Forget students and universities. We certainly will

And if there’s a story so far, it’s that–as per usual–the siloing of government departments means that impacts of measures on housing or health or employment or whatever fall into categories like “uncertain” or “unintended consequences” when it comes to higher education.

Hence for example, the Employment Rights Bill (discussed on the site last week) got its second reading in the Commons earlier. The problems that the proposals could create unamended were earlier almost pointed out in the Bill’s impact assessments:

By increasing labour costs on forms of contracts that are more used by those with a weaker attachment to the labour market (e.g. students), these measures may reduce labour demand for these workers.

The main non-monetised impact on business of this policy is the potential loss of flexibility for those firms that rely on these forms of contract, particularly where demand is seasonal or unpredictable. The degree that employers lose flexibility will depend on details that are defined in secondary legislation and on how they choose to evolve their business models in response.

The impact assessments also pointed to a CIPD report on the issue–which noted that the lack of guaranteed hours can be “a strength rather than a weakness”, the “archetypal case” being students wanting to fit work in around study. It found almost a quarter of full-time students who had a job said it involved a zero-hours contract.

To be fair, other quoted evidence also found that student workers from post-1992 universities on zero-hour contracts in hospitality face heightened insecurity due to neoliberal labour market flexibilization. Existing vulnerabilities—stemming from limited state support, socio-economic background, and inexperience—are worsened by job insecurity and unequal workplace dynamics.

The problem with the Bill runs something like this. Businesses will have to formalise the working arrangements of those who have been working regularly for a period of time to be set out in regulations, assumed to be 12-weeks. The policy will also ensure that the option of a variable contract is available to individuals who prefer that form of arrangement, by allowing workers to decline the offer of guaranteed hours.

As such, the problem isn’t so much that students won’t be able to turn down a guaranteed hours contract. It’s that universities, students unions and other term-time high-demand businesses who’ve been employing students for a 12 week term will apparently have to offer equivalent hours over Easter, Christmas and the summer.

See also theme parks and seaside arcades.

It’s why several countries have a dedicated type of student worker regime/contract - as I was discussing on the site last week. Sadly, the issues (and opportunities) surrounding the need for students to earn while they learn have neither ever been owned by DfE (or the other departments that have looked after students), nor the Department for Business & Trade.

In fact the closest DfE has ever got to acknowledging the role of work was when its minister was resisting putting maintenance loans up. The lack of a strategy is all the more ironic given Labour’s bottom-barrel scraping answer to Martin Lewis’ question on student maintenance during the election mainlined on changes to the minimum wage - which we should note in passing are unlikely to result in universities or SUs having more money to pay students.

You might have wished that issues like this would have been mentioned by parliamentarians in the second reading debate - sadly not, save for a contribution from Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Con) who represents a bit of the world where there’s both a shed ton of students (Chichester’s Bognor campus) and where many depend on seasonal jobs for their livelihoods:

I fear that the Bill will put their livelihoods at risk, as well as the viability of the businesses that employ them… businesses that rely on flexible, short-term contracts to meet seasonal demand will face rising costs and greater bureaucracy when trying to bring on staff… the student and retired populations in my constituency value the flexibility that those contracts offer. The Bill will disincentivise employers from offering short-term opportunities and reduce employment options for those who depend on temporary work.

Nobody else even mentioned students or seasonal demand.

The promised (tightening of the supposed) ban on unpaid internships did come up–via Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold, Con), who’s made tackling them a bit of a pet project. Back in 2016 he tabled a private member’s Bill, in 2020 he co-sponsored another one, and in May he tabled a ten-minute rule Bill on their prohibition–but has been stymied at each stage, he suspected in part because so many MPs use unpaid internships in their own offices:

An intern should be defined as a worker. We were talking about an amendment to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 that says that work experience is important, but after 20 days or four weeks in work, an intern should be treated as an employee. Work should always pay, and if someone is contributing after that period of time, they are adding something to the business.

The government used today to launch four consultations–on the application of zero hours contracts measures to agency workers, strengthening statutory sick pay, strengthening remedies against abuse of rules on collective redundancy and fire and rehire and creating a modern framework for industrial relations. Its promised consultation on unpaid internships is still nowhere to be seen.

As I said on here last week, this isn’t so much about students being seen as some special case - it’s more that if minds were turned to the way in which earning and learning can be effectively combined, good things could happen.

My favourite example remains that in Slovenia - where a dedicated student worker regime involves a special type of (more) flexible (than others get) contract, and dedicated agencies (studentski servis) offer lists of available student jobs, take care of payments and engage in labour law enforcement, rights promotion and the promotion of the role of student work to local employers.

Students benefit from a net payment arrangement that includes accident insurance, there’s a lower income tax on student earnings, and they have dedicated employment advice via the agencies. It helps them build work experience, develops soft skills, and provides employers in hospitality, administration and retail with a flexible and affordable workforce.

There’s also tiny little tax that employers pay on top of student wages–some goes directly to the state budget to fund services like a dedicated national skills recording platform for student workers’ CVs, and another little portion is allocated to student organisations, which use these funds to support student activities, scholarships, infrastructure, and advocacy.

The lack of anything even approaching this here in the UK is miserable–and for me another example of the ways in which Labour’s opportunity mission will only work if supported by thinking about those in education inside the other four.

Elsewhere in Parliament, yesterday Stephen Timms (Minister for Social Security and Disability) answered a question from Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted, Lib Dem) on the potential merits of extending eligibility for Carer's Allowance to carers in full-time education.

There’s a small but growing group of full-time students who are spending the required 35 hours a week caring for someone (and therefore less likely to be able to be earning while learning)--but anyone studying for 21 hours a week or more can’t claim.

Timms responded by arguing that it is “right” that people in full-time education should be supported by the educational maintenance system, rather than the social security benefit system:

That is why, as a general principle, full-time students are usually precluded from entitlement to income-related and income-maintenance benefits, including Carer’s Allowance. Part-time students may be able to claim Carer’s Allowance though. This reflects long-standing principles of the benefit system, and we have no plans to change these rules.

Say that again? Labour thinks it is “right” that people in full-time education should take out a loan to cover the costs of caring for others while others on low incomes are assisted by the state? And also thinks its' "right" that said loan's value doesn't adjust at all for those costs given it prevents them working? Really?

Because it feels to me like it’s less a “long-standing principle" and more an example of a decades-old Whitehall failure to consider that students might be anything other than 18 and carefree.

If nothing else, if it's a "long-standing principle" (see also a lazy Whitehall departmental demarcation) then the question should have been passed along to Jacqui Smith really.

Department for Work and Pensions officials work very closely with their Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care counterparts to ensure that young carers get the help and support they need.

On Timms' logic we can also look forward to the student loans system covering 15 hours per week of free childcare that full-time students can’t access–often while propping up schools and hospitals while on “placement”.

Because whatever else the mooted ban on unpaid internships will do, it won’t be paying students to be on placement–presumably because it is “right” that people in full-time education should be supported by the educational maintenance system. Sort that out then.