Employers should be made to hire the most experienced, qualified person.

I certainly do not plan to forfeit. I am proposing in this debate that employers should be made to hire the most experienced, qualified person for any available job. I believe that this would be beneficial in a few different ways. Firstly, it would reduce opportunities for nepotism within a workplace, thereby ensuring a fairer playing field for everyone within any chosen career path. Secondly, it would help to reduce unemployment, whilst also ensuring that people were matched to jobs which suited their skills and experience. Thirdly, that it would create a much higher level of standards within all levels of industry and service, as in virtually all cases businesses would have 'the right staff for the job'. Lastly, it would reduce stress and discord within the workplace, leading to a much happier and more well motivated team of employees. This is due to the fact that everyone would know that each staff member gained their job fairly and based on their own merit. It would also eliminate the cases which we are all familiar with, whereby someone very much under-qualified and / or under experienced ends up in a position of authority over other staff and could potentially ruin the business, as well as making employees lives hell. I realise that there are a few objections which could be made to this proposal. As far as I can guess, these would likely be as follows: 1) Lack of freedom of choice for employers, 'nanny state' argument. Although to an extent I do agree that this should not be necessary, unfortunately it seems that it is as we do not live in an ideal world. Employers will very often seek to cut corners, hire the staff which they can pay the least and exploit the most and / or give 'premium' job positions to friends or relatives. This results not only in an inefficient business and unhappy workers, but also a high turnover of staff which then leads to more benefit claimants. If employers do not choose to comply with a set of basic rules for hiring the 'best' staff, then perhaps they should be made to. Particularly when you consider the hoops that jobseekers are made to jump through. Why is the unemployment problem one sided? Shouldn't the employers be made to take some responsibility by the Government? 2) Perhaps the most qualified or experienced applicant is not the best fit for that workplace, and someone with a different personality would be better argument. This may well be the case, however if the person clashes so much with the other staff / employers that it causes a problem for the business, the business can easily sack the person and hire the next most qualified applicant. Employers would of course have to prove their reasons for sacking the person. 3) Some people like taking on jobs which are below their level of skills or experience argument. This is also true and of course people would still be free to choose which jobs to apply for. If someone with a doctorate in physics wants to apply to clean toilets let them. However in this case someone with 20 years cleaning experience would still be a preferential candidate. Ultimately, I believe that this would be a sensible plan, as it would allow maximum employment among those people who could work and were willing to do so. By ensuring that people were given fair opportunities in job roles which were suited to their personal qualifications and experience, it would ensure that everyone from the most to the least qualified person would be able to fit into their respective 'category' without one end or the other being 'blocked up' by people who simply shouldn't be there, and who are taking up a job that rightly should have gone to someone else. Here are a couple of case examples: A) John is qualified as an IT specialist. He applies for many jobs in his field, but despite his qualifications and years of experience he fails to gain employment. He finds that most positions are going to younger less experienced candidates who may be paid less and expected to work more. Many of the jobs are also given to friends and relatives of the hiring managers. Desperate for income, John takes on a minimum wage job to make ends meet. He ends up stuck in this job for a number of years. B) Bill has no particular qualifications but has worked at a number of minimum wage low skilled jobs all his life. The company he works at closes down after 30 years and he is suddenly unemployed and requires a new job. Despite applying for everything he can find, Bill finds it impossible to get a new job and discovers that a lot of the vacancies have gone to people who rightly should be working in more technical jobs. Bill ends up having to claim unemployment benefit for a long period of time. In both these cases, should my proposal have been applied, it is much more likely that both candidates would have found work quicker, which was better suited to them, as well as they being much better suited to the company's which were hiring. Both candidates would have ended up unemployed for a shorter period of time, would have been left with higher self esteem and would not be demotivated by an unfair system. This is my opening argument and basic outline of my case. I look forward to your reply. Thank You.