|
|
|
|
|
|
by jampekka
2695 days ago
|
|
|
Overall I think it's a good thing, but one problem is that systems like these are really starting to create two tiers of workers, as is discussed in the end of the article. Generally one has to have a permanent contract for programs like these (e.g. in Finland you can go to study for two years and get paid a nice fraction of your pay from the unemployment fund). In theory this shouldn't be much of a problem because all jobs should be on permanent basis by default and fixed-term contracts should be only for very special purposes. In practice this is not enforced and especially for lower paying jobs (and some even higher educated fields, such as teachers or nurses) its quite common not to get permanent contracts at all. Because of this, there's almost a new social class of permanent contract workers who have great benefits and programs, and beneath them a constantly growing underclass on temp contracts, shitty working conditions and little benefits. It's sort of absurd that some paper pusher can get paid for doing any studies they wish more than a cleaner or store clerk gets paid while working. The systems were largely created before the neoliberal era started in Nordic countries in the 90's or so when employer protection was very strong across the board. But as the protection has crumbled for the "underclass", the system starts to at times look something like the olden privileges of the higher castes. |
|
|