Mini-jobs: Will they help?

A new legal category of work might help people into unemployment.

The creation of "mini-jobs", which allow people to take on work without paying tax or national insurance, is being considered by the Treasury as one of a package of measures to make it easier to create employment.

The idea – being promoted by some influential Conservative MPs – is modelled on a scheme in Germany, in which employees can earn up to €400 a month (about £314) without giving up any of their salary, and employers pay only a flat rate to cover pensions, social insurance and wage taxes, making administration simpler.

People can hold several mini-jobs up to the €400 a month tax-free limit, with the only impact on their income being the reduction of unemployment benefit over a certain threshold. Between €400 and €800, workers pay tax on a sliding scale.

As discussed in an ex-ante appraisal of Germany’s 2003 mini-jobs reform by the DIW Berlin, the plan is essentially a subsidy on low earnings so as to increase employment in low wage markets and to ease the long-term unemployed into the labour market.

Firstly, on the supply side, it is argued that welfare recipients are unlikely to enter the labour force when the already low wages they have access to are further depressed by social security contributions. Secondly, on the demand side, DIW argue that:

Given limited downward wage flexibility in the low wage sector due to binding minimum wages, SSC have to be borne at least partially by the employer of low-skilled workers, thus reducing their employment.

The Free Enterprise Institute, which has spearheaded the appeal for "mini-jobs" in the UK, has praised the German reform for lowering youth unemployment, increasing turnover in the jobs market, and increasing temporary work by two per cent in ten years. The report goes on to lament the fact that temporary workers account for just six per cent of the UK labour force, in contrast to Germany’s 15 per cent.

While the merits of increasing temporary employment are at best contentious, German commentators have criticised the mini-jobs model for creating "a massive disincentive for the unemployed".

Rather than bridging the gap between the labour market and the marginalised, they argue, mini-jobs have further ostracised the peripheries of the labour force by trapping them in low-wage jobs that offer no margin for progression. It is held that the subsidies, by inflating the value of low-wage jobs (as is intended) will lead people to substitute longer-term, more stable sources of income with mini-jobs. This, one can argue, while soothing unemployment in the short run, can have hazardous effects for income inequality, as well as stifle the development of a skilled labour force. Similarly, employers will be encouraged to fragment existing full-time jobs into series of mini jobs, thus extending the potential evils of the reform beyond those that are currently excluded from the labour market.

Consequently, the subsidy (as predicted by the aforementioned DIW paper) may reduce tax revenue without actually reducing welfare subsidies. This is confirmed by Johannes Jakob of the Federation of German Unions, who contends that the most viable option consists in combining welfare with a tax-free mini-job.

While the initiative may induce some people to temporarily seek employment, it is likely that mini-jobs will prove an expensive and structurally venomous distortion of the labour market.

John Lennon in a Mini Cooper. Well how would you illustrate mini jobs? Photograph: Getty Images
GETTY
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Andrea Leadsom as Environment Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

A little over a week into Andrea Leadsom’s new role as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and senior industry figures are already questioning her credentials. A growing list of campaigners have called for her resignation, and even the Cabinet Office implied that her department's responsibilities will be downgraded.

So far, so bad.

The appointment would appear to be something of a consolation prize, coming just days after Leadsom pulled out of the Conservative leadership race and allowed Theresa May to enter No 10 unopposed.

Yet while Leadsom may have been able to twist the truth on her CV in the City, no amount of tampering will improve the agriculture-related side to her record: one barely exists. In fact, recent statements made on the subject have only added to her reputation for vacuous opinion: “It would make so much more sense if those with the big fields do the sheep, and those with the hill farms do the butterflies,” she told an audience assembled for a referendum debate. No matter the livelihoods of thousands of the UK’s hilltop sheep farmers, then? No need for butterflies outside of national parks?

Normally such a lack of experience is unsurprising. The department has gained a reputation as something of a ministerial backwater; a useful place to send problematic colleagues for some sobering time-out.

But these are not normal times.

As Brexit negotiations unfold, Defra will be central to establishing new, domestic policies for UK food and farming; sectors worth around £108bn to the economy and responsible for employing one in eight of the population.

In this context, Leadsom’s appointment seems, at best, a misguided attempt to make the architects of Brexit either live up to their promises or be seen to fail in the attempt.

At worst, May might actually think she is a good fit for the job. Leadsom’s one, water-tight credential – her commitment to opposing restraints on industry – certainly has its upsides for a Prime Minister in need of an alternative to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); a policy responsible for around 40 per cent the entire EU budget.

Why not leave such a daunting task in the hands of someone with an instinct for “abolishing” subsidies  thus freeing up money to spend elsewhere?

As with most things to do with the EU, CAP has some major cons and some equally compelling pros. Take the fact that 80 per cent of CAP aid is paid out to the richest 25 per cent of farmers (most of whom are either landed gentry or vast, industrialised, mega-farmers). But then offset this against the provision of vital lifelines for some of the UK’s most conscientious, local and insecure of food producers.

The NFU told the New Statesman that there are many issues in need of urgent attention; from an improved Basic Payment Scheme, to guarantees for agri-environment funding, and a commitment to the 25-year TB eradication strategy. But that they also hope, above all, “that Mrs Leadsom will champion British food and farming. Our industry has a great story to tell”.

The construction of a new domestic agricultural policy is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Britain to truly decide where its priorities for food and environment lie, as well as to which kind of farmers (as well as which countries) it wants to delegate their delivery.

In the context of so much uncertainty and such great opportunity, Leadsom has a tough job ahead of her. And no amount of “speaking as a mother” will change that.

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.