Have Your Say

Until they know and accept the cause, this is not going to change.

I have said before and repeat that the issue for employers and their staff is wage parity. No person in their 30s+ with kids wants to be standing next to a 16-year-old and being paid almost the same wages.

Before the clown from the tractor starts, let’s just make the point that there is a threshold at which point it’s more profitable to go offshore.
That threshold is determined by a number of things, the most important of which is the competition in the marketplace.
If you are making something similar to what can be imported for way less money, then the answer is offshore, you go.
Wages are a major factor in most businesses. So unless they are in line, then we lose.

Regulations and things like cost of capital and depreciation etc, are other factors.

Now you may argue, for example, that in my case we have very little competition, but that’s not true. Imported, ready-made made cheap products are one area where that comes from.

Years ago we made a comparison between breakfast and lunch foods. Bread was a big staple back then. Indeed, it was the largest category in the food chain. The size of that category has shrunk because of the other products in the market, and that despite very real rationalisation of the production (at the cost of innovation, I might add.)

The unions and their socialist, communist mates removed youth rates.
Now, with the best will in the world, no 16-17-18-year-old kid has the nous needed to do most jobs. They need training. (Indeed, some of their parents are in that state as well).

We have listened to several years of whining about not enough people to do trained jobs. Well, that’s never been a surprise to me. No one wanted to train even in good times because it simply cost too much without any recognition of the cost of doing that. They decided to add a training wage, but to be honest, that was unsuccessful for a lot of reasons.
Employers want to know it’s worth the effort to take a child and train them to become a useful adult, something that many of their parents never did. Worse, of course, was that they simply diverted money and attention to failing polytechs and hooked those who went there to train with student loans. (you all know about).

Youth rates do not have to be a penalising issue, but need to be done in such a way that they recognise a trainees worth as they get trained.
The old apprenticeship system is a good guide.

Set out a timetable for training
Set out the training to be undergone and what the milestones for that training are.
Set out a wage reward that recognises the above.
Allow no bad practices, as the trainee must be subject to the normal employment laws, plus protection from those who just want someone cheap for a few months. That, of course, should be written into their employment agreement.

These rules can be mandated in law.

The old youth rates IIRC started at 60% of adult rates. At 16, that would mean you don’t have money to waste on fast cars and mad friends, so the community would be better off, along with the fact that many, after a day’s real work, would be just too tired to play merry hell. Many would remain at home as well.

Depression and suicides would go down as these kids would feel valued. Every kid, both girls and boys, needs a mentor. Going to work often provides that, especially for boys.

If every employer were able to add an extra young person to their staff because they could afford to, we would not have an unemployment problem at all.
It’s really that simple to solve.

I, for one, would take on 2.
What about you?

Invest in your future, or you won’t have one. Staff is part of that investment.

Anyone can jump out of a plane with a parachute, BUT do they know how to do it safely?
If they do, how did they get that knowledge?