Attitudes amongst employers are part of the problem as well.

The tabloid view of people who have been unemployed over the long term is that they are largely unemployed due to their own inadequacies and lack of effort. As a result, public debate over welfare reform has been dominated by concepts of ‘scroungers’ and ‘work shy’ people who will have to be coerced back into work via compulsory work placements and the threat of benefits being removed. A kinder view is sometimes heard, with more compassionate commentators noting that sometimes people who have been unemployed over a long period may face barriers to employment such as lack of skills, lack of reasonably priced childcare, or poor provision of transport to places of employment. As a result, courses to address some of the issues are now offered to those out of work, and welfare policy has begun to appreciate the importance of keeping people engaged and motivated.

However there remains a major omission from debates over welfare reform and long term unemployment; the role of employers. In some cases, the issues are simply down to prejudice and poor attitudes amongst the local employers. Take the case of Paul, who I met recently whilst conducting some research into unemployment in the Valleys.

Paul is in his early 60s and has not worked since 2004, when the IT Company he worked for went bankrupt. As a former IT administrator, and with an employment history stretching over 30 years, Paul is almost certainly highly skilled and experienced, and employable. He also has no childcare commitments and owns a car. Over the past 7 years he has been on numerous courses allegedly aiming to improve his employability, and has probably become an expert in how to write CVs.

The main issue is of course his age. Ageism is a recognised problem, although few efforts have been made to seriously tackle the issue. This is largely down to the continued focus of welfare policy on the individual, with policy geared towards tackling issues such as lack of skills, experience and the benefit trap. All of which do nothing for people such as Paul, who instead have to face the stigma of being labelled as workshy, and who have been unfortunate to live in areas of the UK where successive economic policy has failed to produce high rates of employment.

So isn’t it time that the role of employers and HR professionals was also brought into welfare policy. Some of us may grin at the thought of employers having to report fortnightly to a job centre advisor on the steps they have taken to eradicate prejudice and discrimination in their employment practices, but this is unlikely to happen. More realistically, we at least need to start to recognise the role local employers must play in bringing people back into the workforce, and start to design welfare policies that include employers, and adopt a carrot and stick approach to those hard to reach employers who don’t take their social responsibilities seriously.