They’re constantly cited
as a priceless first rung on the employment ladder in an economy with few jobs
and one of the few, true saving graces that could stall and even reverse the
escalating youth unemployment situation
in Britain.
Modern apprenticeship
schemes have made a dramatic comeback in the last few years. Since 2006 the
number of apprentices more than doubled, reaching 453,000 by the end of
2011. They’re the government’s palliative to a programme that hinges, in a seemingly
oppositional way, on cutbacks instead of investment for growth.
That the coalition is
advocating apprenticeships at a time when redundancy rates are high and the
ratio of job applications to available jobs is in some cases over 50 to
one could seem an
attempt to tackle unemployment especially amongst young people, of whom the
number now classed as not in employment, education or training (NEETS) has
skyrocketed in the last year.
Apprenticeships have
obvious benefits both to applicants and wider society. They provide the
opportunity to learn a trade and develop skills that in theory should be a
stepping stone to a stable, mapped out future career and ensure that countries
retain a substantial amount of industrial experts and that knowledge of key
skills are not lost.
The government believes
that many apprenticeships lead to better chances of secure employment upon
completion. On the Apprenticeship website they also state that on average
apprentices earn around £170 a week, well above the minimum rate of £97.50 for
37.5 hours of work.
Yet there are growing
concerns about the way some apprenticeships are operating in the UK, in the
context of a recession-ridden economy. Some have suggested that motives for
companies to hire apprentices in reality sometimes fit less with the idealised
images. Instead of recreating the celebrated old-style German apprenticeships
and implying that employers understand the need to adequately equip future
generations with the knowledge to continue to provide key skills to society
apprenticeships could serve a more self interested cost-cutting and
profit-saving intent.
The elephant in the room
is the government’s current dismantling of the welfare system, whose focus on
“workfare” is part of an enormous scheme to radically cut government spending.
By pushing the growth of apprenticeships the coalition pays less in JSA and a
reduced amount to apprentice employers in grants and learning fee costs,
thereby serving their aim of spending cuts quite well. On top of this is
the problem of how to ensure that apprenticeships equal secure employment at a
time when industries are cutting back and shedding jobs. In this way, could
apprenticeships be a sop thrown to make us think something is being done to
tackle unemployment when in reality it is just masking the problem?
Michael, 16, from
Liverpool, is currently employed at a large charity shop through the retail
apprenticeship scheme which he enrolled on in July this year. He is concerned
about the pay, his conditions at work alongside the value of his apprenticeship
and is considering leaving the course due to financial worries that have
worsened for himself and his family since starting as an apprentice.
“I work 37.5 hours a week
for £100 a week with around 20 other staff, most of who are on some sort of
work placement or volunteers. My auntie, who I live with, has lost around £70 a
week in benefits due to me going on this apprenticeship because I’m now classed
as being in full-time employment. The council has done things like deduct £3
per week from her housing benefit which I’ve been told I must now pay. I don’t
get any separate travel expenses so I’ve also got to pay for the two hours
travel per day out of my wages. By me going on this apprenticeship we’re worse
off than when I was in college so I’m considering leaving the scheme and going
back into education. People who are on an apprenticeship should be paid minimum
wage because they are working for and benefitting the company. £2.60 per hour
is pure slave labour.”
Michael’s concern over low
pay is not alone. Searches on social media sites such as Twitter reveal pages
of criticism over having to work for up to 50 hours a week on pay drastically below
minimum wage. Adam Fisher, 18, wants to start an apprenticeship as he believes
that in the long run the qualifications and training will be beneficial to him
but is reluctant to leave his current job due to doubts over whether he can
afford the large drop in income.
“Getting paid £2.60 per
hour is ridiculous. Skills training and practical
experience could help me start a better career but I don’t know how I will survive off £97 a week for doing 40 hours at the moment” , he said.
My cousin took an
apprenticeship in gardening in 2006, earning the then minimum £80 per week. Yet
after he qualified he continued to be paid the same rate even though he was
legally entitled to at least minimum wage, arguably more considering he’d
undertaken a two years skilled training course. Six years on, long after he
completed his initial training and specialised in one area as well as now
occasionally taking charge of the day-to-day jobs when his boss is away his pay
is well below what it should be, to the extent that he is still sometimes not
even being paid minimum wage.
Michael is not just
worried about his pay. He thinks that after he has completed his 12 month
apprenticeship the company won’t keep him on as a full time staff member.
“It’s been suggested to me
that I won’t be kept on after I’ve qualified because they don’t have it in
their budget. So basically the low pay now isn’t really justified because the
company, like other apprentice employers, has no obligation to offer jobs even
if apprentices successfully complete the course. I think I’ll find it
hard to find a job after the year with just this apprenticeship qualification
because competition for jobs is so tough in Liverpool. I think they’ve
started taking on apprentices because we’re cheap labour. There hasn’t been
much talk of creating actual jobs for people off the back of this.”
Losing your job to make
way for another apprentice seems common practice in certain workplaces. Michael
spoke of a friend who had undertaken an apprenticeship in hospitality and
catering at a restaurant, only to be told there were no jobs for him after he
successfully completed the course despite continuing to hire apprentices.
In some cases companies
have even been reported to have gone so far as sacking staff members to replace
them with the cheaper rate apprentices. In Manchester, Tom (not his real name)
was employed full time as an estate agent until his boss told him that he was
closing the business to move away. It was only when his dad drove past the same
estate agents a few weeks later he had been made redundant to find not only
that the shop was still open but that the team had been replaced with
apprentices. Lacking sufficient former staff members, the potential for the
apprentices to benefit from the scheme was also doubtful.
Earlier this year the Guardian reported that despite the haemorrhage
of jobs from British manufacturing and engineering firms such as BAE Systems
and Bombardier apprenticeship figures in the same industry had risen by 25%.
One explanation could be that companies are safeguarding profits in the short
term by taking on apprentices over already qualified members, instead of taking
on both, a strategy that could be short-sighted for the company and risks
dividing apprentices and existing employees.
It’s not just in these
ways that some apprenticeships have come under fire. The core component of
apprenticeships is adequate training to ensure that apprentices come away from
their placement with adequate training and skills to do a specific job well.
Employers, with financial help from the government should
have an adequate training programmes in place for apprentices. However in some
instances this has led to situation in which training providers, instead
of focusing on the highest quality content,undercut each other to provide the
cheapest service possible to employers to secure contracts. Without
substantial monitoring by the government to make sure this doesn't happen this
means that apprentices can sometimes come away without adequate training to
work their way up in their chosen field. In Michael’s case he believes that the
training in his apprenticeship has been inadequate.
“The training I’ve been
given has been pretty minimal; they trained me up to work on the shop
floor then stopped and college has said that they will just send me a work pack
out to complete at home to obtain my NVQ in retail and functional skills. I
applied to be a retail assistant; working on tills and focusing on customer
service but the manager is using me to do all the odd jobs that no one else
really wants to do, like cleaning the toilets and washing up used cutlery in
the staffroom.
“There are good
apprenticeships out there but I don’t think mine is one of them. If I had the
opportunity to move around different shops, work in the head office or even in
the fundraising department I’d have a much more rounded experience and a lot
more opportunities to specialise and progress in retail. It seems like the
managers haven’t bothered to create an adequate learning programme for the
apprentices which makes me question their motives behind offering
apprenticeships. I don’t think they took me on for the right reasons.
“The apprenticeship could
help me quite a lot in terms of getting an entry level job because it proves
that I have some experience but I’m missing a lot of the skills I’d have liked
to have gained to work my way up in retail. I think after a few weeks of
working at the shop I’d gained all the worthwhile experience it seems I’m going
to ever get whilst working there so now I just feel like I’m being kept on as
cheap labour. I don’t think that the qualifications themselves are that
important in themselves either, it looks like they just added the paper
qualification on to make it sound more official.”
Even Justin King, CEO of
Sainsbury’s parent company (J Sainsbury PLC), has commented on the ambiguous
makeup of some schemes doled out as “apprenticeships” to potential applicants.
He said: “I believe the word apprentice has
become hijacked. A lot of things masquerade as apprenticeships which are not
what you and I would recognise as an apprenticeship – learning a skill over an
extended period of time.”
Apprenticeships can be an
invaluable platform into a skilled career, if they offer the right sort of
training and prospects. Yet in some instances in Britain the term acts as
little more than a cover for government-endorsed cheap labour that struggles to
ensure secure employment for all those who successfully complete the courses or
even substantial training. The existence of unscrupulous, self-interested
apprentice employers suggests that the government is not actively ensuring that
apprenticeships are offered for the right reasons.
Apprenticeships
should be equipping people with adequate practical experience and knowledge to
become future experts in their fields. They should also be financially
practical, which the £2.60 rate is not, especially to those with existing jobs
and who have people who are dependent on their income. To make someone choose
between practical skills development and continuing their existing job with
which pays enough to make ends meet denies many people the opportunity to
become specialists in a certain role.
They should not be a tool
to reduce companies’ overheads, threaten existing employees jobs and offer
false hope of secure, long term employment to apprentices. They should also not
act as cut price JSA which could keep people in a continuous apprenticeship cycle in a society bereft of jobs or as an
indicator that the government is doing something to tackle the UK’s
unemployment problem. Without investment to create long-term jobs and develop
industries apprenticeships can’t resolve this issue. What they are doing is
hiding the reality of joblessness, particularly the real levels of youth
unemployment in the UK.
