Government targets
Targets shown to be silly
The government's obsession with targets was always silly, but it took the Stafford hospital scandal to show how badly things can go wrong when people focus on meeting targets at the expense of doing what is best. Maybe the Stafford hospital scandal was an isolated example of hospital staff behaving badly, though I fear it may not be.
However, school league tables and the targets associated with them create a different set of problems. They aren't a matter of life and death, but they do affect the way in which children are taught, with consequences for their long-term employability. A school's short-term desire to meet targets that allow it to move up the school league table may not necessarily be in the interests of the children taught at that school. It appears that children are sometimes steered towards taking exams that the school wants them to take instead of those that the children want to take. I can see that, even in my day when there were no school league tables, there may have been occasions when the teacher knew best, but in those days the teacher clearly had the children's best interests at heart. Now, teachers may be more concerned about those school league tables.
Unemployed people also have to meet targets, even if this reduces their chances of finding work.
Quality versus quantity
Applying for jobs just for the sake of reaching some arbitrary target is senseless and may in the end be counter-productive, because employers resent being inundated with applications from people who aren't what they're looking for. Yet the whole thrust of government policy is based on the idea that the more jobs you apply for, the more likely you are to get a job.
Personally, I'd rather take my time and look for jobs that I feel that I have some chance of getting, even if it means applying for substantially fewer jobs. That's how The nineties job quest eventually yielded success, but nobody in authority takes any notice. So I'll continue applying for lots of jobs "just on the off-chance" because that's what the authorities want, but the responses I get from employers are not encouraging. Indeed, most don't bother responding at all.
Only two interviews since 2002
During The nineties job quest, I secured 21 formal interviews, all for well-paid full-time jobs. During my current period of unemployment, I have applied for a substantially greater number of jobs but only secured two formal interviews, one of which was for a part-time job that would not have removed me from the benefits system. I know that statistics can be misleading, but this one tells its own story.
No interview quota targets (yet)
Of course, the one thing that the government have not done is set targets for interviews attended. Perhaps they realise that it would be counter-productive. If there is no verification, there is no proof. If the government try to verify such attendances, some employers may be even more reluctant to interview unemployed people than they already are. Employers often complain about all the red tape they have to deal with as it is. The prospect of extra red tape just for interviewing unemployed people is very unappealing, especially as employers can avoid it by interviewing other candidates.
I can imagine that any attempt to set targets is likely to result in Stopping benefits to a lot of people, with far-reaching consequences. Some taxpayers no doubt think that this would be a great idea, but they'd have to pick up the bill as any savings made in reduced benefit payments would likely be outweighed by the cost of the consequences. Yet, I wouldn't rule out the possibility. The government might just be stupid enough to try it.
No comments:
Post a Comment