Skills shortage - Mick's solution

[q9]

Interesting...this reminds me of something I heard about recently.

A machinery manufacturing company was complaining that they couldn't fill orders because they were short on staff. They needed apprentices (pref second year), and quick! Somehow with their increasing sales, and their increasing penentration in the marketplace, they failed to notice a need for an increase in staff. That is, they didn't take on apprentices early enough, and no doubt, that was due to "cost".

So, instead of paying an extra $40K pa or so per apprentice before they actually needed them (lets guess they need 3 apprentices) a year before time, they now lose probably that much ($120k) PER MONTH in lost productivity and unrealised production capacity.

To be blunt, they were short sighted and failed to do any strategic planning.

I don't believe for a second that there is a shortage of people willing to take on the trades, but there is a shortage of people willing to take on apprentices, and I can say that speaking from experience. When I was 22 I decided that I wanted to be an electrician, but 22 was to "old" at the time. Now you'd get subsidies and grants coming out of your ears. Nevermind that a 22 year old is probably a lot more reliable and more likely to be committed to the job...

[mic-d]

I've been enquiring about doing a mature age apprenticeship as a carpenter or cabinet maker through group training organisations. Noone seems interested because it costs a lot for a mature age apprentice in carpentry. The best response I got was from one agency that did trial mature apprecticeships for carpenters and that was to just drive around and approach all the builders I see. I've been on the tools now for about 3 years and have a flourishing handyman business, you'd think that the extra productivity and responsibility that would bring would offset the extra cost. I'm sure there are heaps of people out there who want to make a career change to a trade but there is very little support for it. That would help the skills shortage.
Cheers
Michael

[q9]

Exactly mic-d.

Productivity doesn't rate a mention because basically most of these people just can't get past the fact that it would cost more (in their eyes). They don't seem to understand that there could actually be some value in hiring an older apprentice. Another benefit is that an older apprentice is going to better at talking to clients and potential clients. But this is lost on most of these tradies :confused:

To be honest, it is lost on me why the average apprenticeship takes 3 years. I think a better option would be proper training schools for 18 months - 2 years, and a year of work experience. Then everyone would be equal. You'd go out to employers with equal skills and equal wage expectations.

This reminds me of what my father was telling me about his apprenticeship in Germany. The company had its own, very large apprentice school. For 3 years as an apprentice, they never once worked on product for external customers. You had to earn that privelege by completing your apprenticeship. Top apprentices (of which he was one) got taken into special programs and completed their apprenticeship 6 months earlier. Not only is this a reward to talented apprentices, it makes business sense too. Your best apprentices start working on income generating projects sooner. It caused no end of trouble when he initially came to Australia though - at the time they only recognised 3 year apprenticeships.

[silentC]

The couple of blokes that I know that have put on apprentices have done so because they need a lackey and couldn't afford to pay full pay for an adult. Given the choice between hiring at full price or going without, they would have to go without. Simple economics unfortunately.

[q9]

In that case people like that should be discouraged from putting on apprentices. I have heard of plenty of cases like that where the apprentice gets shafted after a few months or a year, and then it can be hard to find someone willing to take them on to complete the training.

[silentC]

I agree. Often what happens is they get very busy and so the cheapest option is to hire an apprentice. Unfortunately when things go quiet, the apprentice often goes too. It goes both ways though. Plenty of apprentices shoot through as soon as their tenure is up. There should be some longer term committment there which would sort out the wheat from the chaff.

[q9]

Which is why I think getting a proper training program going is the best option. We should be developing peoples skills to a high level, no matter what their vocation, be it, doctor, scientist or tradie.

[journeyman Mick]

But how much experience would a apprentice get at a trade school? It would cost a hell of a lot to put up complete buildings and pull them down again. Carpentry isn't rocket science, there's not that much theory to learn, it's mostly hands on stuff. I can't see it being financially viable to have carpentry apprentices building stuff for two years at school. (Sorry to hark on about carpentry apprenticeships all the time, but it's what I know so I've got a fair idea of what training is required.)

I agree about the lack of security on both sides of the fence, for the apprentice and for the employer. It's one of the reasons I haven't taken on an apprentice in the past, the worry that I wouldn't be able to keep them if things got quiet. As far as cost VS productivity is concerned, well if that was the only factor I was looking at I wouldn't even think about an apprentice. If I want the most productivity then I just get another subbie in for the duration of the job, that's by and large how the building industry works. I'd like to put something back into the industry by putting on an apprentice but I can't afford to be out of pocket and I'm not referring to the apprentices wages. If you factor in all the indirect costs of having an apprentice then the subsidies are a joke.

So for me the bottom line is that I'd like to give something back to the industry and pass on some of my skills but I can't afford to.

Mick

[AlexS]

I've recently been involved with some training for my profession. TAFE put together a course that takes 3 years and is made up of a hotch-potch of subjects from other courses that may or may not be relevant, but could be made to sound useful. A couple of subjects were put together by Qld colleagues and are pretty good, but would mostly be covered on the job.

We put together a 3 week residential course that covers the things that are necessary, but probably wouldn't be encountered in day to day work. It is cheaper, more use and involves less disruption than having an apprentice take a half-day at TAFE or study leave every week.

[q9]

Most trades aren't roket science. But I do think there is a need to get the training done properly to a nationally standardised level, before apprentices go and work on real jobs. And to be honest I don't see why this shouldn't be at the expense of the apprentice, like it is with most other further education.

There is actually a lot of things that need to be taught to apprentices besides pure skills. I can nominate Workplace health and safety, basic business skills (simple book keeping, invoicing, tax etc) as a start.

Highly skilled, job ready apprentices would have to be more attractive, and more cost effective for employers that the current shambles. Add to that the need for less on the job training then there would be freer commitments which would be a plus as circumstances change.

I can bet the current housing boom will have created heaps of apprenticeships, but I dread to see what is going to happen as the boom grinds to a halt...

[markharrison]

Mick,

There are alternatives to just knocking things down again! One suggestion is Habitat for Humanity to consider. This organisation assists folks on a lower income to become independent home owners.

This is an interesting thread. I'm a computer boffin myself and have been for twenty years. This industry used to run on a de facto apprenticeship system. People like me were taken on because universities were not able to churn out graduates out fast enough. This doesn't happen anymore.

Entry level jobs are now almost exclusively occupied by Computer Science or Information Technology graduates. I personally don't have a problem with that. The young adults that come out of university now are far better prepared than I was educationally but are no better prepared emotionally, on average, than 22 and 23 year olds were 20 years ago. No surprise there.

I am concerned about their middle-career prospects though. They will face increasing competition for the work they can do by overseas contractors. The problem for us as a country and managers of organisations is where the next level of professionals are going to come from in 20 years if the careers of these people has no middle level progression?

The way things are going my kids, as you said (or someone said anyway), might be better off (I'm talking about from a purely financial point of view) being carpenters or another skilled trade. I have seen this in other professions. The profession we all love, lawyers (cough) are going through turmoil as well. My nephew graduated from Macquarie University. He's a fully trained solicitor and has gone to England because he can't get a job here. I doubt he will return.

Rambling on a bit, I know but I'm still feeling a little raw myself with the "life changing" career experiences of the last 12 months...

[silentC]

The young adults that come out of university now are far better prepared than I was educationally

Which university is that? We take industrial year students from UTS in Sydney ocassionally and they know SFA about the job. They know how to expand a 100 word answer to 1000 words and how to swat for exams at the last minute

I'm being slightly facetious but the point is that, although they have 4 years of university education under their belt, they don't really learn anything until they get on the tools so to speak. I suppose that reinforces Mick's point. You can teach them how to swing a hammer but if they don't know what they're supposed to be hitting and why, then it's sod all use to them.

I like the idea of building houses as part of some training scheme though. Sounds win-win to me. As long as they are supervised by someone who knows what they are doing (maybe an opening for you there, Mick) and not left to their own devices like a lot of university last year projects, it would probably be a goer. They could draw labourers from the unemployed queue.

[AlexS]

I've often thought that a prerequisite for going to Uni should be that you have to work for a year first. Those that did then go to Uni would be a bit more mature, some would have a better idea of what they want to do, and others would decide that they liked the type of work they were doing and didn't want to go to uni at present.

Also, some people are better off going to Uni later. I know one licensed plumber who went and did Mech. Eng. - he commands a better salary than other engineers because of the things he can sign off that they can't.

[silentC]

I did my uni in the late 90's after I'd been in the biz for 6 years. When I got into IT in '89 it was the same story as Mark. I rang up an ad in the paper one day for a computer course. I was a labourer but had heard what sort of money these 'puter people could earn. They got me in to do an aptitude test and then offered me a spot BUT they wanted $6,000 off me. Yeah right.

So I rang one of the major banks and asked them if doing the course would help me get a job with them. They said not in particular, since they do their own in-house training. At that point, they pretty much only recruited IT staff from the branches and head office. However it was around the time of a certain major project by one of the other banks and they were losing IT staff left right and centre, so they were hiring off the street. You couldn't get more off the street than me. I did their aptitude test and then they put me in an operational area for 12 months, then on to programmer training.

When I went on to uni 1996, I got a couple of subject credits for industry experience. I ended up graduating with distinction because I actually did the work and whipped the asres of the full-time students (you have to love standardised scores).

If I had gone on to uni after high school, I doubt I would have stuck at it and I don't know what I would have done anyway.

This is just a long-winded way of saying that sometimes you get more out of these things when you are older or more mature. I think they should encourage older people to go back to school because by they are more likely to stick at it and do well. How many people have you met who did one thing at uni and ended up in a different occupation altogether?

I've often thought I'd like to be a sparky. If I had to pick a trade, it would probably be that. But how would an old fart like me get into it at this late stage?

[E. maculata]

Oy Silent, enough of that "Old Fart" stuff OK 1965 was NOT that long ago.