Is it desirable, or even socially and technically acceptable, for the Job Centre to force unemployed computer programmers to retrain as bricklayers?

Andy Millar:

I'm guessing that becoming a bricklayer (if you can become a good one) is probably a pretty good career move?

It depends on how hard Brexit turns out to be.


In my locality eastern Europeans have taken over the majority of the mid-range building jobs. They are basically good enough for the type of jobs that they do and are prepared to work for lower wages than most British bricklayers are, so skills and expertise are not always a good trump card apart from in specialised situations like manholes.

Hi Roy,


That sounds like a good scheme. Up until a couple of years ago I was involved with both employers' associations and education groups looking at (amongst other things) engineering apprenticeships in my local area and sadly nothing similar ever quite happened as far as I know. Everyone was enthusiastic about apprenticeships, school leavers wanted them, the FE colleges were highly supportive (as they would be), but it was phenomenally difficult to turn employers good intentions into real places. The management was effectively carried out by the FE colleges, who really didn't have the clout or the resources to do much more than keep phoning us employers up hoping that we might have a long term placement available.


Once again, whilst revitalising engineering apprenticeships is an excellent idea, it's not going to work in the same way it did 50 years ago when there were big paternalistic companies to support it. I think it's actually quite a challenge to work out how it can work - but certainly not impossible. My experience in our area was that engineering employers wanted apprentice trained staff available, and were very happy to commit some time and resource to supporting this, but (with a few honourable exceptions) could not cope (or did not believe they could cope) with a long term commitment. So using a management organisation seems like a really good idea - used cleverly it should also give apprentices a chance to experience several different organisations rather than potentially being "stuck in a rut" with one company.


I don't know how typical the south west peninsula is of the rest of the UK, but down here a "major engineering employer" (other than the construction industry) is one with over 100 staff. Most engineering companies have far fewer than that. Getting experience in these small companies can actually be very interesting and worthwhile for both the apprentice and employer if it can be managed.


Interesting.


Thanks, Andy

Thank you all for your responses

I based the question from my experience within the building services sector - HVAC, M&E etc. There is huge demand and opportunity here but it has always struggled to get past the 'dirty plumber' image and I guess this puts the parents and youngsters off. However, there are many youngsters actively attending colleges off of their own backs who cannot secure important work experience. 

I speak to many employers in my travels and the general consensus is dismissive "because there's too much red tape". Assumption and misguided in many cases no doubt but in any case these SME's are clearly not being targeted as potential employers of apprentices. I understand that there is only so much effort one can go to in order to secure one or two trainees placements but a simpler system would help.

I'll continue to research this area as I am keen to see improvements.and hopefully more youngsters coming through the system with valuable skills.

It's daft when you stop and think about it - on one hand you have an industry crying out for talented people and on the other hand youngsters who can't get their feet through the door.

The fast track training routes are certainly not promoting the image of the industry in a positive way

Maybe I am misguided and there are such systems in place but if so clearly many others are similarly misguided.


Perhaps this is not a debate suitable for the IET but I argue that the advances in technology require competent people to install and maintain them once they are in the market place.

It is perhaps interesting to seek an understanding of how we got to where we are, but obviously more important to seek a solution.


In a sense Andy Miller nails it by referring to the loss of “big paternalistic companies”.  Without wishing to take a politically partisan view, the private ones were subject to increased global competition from emerging economies in particular from the 1970s and the public ones were privatised and broken up.  I was a CEGB Apprentice and later moved into the Training Department. The Electricity Supply Industry more widely, offered apprenticeships and ran its own training establishments in every area of the country. Others did similar things with industries like Coal and Steel underpinning several regions. I later worked for the BICC group, a dominant employer in some communities (e.g. Prescot Cables still play in the Northern Premier League). These training opportunities were decimated by the 1990s, with other effects, on career patterns, pensions etc.


The main policy response to equipping young people with skills was the expansion of Higher Education and there is a strong case that this has proved to be a success, albeit not an unqualified one.  Higher Education has itself become one of our most important “industries” which now underpins the economies of many Towns and Cities. The generation to benefit are better educated and equipped to compete where such attributes can be productively deployed.  However, the culture of academia generally and the incentives offered have tended to relatively undervalue, those parts of the further and higher education system that were more vocational in nature, such as Technical Colleges and Polytechnics who often worked closely with employers.


A policy shift (I hope influenced by people like me) has attempted to rebalance the system to increase employer’s power and influence, with messaging from government level that a good apprenticeship isn’t an “inferior” pathway, but implementation because it is a government initiative has been typically slow and hampered by red-tape; hopefully this will be overcome.  If you examine IET policy statements around these issues, I feel that we have understood the challenges and are on the whole acting a force for good, but there are many others still influential in PEIs who, as some used to say in my youth “wouldn’t recognise an apprentice if they found one in their cornflakes” and would just direct such persons to the “Tradesmen’s Entrance”. Forms of social and intellectual snobbery are an unfortunate side-effect of our current education system, with “social mobility” lower than it was 50 year ago. We have introduced political correctness which may have had some measure of success in tackling racist and sexist attitudes, but whatever anyone’s gender or ethnicity, without good career prospects they are at severe social disadvantage.  


In another country that provides many of our skilled workers, employers of any scale capable of offering proper work-based training are engaged with colleges who take responsibility for the training. The managing agent organisations in the UK act in that role, where colleges find this difficult. The same principal is employed for more academic preparation where universities have control.  As an employer from the apprenticeship tradition I tended to oppose the “provider led”, rather than “employer led” option, but if the quality is right then it doesn’t really matter.


The fundamental issues as I see it is how to incentivise collaboration, such as between smaller employers to achieve critical mass (e.g. “trade associations”), Technical Colleges and vocationally orientated Universities. I think that the IET has a potentially very useful role to play and is showing willing to do so. Lack of collaboration has been the greatest weakness, with inappropriate incentives creating dysfunctional competition for government funding, whilst often failing to serve the actual “coal-face” to ensure high quality skills training closely aligned to employer’s needs.  


One of the weaknesses of PEI’s that stems from their tradition as learned societies is to prioritise “learnedness” over “productivity”, if this occurs within the IET then it is perhaps something of a betrayal of that part of our heritage which was the Institution of Manufacturing Engineers of which “Industrial Engineering” was an essential element. Perhaps another casualty of change, or has it been “replaced” by IT or “systems engineering”?