Flow of Ideas: articles - Higher Education and Confused Employer Syndrome |
||||||||||||||||||
A Capital Friendly Culture for Further Education Academy Chains After the Hillcole Group Against What We Are Worth Ambassadors of Capital in Schools An Educational Mansion House for Business Apprenticeship and the Use-value Aspect of Labour Power Artistic Outlook Ayers Rocked In His Own Universe B Generation Bourdieu on Capital Bourdieu on Cultural Capital Bourdieu on Social Capital Brown PFI Monster Business Sponsorship of Schools Business Takeover of Further Education Cambridge University Occupation Caught in the Storm of Capital Co-payment in Hospitals and Schools Cold Hands and Quarter Moon Communitarianism for Schools Compulsory Consumption and Uni-Nanny Conforming Schools Conforming Kids Copy/South Dossier Creating Monsters Creeping Privatisation in Higher Education Critical Mass Critical Pedagogy and Capitalism Critical Space in Education Delivering E-Learning Digital Rights Management Distillation Dorothy L. Sayers Douglas Kennedy: best-selling novelist E-learning for Free at the BBC Edison Schools in the UK Education and Inspections Bill (2006) Education As Culture Machine Education Fireworks Education for Debt Education Incorporated Education Markets and Missing Products Education Repetition Education the HSBC Way Education White Paper Education, Globalisation and the Learning Society Employers and School Leavers Evaluating Different Teaching Methods Everything Louder Than Everything Else Finance and Fear Five Endings of Desires Foibles, Frolics and Phantasms Freedom Freewill French New Wave Cinema Full Report Ruth Rikowski's Book Launch for Globalisation, Information and Libraries Gender and Spokesperson in Group Work Issues Global Trading Globalisation and Education Revisited Habituation of the Nation Higher Education and Confused Employer Syndrome Hitchcock: classic auteur Human capital, the knowledge economy and business In Retro Glide In the Dentist's Chair Kids in the Land of No Dreams KM Critique Lazy Brit Kids Learning in the Earthworks of Capital Learning Investments Learning to the Max Librarianship and Human Rights Lifelong Learning and the Political Economy of Containment LSBU Strategy Marketisation of the Schools System in England Marx and Education Revisited Marx and the Future of the Human Marxism and Education Revisited Marxist Educational Theory Unplugged Maturity and Freedom McDonaldization and Education Michael Jackson Michele Roberts Miss Allison and Novel Writing Moneythought in Higher Education Mrs Thatcher and Holes in the Kitchen Floor Multiculturalism and Faith Schools My Tony Blair New Ideas in Ruth Rikowski's Book - Part 1 New Ideas in Ruth Rikowski's Book - Part 2 New Labour Policy for Schools Nietzsche's School Nihilism and Educational Values No Learner Left Unhassled Notes on the Confessions of John Denham On Education for Its Own Sake On Education Studies On the Capitalisation of Schools in England On Transhumanism and Education Open Access Outsourcing Public Services Peter Wilby on School Privatisation Planet of the Capitorg Plato Playgound Risks and Handcuffed Kids Poems by Gregory Rikowski Poems by Victor Rikowski Post-Fordism and Schools Post-Fordism in Primary Schools Postmodern Dereliction in the Face of Neoliberal Education Policy PowerPointlessness in Higher Education Private Schools as Charities Privatisation of Schools in England Privatisation of Student Debt Races in the Imperial War Readings for Teaching Course Recruitment and Labour Power Revealed Recruitment Criteria through the Use-value Aspect of Labour-power Robotic Ethics Ruth Rikowski Updates (Archives) Ruth Rikowski Updates (Archives) School Fees and the 1944 Education Act Schools: Building for Business Science Fiction Films and Horror Second Time as Farce Snowballs and Risk in Schools Social Contract Theory and Political Obligations Socialism is not Dead Speed of Life - Part One Speed of Life - Part Two Stroppy Individuals and Oppositional Cultures in Schools Sustainability Policy at London South Bank University Ten Points on Marx, Class and Education The Business of Becoming a Business for Academies The Capitalisation of Schools - Federations and Academies The CBI and the Business Takeover of Schools The Commodification of Education The Education White Paper and the Marketisation of Schools The Evolution of Federations of Schools The Last Parents Evening The New Japanisation of Schools The Profit Virus - The Business Takeover of Schools The Standards Language-game for Schools in England The Which Blair Project Three Types of Apprenticeship - Three Forms of Mastery Tony and Caroline Benn Tony Benn: Letters to Grandchildren Transport Turney's and PPU Uninspiring Towers Universe of Capital and My Space Universities in a Neoliberal World Utopia and Education What Can Nietzsche Teach Ya When Bullies Roam the School When the Bowers Break Why Employers Can't Ever Get What They Want Will Hutton and His E-Foss Wolf on Marx Without Sparks Women in World Wars
| Higher Education and Confused Employer SyndromeGlenn Rikowski, London, 7th February 2006 The Long Moan of History Transformed In an article I wrote some years ago (Rikowski, 2001) I noted that employers have always moaned about the quality of young people coming out of schools. Employers have always been critical of the skills, attitudes and capabilities of school leavers. They still are. For employers, schools have never developed the labour-power attributes they desire to the quality that they desire them. This constitutes the 'long moan of history' by employers concerning youth as labourers in the capitalist labour process. Over the last fifteen years, some of the venom employers have historically spat on school leavers and schools has been spent on graduates. With the development of a mass higher education system in the UK the 'long moan of history' has changed its target. Higher education students now feel the heat. Unfit Forms of Labour-Power? Alexandra Blair's (2006) article in The Times today illustrates this change of emphasis by employers. Apparently, it is the nation's largest companies that are groaning loudest about the 'shoddy' forms of labour-power produced by universities: "Britain's biggest companies gave warning last night that, despite a record number of graduates entering the job market this year, many will lack the basic skills needed for employment" (p.1). Indeed: "Almost half of businesses said that they did not expect to receive "sufficient applicatons from graduates with the correct skills" (p.1). But this notion of graduates having the ‘correct skills’ is suspect. Higher Confused Employer Syndrome Research has shown that when employers are asked what their needs are regarding schools leavers they give confused and contradictory answers. In my article of 2001, I called this 'confused employer syndrome'. Following a brief survey of national, historical and international research on what the 'needs of industry' were regarding school leavers and youth as labourers (in Rikowski, 2001, pp.29-30), I concluded: "[T]hat the ‘needs of industry’ in relation to youth labour have always, and possibly everywhere, been problematic for employers - in perpetual disharmomy with qualities and capabilities of actually existing young people. Such an endemic dysfunctionality puts the onus on employers to offer clear statements of their 'needs' regarding young workers in order that schools and training institutions can attempt to produce young people with the personal qualities, skills and competencies that employers require. Yet it is at this point that the house of cards collapses. Various studies and analyses ... have indicated that employers' statements regarding their needs in relation to youth labour are either ambiguous, or confused or downright contradictory" (pp.30-31). I wager that research into employers' labour-power needs at the graduate level of employment would find the same. In my 2001 article and an article that appeared a year later (Rikowski, 2002) I explained why this must be so. Employers are necessarily confused; they cannot help themselves. They Know Not What They Want The labour-power aspects in all categories of worker sought in the recruitment process in capitalist society are in contradiction. These contradictions relate to the ways in which labour-power (the capacity to labour) is transformed into actual labour in the capitalist labour process. In my 2002 article I pinpoint these labour-power aspects: *The value-aspect of labour-power (its quantitative moment) *The use-value aspect of labour-power (its qualitative moment) *The exchange-value aspect (its equalising moment - what makes labour-powers comparable) *The collective aspect of labour-power (its reference to the collaboration and co-operation of many labour-powers) *The subjective aspect of labour-power (its will-determined element, that emphasises the labourer's willingness to utilise labour-power attributes within the labour process) *The concrete aspect of labour-power (its specificity in terms of the labour-power attributes required in specific labour processes) (Rikowski, 2002, pp.187-193) I show how these labour-power aspects are in contradiction. Thus, when employers come to specify what labour-power attributes (the specific, itemised skills, attitudes etc. they need) then they necessarily think through these contradictions. Hence: they are necessarily confused. But this is only one layer of confusion. Confusion Doubled In my 2001 article (Rikowski, 2001), I show that when employers speak about their labour-power needs from the positions of specific categories of capital then confusion is also generated. I identified a number of categories of capital: *Capital in general (the labour-power attributes required to work in any capitalist labour process) *The national capital *Fractions of capital (manufacturing, finance, services, and landed capital) *Sectors of capital (particular industries and welfare state forms) *Individual capitals. Neither are these exhaustive. The categories can be broken down further. Thus when employers specify their labour-power needs, where does their 'voice' come from? Thus, when Blair (2006) says that graduates don't have the 'correct skills' according to top employers it is hard to see what this could mean without reference to the framework above. But there is another, third layer of confusion. Employers' demands are necessarily infinite; they cannot be specified without anomaly. Infinite Confusion A third layer of confusion regarding what employers want from youth (or any labour) rests on the notion that the social drives of capital are infinite. Thus, regarding labour-power needs, there is no resting place regarding quality of labour power (Rikowski, 2000). All other things being equal, employers with the best quality labour-powers will create more value and surplus-value than others in the same field of activity. But the 'best' has no fixed limit; labour-power can, in theory, always be 'better' in some ways. Thus, schools and universities can never satisfy the labour-power needs of employers. This simple point is nearly always lost sight of in the kinds of debate highlighted by Blair (2006). In terms of the media debate on youth labour, perhaps it always will be thus as uncovering the real issues turns the spotlight onto the social constitution of capitalist society: an unsettling move. Specific Confusions We can now unravel some of the points made in the Blair (2006) article. Her first bullet point is that there is: "Too much time spent on degrees and not enough joining clubs and societies, where students might work in teams" (p.1). But this just shows that employers are focusing on the collective aspect of labour power, here. That is, how the labour-power of one person relates to that of others for effective production (of whatever commodity). This is what employers do; they skip around, from aspect to aspect, now emphasising this one, and then that one - in the search for a comprehensiveness that defies coherence, as such coherence is logically and practically impossible. Of course, these 'top' employers are looking for academic high flyers. Rationally, some students concentrate on degree studies to attempt to prove to prospective employers that they are indeed such folk. If employers really wanted those with the capacity and experience to work in teams then should focus on those more likely to have these labour-power attributes: the many students not perceived as academic whizzes who have to work for money in order to get through higher education. These students have labour-power attributes pertinent to the collective aspect of labour power. But they might not have those relevant to the value- and use-value aspects (speed and quality) developed to the extent that these 'top' employers expect: and that would never do! Blair (2006) pinpoints a second 'top' employer moan regarding graduates: "Not enough experience of giving presentations in tutorials, leaving new graduates unable to communicate ideas in the work place" (p.1). Again, if these employers had wished to lower their expectations on the value- and use-value aspects of labour-power then they might have been more satisfied in terms of the collective aspect of labour-power if they had had taken on graduates who had 'worked their way' through university. Such graduates would be more likely to have developed their labour-power in this respect as compared with those focusing purely on academic studies. Perhaps you are starting to see the problem these 'top' employers have? Yet it is the third bullet point from Blair (2006) that really brings home the confusion reigning in employers' minds. She points towards the: "Poor spelling, grammar and mathematical ability [which] mean that graduates make basic mistakes, write illiterate memos and need constant supervision" (p.1). Thus: in terms of the value- (speed) and use-value (quality) aspects of labour-power they appear to be lacking too. But this suggests more emphasis on academic work, not less in order to spend more time in paid employment or clubs and societies, or doing assignments that require group work (enhancing the collective aspect). Helen Bostock, vice-President of JP Morgan, noted that doing summer jobs or voluntary work might help (i.e. with developing the collective aspect of graduate labour-powers). Yet she made it clear that 'soft skills' do not outweigh the value of a degree' (Blair, 2006, p.2). Meanwhile, the high flying, relatively affluent students will set about trying to please the infinitely demanding yet massively and necessarily confused 'top' employers. This story will run and run; to the end of capitalist society! References Blair, A. (2006) Graduates unfit for work, say top firms, The Times, 7th February, pp.1-2: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3561-2028167,00.html Rikowski, G. (2000) Why Employers Can't Ever Get What They Want. In fact, they can't even get what they need. Paper presented at the School of PCET, Staff/Student Seminar, University of Greenwich, London, 27th March, online at: http://www.flowideas.co.uk/?page=articles&sub=Why%20Employers%20Can[a]t%20Ever%20Get%20What%20They%20Want Rikowski, G. (2001) Education for Industry: A Complex Technicism, Journal of Education and Work, Vol.14 No.1, pp.29-49. Rikowski, G. (2002) Fuel for the Living Fire: Labour-Power! In: A. Dinerstein & M. Neary (Eds.) The Labour Debate: An Investigation into the Theory and Reality of Capitalist Work, Aldershot: Ashgate. Print Friendly - Print Friendly with links |
|||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||