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.

Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Show Hide image

What Donald Trump could learn from Ronald Reagan

Reagan’s candidacy was built on more than his celebrity. Trump not only lacks experience as an elected official, he isn’t part of any organised political movement.

“No one remembers who came in second.” That wisdom, frequently dispensed by the US presidential candidate Donald Trump, came back to haunt him this week. Trump’s loss in the Iowa Republican caucuses to the Texas senator Ted Cruz, barely beating Senator Marco Rubio of Florida for second place, was the first crack in a campaign that has defied all expectations.

It has been a campaign built on Trump’s celebrity. Over the past eight months, his broad name recognition, larger-than-life personality and media savvy have produced a theatrical candidacy that has transfixed even those he repels. The question now is whether that celebrity will be enough – whether a man so obsessed with being “Number One” can bounce back from defeat.

Iowa isn’t everything, after all. It didn’t back the eventual Republican nominee in 2008 or 2012. Nor, for that matter, in 1980, when another “celebrity” candidate was in the mix. That was the year Iowa picked George H W Bush over Ronald Reagan – the former actor whom seasoned journalists dismissed as much for his right-wing views as for his “B-movie” repertoire. But Reagan regrouped, romped to victory in the New Hampshire primary and rode a wave of popular support all the way to the White House.

Trump might hope to replicate that success and has made a point of pushing the Reagan analogy more generally. Yet it is a comparison that exposes Trump’s weaknesses and his strengths.

Both men were once Democrats who came later in life to the Republican Party, projecting toughness, certainty and unabashed patriotism. Trump has even adopted Reagan’s 1980 campaign promise to “make America great again”. Like Reagan, he has shown he can appeal to evangelicals despite question marks over his religious conviction and divorces. In his ability to deflect criticism, too, Trump has shown himself as adept as Reagan – if by defiance rather than by charm – and redefined what it means to be “Teflon” in the age of Twitter.

That defiance, however, points to a huge difference in tone between Reagan’s candidacy and Trump’s. Reagan’s vision was a positive, optimistic one, even as he castigated “big government” and the perceived decline of US power. Reagan’s America was meant to be “a city upon a hill” offering a shining example of liberty to the world – in rhetoric at least. Trump’s vision is of an America closed off from the world. His rhetoric invokes fear as often as it does freedom.

On a personal level, Reagan avoided the vituperative attacks that have been the hallmark of Trump’s campaign, even as he took on the then“establishment” of the Republican Party – a moderate, urban, east coast elite. In his first run for the nomination, in 1976, Reagan even challenged an incumbent Republican president, Gerald Ford, and came close to defeating him. But he mounted the challenge on policy grounds, advocating the so-called “Eleventh Commandment”: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” Trump, as the TV debates between the Republican presidential candidates made clear, does not subscribe to the same precept.

More importantly, Reagan in 1976 and 1980 was the leader of a resurgent conservative movement, with deep wells of political experience. He had been president of the Screen Actors Guild in the late 1940s, waging a campaign to root out communist infiltrators. He had gone on to work for General Electric in the 1950s as a TV pitchman and after-dinner speaker, honing a business message that resonated beyond the “rubber chicken circuit”.

In 1964 he grabbed headlines with a televised speech on behalf of the Republican presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater – a bright spot in Goldwater’s otherwise ignominious campaign. Two years later he was elected governor of California – serving for eight years as chief executive of the nation’s most populous state. He built a conservative record on welfare reform, law and order, and business regulation that he pushed on to the federal agenda when he ran for president.

All this is to say that Reagan’s candidacy was built on more than his celebrity. By contrast, Trump not only lacks experience as an elected official, he isn’t part of any organised political movement – which enhanced his “outsider” status, perhaps, but not his ground game. So far, he has run on opportunism, tapping in to popular frustration, channelled through a media megaphone.

In Iowa, this wasn’t enough. To win the nomination he will have to do much more to build his organisation. He will be hoping that in the primaries to come, voters do remember who came in second. 

This article first appeared in the 05 February 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Putin's war