I don't think there's much stopping this happening already - employers use flexible contracts, term time contracts and similar to retain valued people even if they don't want/are unable to work full-time.
Perhaps the question is more what stops it happening more. It is harder to make such accommodations in some fields than in others - and in all there is an overhead of training and supervision that may not be justifiable in the most erratic situations. But I suspect the barriers may be more with individuals than with employers:
- by the time someone ends up on ESA/UC, they have often had a significant amount of time off, and be quite disengaged and deskilled from their current job;
- they may not have the skills or interest in the sorts of jobs that could accommodate their health condition;
- the stress and worry about whether the employer is actually going to pay you for the right hours at the right time, and whether DWP will take them into account in the way you were expecting for UC, is off-putting for some;
- the social and other benefits of work are significant, but accrue more to some people than to others.
I think the key point here (which is what people often refer to when saying “the public sector should act more like the private sector”) is that the proposal only pays people when they work. No work - no pay.
With that condition, I’d argue that it would be economically rational for any employer that can should employ such people.
Taking a lot of sick leave imposes costs on the employer because of the volatility and unpredictability in a person’s output; as such these people will command a lower hourly rate than people with the same skills but higher dependability. If you as an employer can handle the unpredictability with sufficiently low costs, you can profit through this wage arbitrage.
So is the argument therefore that
a) The public sector is particularly well placed to handle volatility at an individual level - perhaps because it is so large it’s spreading work over a large number of people
OR
b) The public sector should employ them even if (a) isn’t true (ie some “make-work” scheme) because the costs of doing so will be more than offset by tax revenues and benefit savings?
I don't think there's much stopping this happening already - employers use flexible contracts, term time contracts and similar to retain valued people even if they don't want/are unable to work full-time.
Perhaps the question is more what stops it happening more. It is harder to make such accommodations in some fields than in others - and in all there is an overhead of training and supervision that may not be justifiable in the most erratic situations. But I suspect the barriers may be more with individuals than with employers:
- by the time someone ends up on ESA/UC, they have often had a significant amount of time off, and be quite disengaged and deskilled from their current job;
- they may not have the skills or interest in the sorts of jobs that could accommodate their health condition;
- the stress and worry about whether the employer is actually going to pay you for the right hours at the right time, and whether DWP will take them into account in the way you were expecting for UC, is off-putting for some;
- the social and other benefits of work are significant, but accrue more to some people than to others.
I think the key point here (which is what people often refer to when saying “the public sector should act more like the private sector”) is that the proposal only pays people when they work. No work - no pay.
With that condition, I’d argue that it would be economically rational for any employer that can should employ such people.
Taking a lot of sick leave imposes costs on the employer because of the volatility and unpredictability in a person’s output; as such these people will command a lower hourly rate than people with the same skills but higher dependability. If you as an employer can handle the unpredictability with sufficiently low costs, you can profit through this wage arbitrage.
So is the argument therefore that
a) The public sector is particularly well placed to handle volatility at an individual level - perhaps because it is so large it’s spreading work over a large number of people
OR
b) The public sector should employ them even if (a) isn’t true (ie some “make-work” scheme) because the costs of doing so will be more than offset by tax revenues and benefit savings?
Both (a) and (b). I hope it would be (a), of course - and sometimes there is only one way to find out.
I always wonder where this thinking and ideas go?