Most young people want to work, there just aren't enough jobs for them
If the government wishes to create a ‘no excuses’ culture to youth unemployment then its first step has to be creating the jobs and apprenticeships young people are crying out for.
It ought to go without saying that we should do everything we possibly can to arm young people with all the skills, knowledge and confidence they will need to be as employable as possible. On that basis Monday’s announcement that young people will be placed on ‘activity programmes’ should be welcome.
What is less welcome is the misleading rhetoric the policies are wrapped up in. Listen to the government and you’d be forgiven for believing all young people sit on the dole in need of army style ‘bootcamps’ and the threat of benefit removal to motivate them.
In reality most young people want to work and get on, and are some of our most entrepreneurial and creative citizens. Some of their best skills can often fall outside of the traditional career routes – think apps developed in bedrooms by creative teenagers.
Whilst not everyone will turn out to be the next Bill Gates it is government’s job to educate and prepare young people for the working world and then, through fair and balanced stewardship of the economy, do everything possible to ensure the jobs are there for them when that education comes to an end.
The truth is that too often our young people are ready, willing and eager to work but the jobs are just not there. Many have been badly let down by the decisions made by the current government and by the recent coalition. Some groups of young people find it harder to find work – for example since 2010 there has been a 49 per cent rise in the number of young BME people unemployed for a year or more.
The decision to provide jobless young people with employability training to develop soft skills and CV writing is positive. But you have to wonder if we’d need this announcement if the last government hadn’t scrapped the Connexions service which provided exactly this type of training in schools, and instead implemented a disastrous reform of careers guidance.
The result was to leave in its place a gaping hole in the preparedness of pupils for the world of work. Giving responsibility to schools to provide careers guidance was a move which Ofsted found led to unequal and poor access to impartial careers advice, which includes skills such as CV writing and interview techniques.
Young people should not leave school at the age of 18 without the ability to write a CV and apply for jobs, or the social skills to navigate an interview, but it seems that this is often the case.
By adding a punitive element to the deal, withdrawing job seekers allowance for those who refuse to take the course, the government seems to imply it is young ‘job seekers’ themselves that are the problem – obviously not wanting to improve their own chances of getting a job.
In a very small minority of cases this may carry some truth, but it’s more down to a lack appropriate jobs to apply for, not an untidy CV. That can only be solved by government and its time they took responsibility for that.
The other obvious question is why this kind of scheme should only apply to young people; surely everyone who wants it should be offered the skills to make them more employable.
As is often the case at the start of a parliament, there are things to be welcomed in this announcement – but we will have to wait to see if they are borne out by results. For example, the promise of three million new apprenticeships would make a significant difference – if they are truly high quality and targeted at young people.
Apprenticeship performance in recent years teaches us to be cautious. In 2012 for example, Boris Johnson pledged 250,000 new apprenticeships by 2016. With less than a year to go we’re not even half way.
Add to that the fact that almost half (44 per cent)(p.21) of the 96,500 apprenticeships started in London between 2012 and 2014 went to people aged over 25 with many of them more akin to subsidised in-work training than entry level roles.
The popularity of apprenticeships actually illustrates my wider point. The latest figures show that in London there are 17 people chasing each apprenticeship. Far from the work-shy myth perpetuated by some, young people are clearly eager to get into work, willing even to tolerate the pitiful minimum wage of £2.73 per hour which uniquely applies to apprentices.
Giving unemployed young people a work-skills ‘bootcamp’ might be useful in some cases (and sounds tough) but it doesn’t magic up the jobs they want and need. Nor does it solve the underlying skills problem and explain why government is cutting investment in soft skills and careers guidance at school.
What this new scheme looks like in practice will tell a lot about the government’s intentions. Are we talking high quality training or simply a tough-sounding tick box? One breeds results, the other a throwaway headline. By implying it is young people’s fault rather than a failure of government when they can’t get the job, the Conservatives are building up excuses in advance for their failure to deliver for the young unemployed. This is neither helpful or acceptable.
Fiona Twycross AM is Labour’s London Assembly Economy Spokesperson. Follow her on Twitter
Want to read more posts like this? Then *sign-up to Look Left* and make sure you have the facts to rebut right-wing spin
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
14 Responses to “The government’s ‘boot camp’ idea is built on myths”
Harold
Whats wrong with Jane Austin, perhaps some of the writing could develop the characters more and some of the TV adaptations have been lacking, but over all quite an important contribution to the English Language. I do not a lot of the UKIP/EDL/BNP commentators on social media struggle with the written word, punctuation and spelling being particularly week, I first though this was a code or a sign of belonging to the “Patriotic” right, but it appears I was wrong, it is more a badge of pride.
When I started work you worked Monday to Friday 8 till 5, the shops shut at 5 and Saturday afternoon along with all day Sunday. Now it is 24/7, much more night working, early shifts starting at 4am or earlier, supermarkets open all night, and the dreaded Sunday opening. Consequently if you factor in zero hours it is no longer a surprise to see many people about during the day.
Economically paying low wages and ignoring Health and safety issues is really a non starter, I just cannot see how you could have some people protected at work and others not, would give the employer flexibility when needing to cut corners. Recently where the my wife works there were two contractors put to work in a deep pit without the safety precautions in place, one became unwell due to the fumes an ambulance was called but he was ok, the contractors supervisor was dismissed. Obviously we could avoid costly H&S but it might cause other problems, just imaging the local press getting hold of a story where 15 year olds were at risk.
GhostofJimMorisson
What incentive is there for the government to invest in apprenticeships when it’s far easier and cheaper to import skilled East Europeans? A question often raised then quickly dismissed as bigotry and anti-immigrant.
DemSoc93
It’s only anti-immigrant if you’re blaming the immigrants for that situation and not the bosses who’ll go anywhere and rip off anyone for a cheap deal.
DemSoc93
For God’s sake, you Neanderthal, it’s Jane Austen.
“Where do they work, I wonder?”
It’s likely they can’t find a job (see article above), ” for example since 2010 there has been a 49 per cent rise in the number of young BME people unemployed for a year or more.”
1. I agree there should be more vocational education, though I wouldn’t use the phrase “male subjects” because its 2015.
2. What does “cut benefits til they’ve earned them” even mean? Almost everyone on them is there because they need them. And your other solution is to get rid of labour regulation and minimum wage legislation people struggled for years to establish? Are you real?
3. Why on earth would male teachers make a difference?
4. I don’t necessarily think they should be allowed to leave but they should be allowed to take up some vocational education outside the classroom as not everyone’s academic.
Dave Stewart
Being old doesn’t give you the automatic right to be listened to. Especially if you are talking rubbish.
Respect is earned.