritocracy (which I think we do) then making certain jobs open only to those who can fund free working is unfair and should not be allowed.  I think that there is also a good point in the article about the minimum wage!

However, whilst this may be seen as a modern phenomenon and one which is spreading among the more popular jobs (nearly called them professions J), it has a long history as I can recall in my younger days that barristers (and I don't mean coffee makers) had to study and then work for a pittance and be paid in arrears such that most of that profession came from those who were able to subsidise the early part of the training.  A quick look now suggests that this has changed with pupillages funded, so here is one example where action has already been taken.

An alternative would be for the government to sponsor this year, much as they do with student loans - however I am wary of this because, as with student loans, there would still be a temptation for those from more disadvantaged backgrounds to run up large debts.

What benefit is there to the companies?  To avoid minimum wage issues there should be no immediate gain to them, so presumably it is about seeing candidates ahead of time; they could always develop better recruitment procedures - after all if they are after talent then at present they are ruling a significant proportion of the population out.

Its Capitalism - Stupid!

Shock, horror, capitalists put price up when we want to buy things!  The Guardian reported that Tesco and ASDA had put prices up in the week before Christmas.  They seemed to think that this was odd behaviour - after all, we all wanted to buy things at the cheaper price.  But what is capitalism other than a belief that if I do what is best for me then the "market" will ensure that it is best for everyone.

And if you know the law of supply and demand then why would they not put the prices up.  There might even be an interesting twist here in that the supply and demand in tension are time - do I buy everything in Tescos or shop around - the week before Christmas the answer to that is a no brainer!

Did they do anything illegal?  No (unless the two were in cahoots which is illegal).  Anything immoral?  Only if you consider capitalism immoral (for which there may be an argument, but not one that many want to pursue).  Was it not "right"?  This perhaps is where there is some debate, but unless we think that they have a duty to do what is right by us rather than by themselves then No again.

There can perhaps be some debate about whether the action they have taken is best for them, but I haven't heard any complaints or suggestions that we should boycott them because of their behaviour - which suggests that they made the "right" call from their point of view.  Of course this kind of decision can go wrong.  The case of the Ford Pinto where Ford allegedly decided it was cheaper to pay compensation than fix a problem, but were then hit with punitive damages when this decision came to light shows the dangers.

Christian Aid update:

Wasted food costs the average family £420 a year.  Give 42p for each type of food you binned this week.

Mmm - well there were some old tomatoes, some stale bread and some sour milk - lets try 1.26.