Good time for skill and nation building

Tashyboy

Money List Winner
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
13,783
I thought the FT piece posted by mudball was excellent, it has 1 like ( me) and one other comment. It hits the nail firmly on the head.
The piece/story about Tesco was only partly true. What it failed to say was it sub contracted its class 1 drivers to get a lower haulage costs. Drivers left in droves. Now it is struggling for drivers. I knew last year that Me and Missis T would catch Covid, the week before Xmas my son delivered to Essex, Kent and Wales. It was rammed with Covid, guess what lad was diagnosed with On Boxing Day, Covid.
The important read for me in the FT piece was 9 hour shifts that can take 15 hours. It’s is true, the work and lifestyle balance is shocking and yet companies did pay a pittance for that role to be fulfilled. The shortage of lorry drivers is the tip of the iceberg re the Problem of skilled workforce in the Uk.
 

Tashyboy

Money List Winner
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
13,783
RE the bit in bold - It is the taxpayer that is saddled with most of the student loan debt! A quick internet search to a reputable site suggests only 25% of loans are paid back in full.
My old boss from years ago, her son trained to be a solicitor. He got a student loan to buy a car as it was the cheapest way to do it.
 

Rooter

Money List Winner
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
10,180
Location
Newbury
Thames Valley Police are recruiting for new bobbies on the beat. Must have a degree... WTF!!??

They do have a route in for non-degree educated, but that involves basically being an apprentice while studying for a degree.

I didn't go to uni and I am doing ok, currently getting paid to rant on a golf forum, and I don't even golf anymore!! Living the dream!
 

Hobbit

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Messages
16,010
Location
Espana
Been dipping in and out of the thread for a read this last few days.

First of all the skill shortage. In effect, the need has already been identified. But what about the training? In the main, the courses are there, just not enough of them, nor enough candidates. But how about moving some of the money around, and making targeted training free. Ramp up the training to get people through it quicker.

The answers, in that respect, seem quite simple. So what is missing? Political will, employers not having the budget for it, making the prospects more attractive? Whatever, it won’t be put right overnight.
 

Tashyboy

Money List Winner
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
13,783
Thames Valley Police are recruiting for new bobbies on the beat. Must have a degree... WTF!!??

They do have a route in for non-degree educated, but that involves basically being an apprentice while studying for a degree.

I didn't go to uni and I am doing ok, currently getting paid to rant on a golf forum, and I don't even golf anymore!! Living the dream!
A good pal of mine has gone down this route to try and join Derbyshire police, he is ex serviceman, his aim is to join firearms. Had an interview, but said it was tough. He is a PCSO at the moment to gain experience
 

Neilds

Assistant Pro
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
1,354
Location
Wiltshire
Been dipping in and out of the thread for a read this last few days.

First of all the skill shortage. In effect, the need has already been identified. But what about the training? In the main, the courses are there, just not enough of them, nor enough candidates. But how about moving some of the money around, and making targeted training free. Ramp up the training to get people through it quicker.

The answers, in that respect, seem quite simple. So what is missing? Political will, employers not having the budget for it, making the prospects more attractive? Whatever, it won’t be put right overnight.
As you say, who is going to pay for this training? I agree that it is a good idea but the Magic Money Tree must be looking very bare at the moment as it has been pruned to within an inch of its life recently!
 
Thread starter #28

Mudball

Assistant Pro
Joined
Sep 21, 2017
Messages
2,805
Been dipping in and out of the thread for a read this last few days.

First of all the skill shortage. In effect, the need has already been identified. But what about the training? In the main, the courses are there, just not enough of them, nor enough candidates. But how about moving some of the money around, and making targeted training free. Ramp up the training to get people through it quicker.

The answers, in that respect, seem quite simple. So what is missing? Political will, employers not having the budget for it, making the prospects more attractive? Whatever, it won’t be put right overnight.
There is no single answer to the situation. It needs different levers with different timeframes - and all should be done within a plan. Some thoughts

Short term: We may need some kind of overseas people to come and fill the gap. It may not be politically palatable, but it might the quickest way to ensure bread and toilet paper is available. Even the fabled Aussie point based system, keep updating the skills allowed into the country. Some years it will sparkies, others years its panel beaters or techies or dentist or HGV drivers.

Medium term: Ramp up testing and certification of skills which ae available but not able to do the job. e.g HGV certification backlog

Longer term: Reconsider our skills program - university, apprentice, unions & pay (the dutch HGV example from the FT).

I am sure there are cleverer people than me who can figure this out, but we seem to be putting band aid across problems - sometimes due to the 'political optics' and next elections.
 

Hobbit

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Messages
16,010
Location
Espana
As you say, who is going to pay for this training? I agree that it is a good idea but the Magic Money Tree must be looking very bare at the moment as it has been pruned to within an inch of its life recently!
Yes the money tree is bare but as I said, “move some money around.” It isn’t always about finding ‘new’ money. What is it costing employers? If people are choosing to stay on benefits, too much is being paid to them - where’s the incentive?

Here in Spain you get 1 month of benefits without restriction. From month 2 onwards you get your benefits but are required to work, under supervision, clearing litter/sweeping the streets/maintaining the parks flowers etc, with a set time put aside to chase a job. But why not give the claimant a list of courses and say, “pick one.” Don’t pass the course = benefits reduced by 15%.
 

Hobbit

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Messages
16,010
Location
Espana
There is no single answer to the situation. It needs different levers with different timeframes - and all should be done within a plan. Some thoughts

Short term: We may need some kind of overseas people to come and fill the gap. It may not be politically palatable, but it might the quickest way to ensure bread and toilet paper is available. Even the fabled Aussie point based system, keep updating the skills allowed into the country. Some years it will sparkies, others years its panel beaters or techies or dentist or HGV drivers.

Medium term: Ramp up testing and certification of skills which ae available but not able to do the job. e.g HGV certification backlog

Longer term: Reconsider our skills program - university, apprentice, unions & pay (the dutch HGV example from the FT).

I am sure there are cleverer people than me who can figure this out, but we seem to be putting band aid across problems - sometimes due to the 'political optics' and next elections.
Absolutely, there’s no single answer. If it was that simple, govt ministers would read the forum:ROFLMAO:. A 5 min paragraph barely touches a solution.
 

Neilds

Assistant Pro
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
1,354
Location
Wiltshire
Yes the money tree is bare but as I said, “move some money around.” It isn’t always about finding ‘new’ money. What is it costing employers? If people are choosing to stay on benefits, too much is being paid to them - where’s the incentive?

Here in Spain you get 1 month of benefits without restriction. From month 2 onwards you get your benefits but are required to work, under supervision, clearing litter/sweeping the streets/maintaining the parks flowers etc, with a set time put aside to chase a job. But why not give the claimant a list of courses and say, “pick one.” Don’t pass the course = benefits reduced by 15%.
Stop talking sense and using logic - you are on a golf forum!!!!!

:):):)

My other half works in Benefits and has done for about 20 years in various local authorities. In this time the people employed to counter fraud has been cut massively - at her current job the Fraud Team(?) is 1 person, part time! Jobs were cut to save money but has cost much more in fraudulent claims, especially during the current pandemic. All because it would be 'unfair' to make people wait a little while until the proper checks have been done.
 

Hobbit

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Messages
16,010
Location
Espana
Stop talking sense and using logic - you are on a golf forum!!!!!

:):):)

My other half works in Benefits and has done for about 20 years in various local authorities. In this time the people employed to counter fraud has been cut massively - at her current job the Fraud Team(?) is 1 person, part time! Jobs were cut to save money but has cost much more in fraudulent claims, especially during the current pandemic. All because it would be 'unfair' to make people wait a little while until the proper checks have been done.
I’m not suggesting fraudsters are targeted. Those that avoid work because it doesn’t suit them. Sorry but if you’re fit for work and can’t find something you’re happy with, clear the litter. But we’re getting away from upskilling and rebuilding.
 

BiMGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
1,992
I’m not suggesting fraudsters are targeted. Those that avoid work because it doesn’t suit them. Sorry but if you’re fit for work and can’t find something you’re happy with, clear the litter. But we’re getting away from upskilling and rebuilding.
I wouldn't waste my time with that group. Yes it's annoying to the rest of the hardworking population, but small beans in the grand scheme of things.

The money and effort spent chasing them would be better spent educating and training those that want to work. That is where the value is.

HGV drivers are just the tip of the iceberg. Try finding skills construction workers and engineers. These people can't be fast tracked into being productive doing a few weeks on a training course for a few £k.
 
Last edited:

Voyager EMH

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
1,038
Location
Leicestershire
I wouldn't wast my time with that group. Yes it's annoying to the rest of the hardworking population, but small beans in the grand scheme of things.

The money and effort spent chasing them would be better spent educating and training those that want to work. That is where the value is.

HGV drivers are just the tip of the iceberg. Try finding skills construction workers and engineers. These people can't be fast tracked into being productive doing a few weeks on a training course for a few £k.
This is the post that I have least issue with, so far.
Many of the other posts are highly politically contentious and I don't know how this thread is being allowed to continue.
Nevertheless, I'm going to join in.
If calling poor people "leeches" is acceptable on this forum then so should landlords be described as such as they are the biggest recipients of a benefit after the state pension. (Housing benefit goes to landlords not poor people) Universal credit and/or jobseekers allowance is only a fraction of the benefits paid to landlords in comparison. Who are the leeches again?
Increase the stock of local authority housing and the housing benefit goes to the local authority, not private landlords, keeping everyone's council tax bill down.
Vilifying and blaming poor people for the ills of the economy is just plain silly.
We are not short of people ready, willing and able to fill employment needs. They merely need the means to do so, quickly and efficiently. (The thread title reference)
Higher wages = lower benefits paid out. The majority of benefit claimants are already in employment.
Well, there's my political comment. I hope it has provided some balance. That was my intent. I mean no slight to any individual here.
 

Hobbit

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Messages
16,010
Location
Espana
This is the post that I have least issue with, so far.
Many of the other posts are highly politically contentious and I don't know how this thread is being allowed to continue.
Nevertheless, I'm going to join in.
If calling poor people "leeches" is acceptable on this forum then so should landlords be described as such as they are the biggest recipients of a benefit after the state pension. (Housing benefit goes to landlords not poor people) Universal credit and/or jobseekers allowance is only a fraction of the benefits paid to landlords in comparison. Who are the leeches again?
Increase the stock of local authority housing and the housing benefit goes to the local authority, not private landlords, keeping everyone's council tax bill down.
Vilifying and blaming poor people for the ills of the economy is just plain silly.
We are not short of people ready, willing and able to fill employment needs. They merely need the means to do so, quickly and efficiently. (The thread title reference)
Higher wages = lower benefits paid out. The majority of benefit claimants are already in employment.
Well, there's my political comment. I hope it has provided some balance. That was my intent. I mean no slight to any individual here.
I used leeches and I’m quite happy with the context, which maybe you missed. I don’t have a problem with people being on benefits, and as I have said in numerous posts down the years I’m quite happy to see tax rises to pay more benefits.

My gripe is with those who make no effort to gain employment, preferring benefits to be a lifestyle choice. Nowhere did I blame poor people, nor did I vilify them. You read that into it.

Targeted training, and funding it is the issue for upskilling. Have created the courses, assuming funding is available, I’m sure that some who avoid work will see the benefit of training.
 

Whereditgo

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
1,772
Location
East Yorkshire, UK
I wouldn't waste my time with that group. Yes it's annoying to the rest of the hardworking population, but small beans in the grand scheme of things.

The money and effort spent chasing them would be better spent educating and training those that want to work. That is where the value is.

HGV drivers are just the tip of the iceberg. Try finding skills construction workers and engineers. These people can't be fast tracked into being productive doing a few weeks on a training course for a few £k.
Agree with this.

There is a huge shortage of experienced tradesmen in the 30 to 40 age bracket, this particular part of the problem has been coming for a number of years, nothing to do with recent events. Apprenticeships used to be 5 years, businesses would view their annual apprentice intake as cheap labour for the first two years (rightly or wrongly), apprenticeships nowadays are 3 years and its even possible to fast track over two years, effectively resulting in poorly trained tradesmen with no experience commanding high wages.

In terms of university education, it seems to be going to university is seen as some sort of 'rites of passage' with too many doing worthless (in the real world) degree courses, while enjoying the experience. We have struggled to fill posts at junior engineer level for years now, the few that have been appointed have fallen woefully short of the required standard, both in terms of technical knowledge and attitude and this includes several degree qualified people.
 

Voyager EMH

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
1,038
Location
Leicestershire
To write about people as "leeches" is to vilify them. "Vilify" means to write or speak about in a disparaging way.
One is entitled to have this view of poor people who are not gainfully employed and making little effort to be so.
I do not hold that view. Nor would I use disparaging terms to describe poor people. I see them as unfortunate and in need of help and direction for a better life.
I believe to use such terms is not constructive for a balanced view of the bottom end of society.
Everyone is entitled to their own view and I mean no slight to anyone here. Let us express our differing views without malice.
Landlords "choose" to rent out property to poor people and receive benefits (housing benefit) for doing so. This is their lifestyle choice to receive state handouts for owning property.
I would describe them (landlords) as "fortunate" rather than "leeches". At least they provide accommodation to poor people, which can be viewed as a good thing. Balanced view.
 

pauljames87

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Apr 1, 2016
Messages
11,148
Location
Havering
We have just (finally) launch a direct recruit apprenticeship for my grade. Hopefully means long term we will get 12-20 (depending a how many they take on and b how many cut it) of us filling vacancies

There is such a high failure rate that retirements are now affecting us more and we have seen in recent weeks the met line for example not be able to run due to lack of us as there is only so much overtime people can do without constantly being at work .. too many positions available accross the network

My lines about to get 5 due to a new desk opening for the extention but we got 3 trainees .. then we got 2 promotions and 3 retiring soon it's going to open it up again..however we are one of the more well staffed lines so under 25% the roster missing is low

These apprentices will learn so much and hopefully make the step up whilst we take on our normal 50 or so a year that normally about 5 pass but coming in and training for 2 years before doing the 12 months training is a much better position to start from
 

theoneandonly

Active member
Joined
Jan 7, 2021
Messages
211
Location
Here there and everywhere
When you’ve got people actively staying on benefits/universal credit, and DWP supporting them to do so, you have a failing system. And when those that have chosen to go down that path are whining that they want their benefits increasing, but have chosen to stay on that benefit, you have a failing of social responsibility.

We pay the taxes that pay those benefits. The govt might decide the mechanism and the value but we fund them. And some on here say it’s right…

We have lots of opportunities but it needs that state and those who desire to improve their lives to take up those opportunities.

What we dońt need is the leeches of society taking the very funding that could be better used on those that want to make an effort. Those that need it, no problem, and I’d even take a tax increase to better fund it. Those that chose benefits as a way of life, I wouldńt even pee on in a good fire.
Lazy post inspired by lazy journalism.

Sad, but the usual way any discussion on benefits goes.
 
Top