ORVILLE W. TAYLORORVILLE W. TAYLOR
THE STATISTICAL Institute's (STATIN) Labour Force Survey reveals that unemployment has declined by more than two per cent to reach 12.8 per cent in October 2003, down from 15.4 per cent in 2002. If there is such a significant reduction in unemployment how come there are so many persons seeking a handout?
In recent times, I have come to recognise that I am either related to the average Jamaican or my family is really big. Daily I hear, 'Waa gwaan fambily?' 'Suppn no Uncle?' 'Gimmi a ting no my bredda?' On top of that there is the ever so common 'nuttn naa gwaan'. This face to face reality does not seem to match the data.
Omar Davies has indicated that there has been some degree of economic growth a scrap of meat is better than nothing. Coupled with the above this should be good news. But it strikes me as odd that with such a relatively low unemployment rate by developing world standards, 45 per cent of respondents in the latest Don Anderson poll consider it to be the nation's greatest problem after crime. This time I believe that Anderson is reflecting the reality at hand. However, this does not necessarily mean that STATIN is deceiving the public. In my view, the problem could 'lie' in the conceptualisation of the issue and more subtle nuances, which are hidden in the data. People can use statistics to say almost anything.
REAL PAPPY SHOW
An example of this sort of problem is currently seen when one media group claims that since it has 56 per cent of the television audience and 44 per cent of the radio listenership it has 100 per cent coverage. (Real pappy show!). Think about it! 56 mules and 44 donkeys do not make a pack of asses. Then again, maybe they do. To avoid such tomfoolery let us see how 'unemployed' is defined. If one has worked during the survey period one is 'employed' even if the employment is infrequent or for a few hours.
Alright, so the fellow who washes my car occasionally or sweeps the office on Fridays is employed even though he only makes a 'Nanny' or 'Manley' for the entire week. Furthermore, if an individual is unemployed but not actively seeking or has a desire to work then this person is not officially unemployed. Check that again! If 'smaddy stap look wuk and tun wutlis', then s/he is not unemployed. True, there are people who are frustrated and de-motivated because they have sought jobs 'til dem clyde' without success. But what about those who have no interest in the labour market and are satisfied with seeking out 'fambily?' (this must be what they mean by 'relative' poverty).
It is not funny, there is a real concern as to whether the fall in unemployment is due to the increase in 'wutlissness' or the creation of real economic activity. But before we start bashing this methodology let us recognise that this has been the measure for decades, both when there was reduction of unemployment in the 1980s and in the 1970s when it increased. (Sorry critics, I have to be balanced).
NON-SEEKING CATEGORY
Well, despite what is seen face to face, the non-seeking category has steadily declined. For example, non-seekers in the age group 20 to 24 have decreased from around 35,000 in 2001 to fewer than 27,000 in 2002, to reach just over 24,000 last year. However, seekers in this age cohort increased from 19,400 in 2001 to 21,000 in 2002 to fall to 18,800 in 2003. While this may also be affected by the increased percentage of persons in schools it cannot be denied that this is a positive sign.
Between 1992 and 2002 the pattern of employment had seriously shifted. An increasing portion of the labour force has been engaged in the difficult to measure 'informal sector'. In agriculture 63,000 jobs or 26 per cent were lost. Manufacturing saw 34,000 jobs or 35 per cent of its employment disappear. Construction benefited from 21,000 new jobs or 35 per cent. Finance and business grew by 46 per cent with 14,000 new workers. In addition, services, including security, expanded by 28,000 or 12 per cent. Interestingly, 4.35 per cent of males and 8.06 per cent of females worked fewer than 25 hours per week, doubling the 1992 figure.
There was a reversal of some negatives in 2003 with 6,000 more jobs in agriculture and 4,000 more in manufacturing. Construction remained constant while finance and business grew with 6,000 new positions. There was also a reduction in the number of persons working below 25 hours. Well, give credit where it is due. It seems that something positive happened last year. However, is it too little too late, hence the feeling that 'nuttn nah gwaan?'
UNPROTECTED WORK
Nonetheless, how much of this is unprotected work? Many of the workers are now under 'contracts for services' and therefore blocked from benefits under the various labour laws. Large percentages of them are prevented from joining unions due to deceitfully worded contracts. I am particularly worried about the security sector. There has been an alarming increase in the number and percentage of workers who have little protection. (Test mi! I have the data in the 'intellectual ghetto'). A word to the wise is sufficient. There are some very 'smart' people among us who feel that we can employ persons to protect us who themselves have no protection. Imagine you telling a worker, "You have no right to vacation, sick or maternity leave and if you are fired unjustly you cannot be reinstated. Anyway see the gun here, watch mi back." Who is the fool?
Signs are positive but the challenge is to guarantee that the employment created is 'decent' and protected work. Until then there is little time to celebrate.
Orville Taylor, Ph.D. is a lecturer in the Department of Sociology, Psychology and Social Work at the UWI, Mona campus.
