The catch-22 holding back Britain’s youth

Our young people need businesses to take a fresh look at them – and at work experience, writes Crossrail's Valerie Todd.

The UK economy has struggled through recessions and weak recoveries for some time now, with uncertain hints of growth every few months. No one feels the impact of this more than young people, who have fewer opportunities than ever before to find jobs and get into work. There is an urgent need to create more job opportunities for young people, even if our finance teams shake their heads disapprovingly. Not doing so fails ultimately fails everyone.

Word of mouth communication is now the number one recruitment channel for employers. But this doesn’t work well for young people, who haven’t yet had time to build the right contacts, networks and social capital. Recruitment needs to become less about who you know, and more about what you know and what you can do. Otherwise, young people miss out – and so do employers.

Another structural barrier is experience. Contrary to popular belief, most employers who take on young people straight from education find them well prepared for work. Yet most businesses attach great value to experience when recruiting, to the detriment of other qualities such as attitude, common sense and willingness to learn. Lack of experience is the top reason why employers reject young hopefuls’ job applications. And there’s only one cure for it. A job.

Yet other structural changes have meant that the sorts of job where young people used to get their starts have been on the wane.  My first job doesn’t exist anymore. Does yours? With only one in four employers offering work experience and the intense competition for Saturday jobs, young people today are stuck in a catch-22 situation. 

Perhaps what we need is a refreshed understanding of work experience. Work experience needn’t just be a two-week placement in the summer holidays,  Employers can assist young people in a wide variety of ways,  for example through it can also include careers talks, site visits, help with interview technique,  and mentoring. The New Statesman is a great example of creative thinking about work experience.  Recognising that many graduates aren’t able to relocate for an internship, they are trialling "virtual work experience" placements. Editors mentor graduates remotely, working with them to develop their writing and publish articles on the New Statesman website. This kind of flexibility could give employers, especially smaller businesses who are starved of time and resource, more choice around how to build work experience and when and where to host it. It might also mean fewer 16 year-olds whose "work experience" consists of introducing hot water to tea bags. 

The shape of the labour market is also loaded against young people trying to get a job. Although the recession has led to subdued recruitment activity generally, employment in managerial and professional roles has grown by over 900,000 – and this growth is forecast to continue. Unfortunately, employers who specialise in these jobs don’t tend to recruit young people. When they do, they focus on graduates. We need to create more non-graduate routes into this kind of high skill work. Apprenticeships are a huge part of the solution here. Last week was National Apprenticeship Week; hopefully it served to emphasise the benefits apprentices can bring to business. 

At Crossrail, our passion for investing in young people is genuine and runs throughout whole business. Our pre-apprenticeship training, apprenticeship programmes and work placement schemes are creating a new generation of talent not only for Crossrail but for the wider UK construction industry. At TUCA (the Tunnelling and Underground Construction Academy) in Ilford, we have created a centre of excellence in tunnelling skills that will ensure that UK employees are in demand for major infrastructure programmes all over the world. What I have seen of our young apprentices leaves me with no doubt as to how vital they are to the business. They are enthusiastic, loyal and quick to learn. And, being from a technically minded generation, they are better than most at working with the computers and controls needed in tunnelling and construction.

There are so many challenges for young people trying to get into work today. I believe it’s time for the government, employers, schools and colleges to come together and tackle the youth employment challenge head on. If not, the economy risks losing out on the talent and skills of nearly a million young people. If that’s not bad enough, the consequences for young people themselves will be far more serious and long lasting.

The Crossrail shaft at Farringdon. Crossrail has trained a generation of tunnelling experts. Photograph: Getty Images

Valerie Todd is the talent and resources director for Crossrail.

Show Hide image

What it’s like to fall victim to the Mail Online’s aggregation machine

I recently travelled to Iraq at my own expense to write a piece about war graves. Within five hours of the story's publication by the Times, huge chunks of it appeared on Mail Online – under someone else's byline.

I recently returned from a trip to Iraq, and wrote an article for the Times on the desecration of Commonwealth war cemeteries in the southern cities of Amara and Basra. It appeared in Monday’s paper, and began:

“‘Their name liveth for evermore’, the engraving reads, but the words ring hollow. The stone on which they appear lies shattered in a foreign field that should forever be England, but patently is anything but.”

By 6am, less than five hours after the Times put it online, a remarkably similar story had appeared on Mail Online, the world’s biggest and most successful English-language website with 200 million unique visitors a month.

It began: “Despite being etched with the immortal line: ‘Their name liveth for evermore’, the truth could not be further from the sentiment for the memorials in the Commonwealth War Cemetery in Amara.”

The article ran under the byline of someone called Euan McLelland, who describes himself on his personal website as a “driven, proactive and reliable multi-media reporter”. Alas, he was not driven or proactive enough to visit Iraq himself. His story was lifted straight from mine – every fact, every quote, every observation, the only significant difference being the introduction of a few errors and some lyrical flights of fancy. McLelland’s journalistic research extended to discovering the name of a Victoria Cross winner buried in one of the cemeteries – then getting it wrong.

Within the trade, lifting quotes and other material without proper acknowledgement is called plagiarism. In the wider world it is called theft. As a freelance, I had financed my trip to Iraq (though I should eventually recoup my expenses of nearly £1,000). I had arranged a guide and transport. I had expended considerable time and energy on the travel and research, and had taken the risk of visiting a notoriously unstable country. Yet McLelland had seen fit not only to filch my work but put his name on it. In doing so, he also precluded the possibility of me selling the story to any other publication.

I’m being unfair, of course. McLelland is merely a lackey. His job is to repackage and regurgitate. He has no time to do what proper journalists do – investigate, find things out, speak to real people, check facts. As the astute media blog SubScribe pointed out, on the same day that he “exposed” the state of Iraq’s cemeteries McLelland also wrote stories about the junior doctors’ strike, British special forces fighting Isis in Iraq, a policeman’s killer enjoying supervised outings from prison, methods of teaching children to read, the development of odourless garlic, a book by Lee Rigby’s mother serialised in the rival Mirror, and Michael Gove’s warning of an immigration free-for-all if Britain brexits. That’s some workload.

Last year James King published a damning insider’s account of working at Mail Online for the website Gawker. “I saw basic journalism standards and ethics casually and routinely ignored. I saw other publications’ work lifted wholesale. I watched editors...publish information they knew to be inaccurate,” he wrote. “The Mail’s editorial model depends on little more than dishonesty, theft of copyrighted material, and sensationalism so absurd that it crosses into fabrication.”

Mail Online strenuously denied the charges, but there is plenty of evidence to support them. In 2014, for example, it was famously forced to apologise to George Clooney for publishing what the actor described as a bogus, baseless and “premeditated lie” about his future mother-in-law opposing his marriage to Amal Alamuddin.

That same year it had to pay a “sizeable amount” to a freelance journalist named Jonathan Krohn for stealing his exclusive account in the Sunday Telegraph of being besieged with the Yazidis on northern Iraq’s Mount Sinjar by Islamic State fighters. It had to compensate another freelance, Ali Kefford, for ripping off her exclusive interview for the Mirror with Sarah West, the first female commander of a Navy warship.

Incensed by the theft of my own story, I emailed Martin Clarke, publisher of Mail Online, attaching an invoice for several hundred pounds. I heard nothing, so emailed McLelland to ask if he intended to pay me for using my work. Again I heard nothing, so I posted both emails on Facebook and Twitter.

I was astonished by the support I received, especially from my fellow journalists, some of them household names, including several victims of Mail Online themselves. They clearly loathed the website and the way it tarnishes and debases their profession. “Keep pestering and shaming them till you get a response,” one urged me. Take legal action, others exhorted me. “Could a groundswell from working journalists develop into a concerted effort to stop the theft?” SubScribe asked hopefully.

Then, as pressure from social media grew, Mail Online capitulated. Scott Langham, its deputy managing editor, emailed to say it would pay my invoice – but “with no admission of liability”. He even asked if it could keep the offending article up online, only with my byline instead of McLelland’s. I declined that generous offer and demanded its removal.

When I announced my little victory on Facebook some journalistic colleagues expressed disappointment, not satisfaction. They had hoped this would be a test case, they said. They wanted Mail Online’s brand of “journalism” exposed for what it is. “I was spoiling for a long war of attrition,” one well-known television correspondent lamented. Instead, they complained, a website widely seen as the model for future online journalism had simply bought off yet another of its victims.