Alan Milburn / neets / youth unemployment

[PeteTheNeet]

I’m just reading with interest Alan Milburn’s article in the daily mail about an upcoming report which examines the reasons for rising youth unemployment.
Alan says of his first job delivering newspapers:

"I learned more from that than any lesson in school – the importance of turning up and getting on with it, even when I didn't feel like it.
Those early experiences used to be a rite of passage. Saturday jobs. Summer work. First proper pay packets in brown envelopes. The first taste of independence and pride. But today, entry-level roles are disappearing. Retail jobs – the biggest employer of Britain's young people – have been falling for a decade.
Walk into a supermarket and you are more likely to scan your own shopping than speak to a cashier. Ordering a meal means scanning a QR code or using an app, rather than speaking to a waiter.
Offices that hired school leavers are using AI to do basic admin, customer service and even recruitment screening.
The very jobs that used to give young people their first step on the career ladder are disappearing. Which makes this crisis not just urgent but accelerating."

Yet as I see it, it isn’t Ai or self scanners or QR codes responsible for young people finding it difficult to access their first job, but restrictive employment legislation which has effectively made it illegal for under 18s to work in many of the jobs which were traditionally given to college aged kids (16-18).
For example my local authority states it is illegal for under 18s to work in any commercial kitchen , be it a chippy, cafe or anything else. Milk rounds are also banned , probably for good reason.
In fact it’s a good job that Alan Milburn uses his paper round as the example, because actually , that’s seemingly one of the few jobs young people are legally allowed these days.
Aibu to think that restrictive employment legislation is as much to blame as Ai?
My teens have all had part time jobs in the last few years which would have counted as illegal by local authority standards. Making toasties and serving ice cream from a commercial kitchen , working late in a pub waiting tables, etc. They’ve all gone on to full time employment and every time the employer has appreciated their ‘work ethic’.
But how can young people get a good work ethic if they’re not allowed to work ?

I think Oxbridge graduates are very aware of what you’ve said here. They will have thought long and hard about why they want to do the course they’ve chosen and why they want to go to Oxford/Cambridge.

I don’t think they’re assuming they have an edge over anyone just because they went to Oxford/Cambridge.

I think the rigour of the courses still counts for something, especially in competitive and demanding professions like law and banking, but that’s the only difference in my opinion.

Here is an example of another job that has changed recently

Friend applied for PT job to deliver prescriptions & other items from local GP surgery to patients in local area & to other GPs.

Had DBS

Had clean license

However, GP surgery was not providing a vehicle.
Hunted internet for cheapest insurance which included carrying goods & deliveries & the insurance was 3 x times normal price !

They had to turn down the job, because it was not economically viable with non guaranteed hours & huge insurance cost.

Evidently, all delivery people should have this type of insurance

Oxford and Cambridge students absolutely can work, they just can't do external paid work during term time. Since the terms are only 8 weeks long (and so are too intense to manage a part-time job), this is only 24 weeks a year where they can't do work (though they can get jobs within the university that will take into account their workload, e.g. shifts in the porters lodge, shifts in tourism to the colleges, work for fundraising, shifts in the college libraries, working at open days or outreach events). And nearly all of them do paid work over the vacations, and especially over the summer.

Yes, absolutely. They just can’t work during term time. I’m sorry for not being clear about that in my previous posts!

My own experience of interviewing around 100 people a year for placement and graduate vacancies is generally not reflective of that. Not always, but mostly.

I can't speak for other professions or industries.

Rather than listening to a bunch of idiots who fell into government by accident and have done nothing more in their previous lives than rob a wage in the public sector or worked in charities.

Think you meant to post this in the Daily Mail comments section.

Ref comment about Oxford & Cambridge students

Surely they can work in the summer holidays ?

Quite - there is no typing pool any more. There are no secretaries. There isn't even the tea lady. In my industry (IT), there used to be thousands of entry level jobs for school leavers - effectively clerical jobs ensuring printers were fed with paper, tapes and disk packs were in the right place at the right time, punched card stacks were filed and tagged. Many of these jobs were done by young women, who could then, if they showed aptitude, do some night school courses and work their way up the corporate ladder.

Now of course, you need a degree to get started in IT as these entry level jobs have been automated out of existence - and even now, the entry level graduate stuff (simple coding tasks, running tests, documentation) can all be done by AI, so we are simply recruiting far fewer new graduates.

Every previous industrial and technological revolution has (eventually) created more jobs than it destroyed. I fear that the current automation and AI revolution is very different.

I always think that is balanced up by online shopping. Staff not on tills but doing your shopping and delivering it. Not sure if it actually does balance up.

I live on the coast. 16 year olds tend to get lifeguard qualification, takes a week, and then they get adult NMW and as many hours as they want from Easter to September. My son did and then GC and all their friends. It's also a job that shows a high level of responsibility.

That’s strange! Why do you find that? I’m really curious.

Yes, they can - you’re right.

Because those who want to work in my industry try and align their course and placement with it. If they want to work in major infrastructure in civil engineering they'd be on the back foot having the first couple of years of their course covering things that aren't relative, given they'd usually go out for placement on the back of that.

Put simply, as well as having the grades I want candidates to demonstrate independence, drive, aptitude, ability to problem solve, ability to work well with others (and under pressure), to have a realistic view of what the job is and what site life is like, to be vaguely familiar with the tech and software we use and to be able to demonstrate some sort of related experience be it work or applying their learnt knowledge to an infrastructure based project. I know the courses that have the best relatable content, the most hands on use of kit and the project delivery that best aligns with what the job actually is.

Thanks for clarifying. I think I understand.

It sounds like you’re implying - as you haven’t directly said this - that Oxford and Cambridge degrees value academics over practical experience. Is that fair to say? I do agree they are more academic than practical.

I think it’s a tad unfair to suggest Oxford or Cambridge graduates don’t show the qualities you list here (independence, drive, aptitude, ability to problem solve, ability to work well with others - and under pressure). I’d actually say Oxford/Cambridge’s application process actively aims to find young people with those skills or potential in those areas, as the rigour and challenges of their degrees requires people with those skills.

No. They're more aligned with research routes than with being a civil engineer.

And it isn't unfair. It is my experience of interviewing a lot of people that those qualities are less apparent (generally, not always).

I recommend volunteering

This can sometimes lead to paid work

Provides opportunities to learn new skills, meet people, widen circle, good to put on CV

Both my girls had jobs at 16, but before this, they were (are) active members of the scout movement, and this helped a lot.
As well as the lack of entry level jobs, a lot of young people (school leavers) completely lack the skills required. Communication, time keeping, attendance, resilience, respect, work ethic. A large proportion say that they have poor mental health or neuro divergence that means they can't work. They are on Pip so don't need to work.
Then there is this belief that all they need is a cv created on indeed, when infact they need to be able to fill in an on line form.
I have worked in FE for a long time, and there has been a big decline in employable young people. They just don't have the skills. My students need to do 150 hours work experience. Some of them can't even do that because despite an employer giving them the chance, it makes them anxious or someone looked at them funny, or they were asked to clean up. This problem isn't education, its life skills, and the funding for helping young people overcome their barriers is not there.

Hi there,

MNers on this thread might be interested to know that that next week Justine will be sitting down with Alan Milburn to talk about his report and ask him your questions. If you've got something you'd like to ask, please do head to this thread and post it there.

Thanks,
MNHQ

It's a generational thing. Each generation is less employable than the previous. It's only going to get worse.

The most successful of my friends kids (early 20s) didn't go to uni or get jobs as teens, they made their own opportunities. One set up a charity, another spent her time designing websites for companies for free to create a portfolio to demonstrate competence and move into her first web dev role. Both of these kids lived at home and were supported by parents until they could start to pay themselves or earn. It could be a change in the 'family contract'. Instead of, I expect you to get on the first rung of the job ladder, move out and up etc, maybe it's trading a few more years of support in exchange for kids demonstrating their motivation and commitment.

It says in the Bible, "If man shall not work, neither shall he eat". That was the case n the Victorian era. We have been going down hill ever since.

Perhaps we should be sending all these young people up chimneys. And open up some workhouses.

In the Victorian Era women couldn't vote, 1 in 5 children didn't reach their first birthday, life expectancy was about half of what it is now, divorce was practically impossible, etc

Going downhill from there? You're having a laugh