V1428 – National Employment Database Bill 2018

Watch
Poll: Should this bill be passed into law?
As many are of the opinion, Aye (24)
64.86%
On the contrary, No (10)
27.03%
Abstain (3)
8.11%
This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
V1428 – National Employment Database Bill 2018, TSR Government


An Act to establish a National Employment Database, in order to connect people with jobs and thus make the labour market more efficient.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1 - Establishment of a National Employment Database
(1) Upon commencement of this bill into law, a National Employment Database (henceforth NED) will be established, and will be managed by the Department for Work and Pensions, for the purpose of listing available employment opportunities in the UK.
(2) This database will be openly available online.
(3) Day-to-day control will be given to the National Careers Service.

2 - Advertisement of Vacancies
(1) Any firm conducting external recruitment must submit an advertisement detailing the relevant particulars of the job available to the NED.
(a) 'Particulars' will include details of a job description, employer, location, pay, working hours, any required qualifications and contact details.
(2) The advertisement must be available in English.
(3) Submission of advertisements shall be available free of charge.
(4) A firm which contravenes section 2.1 may be given a fine not exceeding 10% of the annual salary of the job available.

3 - Application for Vacancies
(1) Applications for vacancies may take place on the NED website (though this is not a requirement).
(2) Firms may choose to restrict applications based on qualifications, experience, or objective skills, provided that these requirements are clearly indicated in the database.
(a) This will be implemented by all applications not meeting the necessary standards being filtered out prior to reaching the firm.

4 - Commencement, extent and short title
(1) The provisions of this act will hereby apply upon Royal Accent
(2) This bill extends to the whole of the United Kingdom
(3) This Act will be cited as the National Employment Database Act 2018.

Notes
Spoiler:
Show
NotesAt present, a person seeking a job must often trawl through a myriad of recruitment websites, from the general to the specialised, in hunt of a relevant opening, sometimes at significant cost. Many jobs are advertised only on a couple of websites; some are not advertised at all. Needless to say, this can often make it tough for a jobseeker to find the right job for them.

This bill seeks to introduce a government-run database - the NED - on which the majority of jobs in the UK will be advertised. It will be compulsory for any firm recruiting externally - from a nationwide TV campaign to asking the owner's son - to also submit information about the job to the NED. The database will practically pay for itself simply in time savings, for DWP workers and jobseekers alike. In the long term, it will help to make the labour market as fit-for-purpose as it can be, by bridging the gap between workers and jobs.

It will also help to combat the issue of workplace nepotism. By ensuring that the job is advertised, it will be easier to find and correct unfair recruitment practices. This will help the hardest workers to find the most appropriate jobs.

The costs will be roughly £100 million for initial setup, and £500,000 for each year thenceforth. While this latter figure may seem small, it is not unreasonable; all data input will be done by the firms and applicants themselves; the only government involvement required following the initial setup will be general maintenance and moderation of the website, in addition to any required maintenance of server infrastructure.

Note that this is an amended version of B810 (Link below)..

https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho....php?t=3465201

0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
It's a shame that "any required experience" isn't also listed under 2.1.a

Objective skills is listed as a reason for candidate rejection in 3.2, "provided that these requirements are clearly indicated in the database" even though 2.1.a does not require objective skills to be listed in the database.

With these problems I shall abstain.

It's a shame the original debate on this turned into a personal row.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
No to labour market regulation.
0
EDMacRae
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by Connor27)
No to labour market regulation.
No to using modern technology to more effectively help people find potential employment with minimal impact on the taxpayer or businesses!

I’m not 100% sure if all businesses should be forced to do this though (especially small shops, like newsagents or something). But I’m not sure how the bill could be changed to accommodate that.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by EDMacRae)
No to using modern technology to more effectively help people find potential employment with minimal impact on the taxpayer or businesses!

I’m not 100% sure if all businesses should be forced to do this though (especially small shops, like newsagents or something). But I’m not sure how the bill could be changed to accommodate that.
This isn’t a question of pragmatism or efficiency, it’s a question of morality. Interfering in the market in this way is robbing the more innovative businesses of profits which is simply not right - the state should not be an arbiter of “fairness” in market competition because fairness is a completely subjective concept.
0
EDMacRae
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by Connor27)
This isn’t a question of pragmatism or efficiency, it’s a question of morality. Interfering in the market in this way is robbing the more innovative businesses of profits which is simply not right - the state should not be an arbiter of “fairness” in market competition because fairness is a completely subjective concept.
But surely morality is also subjective? I personally think it's more moral that people have better access to finding potential employment with a platform that utilises modern technology. If the state is the one providing that, it doesn't bother me, so long as it is providing the service it claims to, in an intuitive way. I also don't see how businesses having to advertise jobs on a database for free (as clearly stated in section 2(3) of the bill) would rob the 'more innovative businesses' of their profits, considering, also, that the state is covering all the costs. It's not about fairness, it is about efficiency.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
(Original post by EDMacRae)
No to using modern technology to more effectively help people find potential employment with minimal impact on the taxpayer or businesses!

I’m not 100% sure if all businesses should be forced to do this though (especially small shops, like newsagents or something). But I’m not sure how the bill could be changed to accommodate that.
There are 101 agencies out there with hundreds of thousands of vacancies listed and the state has already shown itself incapable of advertising even a limited number of jobs well, let alone every job in the country. All this bill is waste an unspecified amount of moeny and I say unspecified because nobody in the government seem to have a clue where they got the figures in the notes from, I'm guessing from an arse somewhere.
0
EDMacRae
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
There are 101 agencies out there with hundreds of thousands of vacancies listed and the state has already shown itself incapable of advertising even a limited number of jobs well, let alone every job in the country. All this bill is waste an unspecified amount of moeny and I say unspecified because nobody in the government seem to have a clue where they got the figures in the notes from, I'm guessing from an arse somewhere.
Having used a few of those agencies (including ‘Find an Apprenticeship and Civil Service Jobs) all of which I found to be quite intuitive and easy to use, as well as making the application process a lot more convenient, I can’t see the problem with the main principle of the bill. However, taking another look at it, I do agree that the figures don’t seem to be based in anything factual, which I hope is rectified.
0
Joel 96
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by EDMacRae)
But surely morality is also subjective? I personally think it's more moral that people have better access to finding potential employment with a platform that utilises modern technology. If the state is the one providing that, it doesn't bother me, so long as it is providing the service it claims to, in an intuitive way. I also don't see how businesses having to advertise jobs on a database for free (as clearly stated in section 2(3) of the bill) would rob the 'more innovative businesses' of their profits, considering, also, that the state is covering all the costs. It's not about fairness, it is about efficiency.
It’s only subjective if you don’t believe in any objective ethical theories. Conservative and libertarian morality mainly stems from deontology, thus a bill like this may appear consequentialist as it doesn’t mind interferring with businesses as long as the workers profit.
1
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#10
One Abstain has been removed (04MR17).
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#11
The Ayes to the right: 24
The Noes to the left: 10
Abstentions: 3

The Ayes have it! The Ayes have it! Unlock!

Turnout: 84.09%
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now? (select all that apply)

Lack of purpose or routine (121)
15.69%
Uncertainty around my education (125)
16.21%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (72)
9.34%
Isolating with family (51)
6.61%
Lack of support system (eg. Teachers, counsellors) (30)
3.89%
Lack of exercise/ability to be outside (66)
8.56%
Loneliness (81)
10.51%
Financial worries (32)
4.15%
Concern about myself or my loved ones getting ill (70)
9.08%
Exposure to negative news/social media (50)
6.49%
Lack of real life entertainment (eg. cinema, gigs, restaurants) (73)
9.47%

Watched Threads

View All