Cleggs war or Nepotism

Nick Clegg the deputy Prime Minister has dropped the ball, again.
He has said recently that internships given to people by family members are "unfair" and that he seeks to level the playing field. The word for this is "nepotism" which means:

"Favoritism shown or patronage granted to relatives, as in business."

or:

"Favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs)"

I actually don't see a problem with nepotism but I'll come to that in the moment.
The major way in which Nick Clegg has has put his foot in it is by bringing this up and more or less declared war on nepotism. Except he was given an internship at the "United Trust Bank" whilst on a gap year because his father worked for that company, and because his father "had a word" with a friend who worked at a Finnish bank. Oops.

Now onto the concept of nepotism. Why do I think it is acceptable? Well I certainly don't think it is morally wrong. I have been helped by nepotism, because of nepotism I am in my current job. You could say my father also "had a word", from which a work experience position was created for me. Two a bit years on I am now a contracted worker. Does this make me biased? Well maybe but it doesn't cloud my judgement.
I think nepotism is good because if a person is struggling to find work no matter what background they come from, if you help a person out that you are related to or you know then you are first and foremost putting a person in employment. You are giving them a leg up.
I was in part time employment, had I not been giving the opportunity to work where I work now who knows where I would be. I might be working in part time retail or I might be unemployed.
I want to be clear that no-one lost out because of the opportunity I got. I did not get the job over someone else just because of nepotism, although a position it seems was created for me and for that I am forever grateful.

If you look at nepotism and it's definition it doesn't have to apply to just office jobs and high paid employment. Technically you could say if a builder gives his son work then that is nepotism. It works on many levels.
However it is obvious at which level Nick Clegg is aiming at here. He is obviously looking at the higher end of the scale where he seeks to drive such a practice out despite the fact that he got work experience because of it. He wants to increase the chances of the less fortunate getting employed that is fine. I agree with that, but doing so by waging war on those fortunate to know someone? That's just wrong
Just for the record I am only in favour of nepotism if it is harmless. I don't agree with it if someone who is more qualified loses out and doesn't get a job.

So in conclusion, nepotism isn't always bad and shouldn't be condemned across the board just for the sake of it, and Nick Clegg is a hypocrite and should think more carefully about his dreams of solving unemployment.


Links:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/clegg-labelled-a-hypocrite-after-nepotism-revelation-1.1094760

http://www.answers.com/topic/nepotism

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:nepotism&sa=X&ei=GoWcTYGJA9SZhQf_tZzOBg&ved=0CBYQkAE

HSBC boss Michael Geoghegan gives £4m bonus to charity

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article7043878.ece

"MICHAEL GEOGHEGAN, the chief executive of HSBC, has turned down the chance to become Britain’s best-paid bank boss by handing a multi-million-pound bonus to charity.

He is in line for a payout of close to £4m after HSBC’s strong performance. This week it is expected to report annual profits of £10 billion.

Rather than give up the bonus, Geoghegan plans to pass it on to a number of children’s charities. The move follows public protests over payments to Britain’s bank bosses.

Stephen Hester, the chief executive of Royal Bank of Scotland, gave up his right to a £1.6m bonus last week in an effort to appease public anger.

Eric Daniels, the chief executive of Lloyds Banking Group, was offered a £2.25m bonus by his board — but also chose to turn it down.

Hester and Daniels were deemed to have earned the payments in spite of huge losses racked up by their banks.

Peter Sands, the chief executive of Standard Chartered, is believed to be getting a bonus of more than £1m. It appears that the former McKinsey consultant, who helped to mastermind the RBS and Lloyds bailouts, plans to accept the payout. Standard Chartered, which specialises in Africa and Asia, has few UK operations.

Geoghegan’s decision comes after a long wrangle with shareholders over pay."

Well isn't that nice of them, however I can't help but think that this was one of those "jump before their pushed" moments. With all the public outrage lately at bonuses and fiddling with expenses by bankers as well as MP's.

Maybe they wanted to try and show some redemption or maybe they were just trying to win back some support however minimal it might be.

The skeptical side of me says that although each of these people may be giving substantial amounts to charity they still not only accept their high salary but then might believe it is acceptable to receive a similiar bonus later and accept it, after all they donated their last one to charity right?

This was a nice gesture but such an action will either be a one time only occurrence or a rarity.