Why are managers not recruiting 16 - 24 year olds?

[Philip Hoyle]

No. The role of education is to educate (surprisingly enough). It is the employers job to provide job specific training.

I don't think any business expects school-leavers to come to a job with job-specific knowledge/experience. On the job training is, and always has been, a given when it comes to school leavers.

BUT

Employers do require a bare minimum standard of the basics of numeracy and literacy and basic life skills.

When I've taken on school leavers (usually minimum A level standard), I've expected some basics, such as:-

If the job adverts asks for a hand written covering letter, that's exactly what I want - not a Word printed one.

Knowing how to spell February and how many days each month has. I really don't want to see a job application dated 31 Febuary - yet this is something I have seen from someone with a good grade at A Level English!

How to set out a business letter - I thought this was part of the English GCSE curriculum, but I've seen A grade students get virtually every aspect wrong.

How to spell basic frequently used words, such as licence, stationery, accommodation, etc.

How to work out how much VAT was paid if you spend £1.20 and VAT was included at 20%.

That when works starts at 9am, they are expected to be in the workplace and ready to work by 9am.

These aren't the kind of things I'd expect to have to re-teach to school-leavers after 11-13 years of state education, yet, time and time again, A level school-leavers that I've worked with havn't achieved even these simple basic standards so the employer has to waste time teaching non-job-specific workplace/life skills, when they should be providing proper on the job training.

The last time I took on a school-leaver, I made applicants sit a short basic literacy/numeracy test, taking questions from the 11+ papers which are pretty basic questions aimed at 10 year olds, and the results were quite frankly shocking, even from those with good A levels.

From clients who have likewise tried to take on school-leavers, the story is the same time and time again. Not turning up on time, or at all, not having basic common sense to do basic life skills yet alone workplace skills, entitlement culture, refusing to do the drudgery work, expecting to do the exciting work immediately, etc.

I know literally dozens of one man band businesses who could, and would, take on school-leavers as trainees/apprentices, but who've had their fingers burned in the past or heard horror stories from others, that instead of growing and passing on valuable skills to the next generation, they're just plodding on as one man bands. Very sad indeed.

 

[ScottishInvestments]

From my observations, companies love employing young people.

Young = Slave Labour Wage...

ScotInvest

 

[Fred_the_frog]

I used to own a pub, older women would see an empty glass on the table and think "its my job to clean that so i will go and get it", an 18 year old will be checking their phone, talking to people, staring out the window anything but using common sense and pulling their finger out.

Maybe if you used your common sense and told them to leave their phone in the back where they can't use it then they'd do the job.

 

[Amazin]

From my observations, companies love employing young people.

Young = Slave Labour Wage...

ScotInvest

Lot of the times, you get what you've paid for. I rather pay extra who someone who is reliable and trustworthy. It is hard to find that in that age group

 

[andygambles]

Lot of the times, you get what you've paid for. I rather pay extra who someone who is reliable and trustworthy. It is hard to find that in that age group

I don't think it is hard to find young hard working people. It tends to be the less academic that work harder. Usually because they have always had to.

The more academic tend to think they are owed more because of how clever they are.

That is a mass generalisation so take it with a pinch of salt.

 

[ScottishInvestments]

I don't think it is hard to find young hard working people. It tends to be the less academic that work harder. Usually because they have always had to.

The more academic tend to think they are owed more because of how clever they are.

That is a mass generalisation so take it with a pinch of salt.

I completely agree with this. It's certainly what I have come across.

ScotInvest

 

[Nuno]

From my observations, companies love employing young people.

Young = Slave Labour Wage...

ScotInvest

And these observations are from where?
I think this sort of statement sums up the entitlement culture that exists: you have to pay semi literate, innumerate youth a full, independent-adult wage regardless of their skillset, attitude or ability.
It ignores the basic reality of business: that employees have to pay their way as there is no magic money tree to pay them from.

Overall I think the main problem is education. We can't expect all kids of that age to be totally focused on career; hormones and immaturity will get in the way. However if they have core reading, writing and arithmetic skills most will be able to be of some use, and the better ones will shine.

 

[ScottishInvestments]

And these observations are from where?
I think this sort of statement sums up the entitlement culture that exists: you have to pay semi literate, innumerate youth a full, independent-adult wage regardless of their skillset, attitude or ability.
It ignores the basic reality of business: that employees have to pay their way as there is no magic money tree to pay them from.

Overall I think the main problem is education. We can't expect all kids of that age to be totally focused on career; hormones and immaturity will get in the way. However if they have core reading, writing and arithmetic skills most will be able to be of some use, and the better ones will shine.

My observations are from the world of business.

I have a problem with companies who pay young employees less than what a 40 year old would get doing the same job. I don't tolerate discrimination in my company. I pay a standard wage throughout my company, no matter what age you are. I don't see why a 16-21 year old should be paid less for doing the same job. It's not in my nature.

ScotInvest

 

[Fred_the_frog]

I think there is a little lost bit of education. Stuff like customer service skills, your telephone manor, how to network with people etc, all good skills but where do we learn these skills?

Businesses think they shouldn't teach them to us because we should have learnt them from school, but school won't teach them to us because it's not part of the curriculum.

So when you get a part time job, you have terrible customer service skills but instead of the manager or who ever giving you tips on how to improve those skills, they just keep on the ones with the 'natural talent' for it and dump the ones that don't.

(Usually the bigger businesses do this)

 

[Fred_the_frog]

My observations are from the world of business.

I have a problem with companies who pay young employees less than what a 40 year old would get doing the same job. I don't tolerate discrimination in my company. I pay a standard wage throughout my company, no matter what age you are. I don't see why a 16-21 year old should be paid less for doing the same job. It's not in my nature.

ScotInvest

Do you mean if a 40 year old and an 18 year old started at the same time you'd pay them the same, or do you mean if a 40 year old has been working there for 10 years then you'd pay the 18 year old the same as the 40 year old?

 

[ScottishInvestments]

Do you mean if a 40 year old and an 18 year old started at the same time you'd pay them the same, or do you mean if a 40 year old has been working there for 10 years then you'd pay the 18 year old the same as the 40 year old?

I mean if a 40 year old started at the same time as an 18 year old, they should be paid the same wage. Yes it's perfectly within the law to pay the 18 year old less, but It's my view that the law should be changed and have a standard minimum wage (or the living wage would be even better).

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with long-serving employees getting a larger wage than a new recruit.

ScotInvest

 

[kim_kitchener]

When I was a store manager I used to be very particular about a CV and would not give any with a spelling mistake a second look. In my role as a vocational learning advisor now I have come to realise that I was wrong in doing this.

A lot of youngsters I see now are not strong spellers but have a good business head and if given a chance would be a great asset. Vocational learning is a great way to upskill these people and give them the functional skills needed for their new job role.

Regards

Kim

 

[10032012]

When I was a store manager I used to be very particular about a CV and would not give any with a spelling mistake a second look. In my role as a vocational learning advisor now I have come to realise that I was wrong in doing this.

A lot of youngsters I see now are not strong spellers but have a good business head and if given a chance would be a great asset. Vocational learning is a great way to upskill these people and give them the functional skills needed for their new job role.

Regards

Kim

What about those who claim they are computer literate but cannot operate a spell checker?

There is a big difference between those who cannot be bothered to correct their mistakes (i.e. rushing it) and those who use the spell checker but on US English.

 

[kim_kitchener]

That is a very fair and valid point and is what I thought when sifting through hundreds of CV's when I was advertising for positions. However I do believe that a lot of good people slipped through the net due to a simple mistake.

Kim

What about those who claim they are computer literate but cannot operate a spell checker?

There is a big difference between those who cannot be bothered to correct their mistakes (i.e. rushing it) and those who use the spell checker but on US English.

 

[cjd]

Youth unemplyment is rising because we're in a recession. It's just arithmetic - millions of kids finish school and university every year and there aren't enough jobs for them. That's it, explained.

Additionally, because of the recession, a lot of more mature people with relevant experience are finding themselves out of jobs and are competing for the same ones as a lot of kids. Employers will, on average, choose someone that needs less training and has an employemnt record above those that haven't so it's tough for youth at the moment.

But it's not at all true that employers aren't taking on young people and I really don't like the continuous attacks on them by the media and some people here - as though 'youth' was a single contiguous block of humanity all equally useless.

Get a grip guys, they're by-and-large exactly the way we were at the same age - ie all different.

 

[kim_kitchener]

I totally agree with you, unfortunately a lot of employers tend to stereotype youngsters as unreliable which in my opinion is totally unfair. As you say there are a lot more experienced professionals without a job at the moment, who will now take a lower paid job than they would have a few years ago.

Kim

Youth unemplyment is rising because we're in a recession. It's just arithmetic - millions of kids finish school and university every year and there aren't enough jobs for them. That's it, explained.

Additionally, because of the recession, a lot of more mature people with relevant experience are finding themselves out of jobs and are competing for the same ones as a lot of kids. Employers will, on average, choose someone that needs less training and has an employemnt record above those that haven't so it's tough for youth at the moment.

But it's not at all true that employers aren't taking on young people and I really don't like the continuous attacks on them by the media and some people here - as though 'youth' was a single contiguous block of humanity all equally useless.

Get a grip guys, they're by-and-large exactly the way we were at the same age - ie all different.

 

[GradwellDotCom]

As a recent graduate myself, I gained employment a few days after finishing university. However, I'd gone out of my way to fill the last 5 years with as much relevant work experience and training as possible and taken advantage of careers services.

I was also very lucky when I was 18 in that someone gave me a chance and employed me for an office job - I was terrible and underconfident at first, but after 6 months I had developed the basic skills needed and proved my worth. I've seen the same happen with others since, but unfortunately in the current economic climate there are usually applicants with more experience, so young people don't get that chance.

Here at Gradwell we employ lots of young people - often without degrees. In fact, some of our strongest staff members in sales and customer support didn't enter higher education and fall into the 18-24 age bracket. They're definitely worth considering for their IT skills and speed/ability to learn.

 

[Philip Hoyle]

That is a very fair and valid point and is what I thought when sifting through hundreds of CV's when I was advertising for positions. However I do believe that a lot of good people slipped through the net due to a simple mistake.

Kim

But did it matter?

Did the business lose out as a result of not taking on those who didn't get through your initial screening?

Were most of the people you employed (those that could spell) generally suitable and successful in the job.

If so, then you didn't miss out on anything as you got suitable staff who could do the job.

How can you tell whether one of those you rejected would have done the job better than those you employed?

 

[MissHanifaD]

I think that employers don't see the value of that age group. They as yet, have no or little experience so what value can they bring to the company?

At my school they pushed us to go to university - if we didn't want to go to university then we were seen as lost causes and kind of forgotten about. There was no push for vocational courses or anything like that. I was a well decorated student, but despite receiving great university offers, I declined. I wanted to work and gain my qualifications at the same time. At the age of 24 I now have a degree with honours from the Open University and also a Masters in Business. I worked with the company that I got my initial job with, explained to them that I wanted to be educated as well as have a job. They supported me and so I have progressed well. In the scheme of things - I am employable as I have experience as well as the piece of paper.

Are employers offering this kind of support? Or was I just lucky... and should schools really be solely promoting university - especially now, as fees are so high? And should universities put more emphasis on experience e.g. work schemes, summer work experience, more than one placement year. In fact I don't think all courses have a placement year - perhaps that should be compulsory?

Just my opinion.

 

[Suzuki]

I think there is a little lost bit of education. Stuff like customer service skills, your telephone manor, how to network with people etc, all good skills but where do we learn these skills?

Businesses think they shouldn't teach them to us because we should have learnt them from school, but school won't teach them to us because it's not part of the curriculum.

I'd rather they could spell 'manner' than know how to network with people

I know thats probably just one typo, but on a serious point I get a fair number of jobseekers filling in contact forms on some of my websites and the spelling and grammar is an absolute disgrace. It makes you wonder what they are actually being taught at school - I just don't understand how people can do 4-5 years of secondary school and leave without even being able to write a very basic email to a business.

I think they should probably segregate the hopeless cases out of the normal schooling system, and start training them towards manual jobs and fast food careers from age 13-15.

 

[Philip Hoyle]

I know thats probably just one typo, but on a serious point I get a fair number of jobseekers filling in contact forms on some of my websites and the spelling and grammar is an absolute disgrace. It makes you wonder what they are actually being taught at school - I just don't understand how people can do 4-5 years of secondary school and leave without even being able to write a very basic email to a business.

Yes, we keep getting told what's not on the national curriculum, but the likes of spelling and grammar ARE on it, as are all other aspects of basic literacy and numeracy, and yet time and time again, it's these basic/core skills that are letting down the school-leavers.

As I've said many times on here, when I take on a trainee, I'm happy to teach them about accountancy, payroll, etc. but I do expect minimum standards to take them on in the first place - things that should have been well covered in school, such as knowing how to spell February and knowing how many days it has, how to set out a business letter, how to work out basic percentages, etc. I really don't expect to have to teach that kind of basic literacy and numeracy to someone who comes along with a decent set of GCSEs and yet that's exactly what happens.

Either the schools aren't teaching the basics properly or the applicants weren't receptive to being taught such things. If the former, then we really do have a problem. If the latter, then if the applicant can't learn the basics during 13 years of compulsory free education, then I'd be very wary of wasting my time and money to try to teach them the intricacies of a profession such as accountancy.

 

[Fred_the_frog]

I'd rather they could spell 'manner' than know how to network with people

That's one of those words that isn't picked up in spell checkers because it's spelt correctly, it's just the wrong spelling for what the word should be.

Luckily though, I do know the difference between their, there and they're

 

[maxine]

I agree with CJD in that it's just laws of maths and probability generally.

There's always good candidates and poor candidates across any job role.

Specifically with regards to "youth" between 18-24 I have just recruited what I comfortably feel are two super-stars recently but had to advertise properly and really put the effort into the recruitment process to find them.

I had to wade through a whole load of candidates who applied via job centre because they basically had to to avoid "sanctions" issued by job centre. (by the way I think this is fab, I didn't know that "sanctions" existed until recently that means that benefits can be stopped).

On the flip side, there are a whole raft of rogue employers out there who have businesses that would struggle to pay National Minimum Wage and because of the way job roles are structured and expectations for a person of any age, it's likely the person will fail in that job and this feeds the negative perception of young employees so I don't think we can blame the youth of today completely

 

[Suzuki]

I had to wade through a whole load of candidates who applied via job centre because they basically had to to avoid "sanctions" issued by job centre. (by the way I think this is fab, I didn't know that "sanctions" existed until recently that means that benefits can be stopped).

I wouldn't call that 'fab' if you're looking at it from an employers point of view.... who really wants to interview 20 people when 18 of them don't actually want the job and just need to avoid losing their benefits by applying?

 

[internetspaceships]

I wouldn't call that 'fab' if you're looking at it from an employers point of view.... who really wants to interview 20 people when 18 of them don't actually want the job and just need to avoid losing their benefits by applying?

Next time, I might invite 50 of the beggars to come to an interview all at the same time just out of badness and seeing some of them get their lazy butts out of bed for fear of losing their giros.

 

[maxine]

Ok I think it's fab because this is a new initiative .. Up until recently there was no such thing as "sanctions" so job centre applicants who did not want to work could waste lots of employers time and even if they repeatedly did not show for interview did not have any consequences in terms of benefits being stopped

Now if someone gets 3 sanctions they get their JSA or whatever stopped

I think this is fab in that at least steps are being taken to focus energy and resources on people who do want jobs and employers that can offer them. So it's fab by comparison to how it has been

 

[lollipop]

most of the 24 years and under I have seen couldn't run a p** up in a free beer tent.

BUT also, most employees can now pay a 40 year old manager with many years expereince about the same money to do this job...and there are so many waitingin line for a job these days.

 

[Jet Virtual]

Why hire young and inexperienced when you can hire experienced at basically the same rate these days. Plus I believe that experienced professional that are finding it hard to find a job are in more need than some young teenagers who can still rely on mummy and daddy.

 

[MrsPWN]

The plus side of all this is a decent, bright hard working and keen to learn 18 year old gets to shine

 

[10032012]

Ok I think it's fab because this is a new initiative .. Up until recently there was no such thing as "sanctions" so job centre applicants who did not want to work could waste lots of employers time and even if they repeatedly did not show for interview did not have any consequences in terms of benefits being stopped

Now if someone gets 3 sanctions they get their JSA or whatever stopped

I think this is fab in that at least steps are being taken to focus energy and resources on people who do want jobs and employers that can offer them. So it's fab by comparison to how it has been

Not true maxine, the conservatives brought in sanctions in 1996 when the 1995 Act came in which required the unemployed to actually look for work to get benefits.

Each sanction they get is money stopped. So it might be 2 weeks, 1 month then 6 months - on a sliding scales I am not sure the durations of each...

Labour built on this by giving sanctions to those who cannot be bothered to turn up or arrive to appointments late.

Its good how "spin" can make something which existed for over a decade appear a new thing. I am sure they have tightened this up though. Its like the new law coming in about homeowners rights against burglars... this is barely different than the existing defence in law of self-defence. Whereas it seems important not to rely on guidelines etc., creating a new law that can be quoted, is barely sufficient when that also has a grey area.

 

[maxine]

You're probably right but it seems new to me as I've never heard anyone mention it all all until recently and now I have heard it a lot so yes it must be tightening up

 

[JandJC]

Such a contrast of opinion here.

I remember when I left school back in 84, we had the Youth Training Scheme, today we have Apprenticeships; and there seems to be much varied reaction about that too.

As a country we can not afford a lost generation within the labour market; there needs to be some middle ground where young people can contribute to their own economic well being.

So instead of observing the reasons why businesses will not employ young people - we have to look at ways we can engage young people in the labour market; thoughts?

 

[raineshoe]

I would love to employ someone out of school and give them a chance. However, having done so when I worked as a manager I never would again as I've found as a general rule anyone in this age bracket falls into these categories -

1. The world owes them something.
2. Don't have any sense of responsibility at all, not even a minute one.
3. Can't think for themselves whatsoever and have to be spoon fed constantly.
4. Can't spell which gives a bad impression.

and I'm sure loads more negatives which I can't think of at the moment at this time of night!

Enough said. I'd rather employ a pensioner that at least can think for themselves and get on and do.

 

[S_JB]

Honest answer is theyre useless in the main.

I used to own a pub, older women would see an empty glass on the table and think "its my job to clean that so i will go and get it", an 18 year old will be checking their phone, talking to people, staring out the window anything but using common sense and pulling their finger out.

Older people have experience, know what a bit of work is, generally have decent customer servce skills and most importantly - common sense. 18 year olds dont.

Wow, what a post. What a pile of judgemental rubbish. Been working with the latter? Looks like, seems its rubbed off onto you too.

By discriminating on age, you might as well discriminate on religion, race etc.

 

[internetspaceships]

Wow, what a post. What a pile of judgemental rubbish. Been working with the latter? Looks like, seems its rubbed off onto you too.

By discriminating on age, you might as well discriminate on religion, race etc.

There's no link between being annoyed with the attitude of youngsters and race discrimination. Silly post.

 

[GradwellDotCom]

Why hire young and inexperienced when you can hire experienced at basically the same rate these days. Plus I believe that experienced professional that are finding it hard to find a job are in more need than some young teenagers who can still rely on mummy and daddy.

Not all young people have the privilege of being able to rely on their parents. Equally, a professional adult may well have a partner working full time who's in a position to support them. You can't assume that someone is in more need than another person based purely on their age.

 

[MrsPWN]

We have been through 6 kitchen assistants in the past year, all have been under 25 and all have been rubbish.

1) Consistantly posted photo's on his fb of himself "messing about in the kitchen" this was things like sticking marmalade sandwiches on the walls etc.
2) Decided 22 hours pw was just too exhausting.
3) Over a 6 week period didn't turn up 4 times with no explaination
4) Was caught stealing food
5) Turned up so drunk she could barely stand.
6) Burnt his hand (not badly) on a hot pan and decided he couldn't work with a glove on so just stopped coming to work.

We now have a Polish girl on her gap year, her English isn't too great yet but show her once and she is fine. She is willing to work any extra hours available (very unusual) and she is very willing to learn.

Each time we have had to replace workers we have had 10-15 applicants from the job center and about half don't even turn up for the interview, the rest won't pay for their CRB (even though it is refunded after 4 months) I accept maybe one or 2 of them couldn't find the money to pay but surely if they really wanted to work they could borrow it from someone until their 1st pay packet..

 

[S_JB]

There's no link between being annoyed with the attitude of youngsters and race discrimination. Silly post.

Discrimination is a general word, fits many categories. Choosing not to employ a young person simply because their membership in that particular age group you are denying a privilege to them, that is open to others.

No there isnt any direct link at all, apart from the theory of discrimination and prejudice which is linked.

It is CLEAR that if you are hiring the wrong candidates who are up to no good, you are simply not making the right reqruitment choices and there are flaws that need adressing personally. Hiring the latter is your fault, nobody elses. There is plenty, enterprising young talent out there gasping for one single chance.

 

[Suzuki]

the rest won't pay for their CRB (even though it is refunded after 4 months) I accept maybe one or 2 of them couldn't find the money to pay but surely if they really wanted to work they could borrow it from someone until their 1st pay packet..

I don't think they should have to pay it.... surely that should be down to the employer? Even if I could afford to pay it the fact that you were asking would be the first sign that you weren't really someone I wanted to work for...

If I was desperate for a job I'd probably pay it anyway but I'd be doing so not expecting to work for you for long.

 

[MrsPWN]

This is a new thing because the management are so sick of paying out approx £70 a time only for the person either not to show up on their 1st day or to only last a couple of weeks. At least this way they usually work until they get the refund and anyone serious about working is willing to pay.


Even if I could afford to pay it the fact that you were asking would be the first sign that you weren't really someone I wanted to work for...

If I was desperate for a job I'd probably pay it anyway but I'd be doing so not expecting to work for you for long.

Luckily you don't sound like the sort of person we would want anyway