The Great American Mismatch. Plenty of Manufacturing jobs, too few people with the necessary skills

In September, 238,000 American jobs went unfilled, despite employers’ best efforts. At the same time, unemployment was at 7.8 percent nationally. And believe it or not, this was no statistical oddity.

The manufacturing sector has long had trouble finding skilled applicants for its jobs. Around 48 percent of manufacturing companies are looking to hire, according to the most recent report from ThomasNet, a company that helps connect producers and suppliers. But 67 percent of manufacturing companies see a moderate to severe shortage of skilled workers, and last year, as many as 600,000 jobs went unfilled, according to a report from Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute.

This mismatch embodies the best and worst of American culture. On the one hand, American manufacturers have bested their international competition, becoming even more efficient after their recent struggles. On the other, there’s been a cultural shift that denigrates the value of manufacturing work, instead pushing young people into ever more impractical fields of study.

The manufacturing sector’s triumph is pretty remarkable. The U.S. is the world’s largest manufacturer, contributing 18.2 percent of the total value added in worldwide production. (China, despite its abundance of cheap labor, comes in second at 17.6 percent.) Though other sectors are panicking about a fiscal cliff and putting expansion on hold, American manufacturing is plowing ahead. Ninety percent of manufacturers told ThomasNet they’re optimistic about the future, and 75 percent planned to expand their operations this year.

The manufacturing sector is also almost uniquely good to its employees. “No longer dirty, dark, or dangerous” has become an industry catchphrase. Careers in manufacturing are not, contrary to popular belief, merely monotonous assembly-line work; today, workers have to be good at problem solving, abstract thinking, and technology. And the pay is good. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that a manufacturing worker makes an average of $23.97 on hour as of October 2012. Manufacturing jobs are also more likely to come with good benefits than jobs in other industries, the Brookings Institute has reported. Furthermore, the manufacturing sector offers high-pay positions for people with low educational attainment; one manufacturing firm told National Review Online that it would pay a $54,000 starting salary to a high-school graduate who could competently repair and maintain machinery.

These job perks are partly caused by demand. Older manufacturing workers are retiring fast, and the work has become more high-tech, says Thomas Holdsworth, a spokesman for SkillsUSA, an organization that provides training for high school and college students. SkillsUSA works closely with the manufacturing sector, connecting it with prospective workers.

“We hear about skill shortage and skill gap,” Holdsworth explained. “Manufacturers say . . . ‘We have a shortage of workers, a shortage of people coming into our profession.’”

The skilled-worker shortage is an education problem. High schools have cut their shop classes, and students are pushed to attain at least a four-year college degree, no matter the major, says Linda Rigano, spokesperson for ThomasNet.

In high schools, “there’s been such a focus on — and this is going to sound terrible — kids going to school,” she said. “Not every kid is meant to go to college.” Meanwhile, manufacturing companies “are paying six figures. You’ve got all these kids who are coming out of college, and they can’t find a job. It’s heartbreaking.”

Young people are told that a four-year college degree is a minimal requirement for career success, but the numbers simply don’t bear this out.

Michigan State University’s 2012–13 Report on Recruiting Trends found that the labor market for new college graduates grew only 3 percent last year — but demand for graduates with associate’s degrees is up 31 percent. Nevertheless, in the last year on record, the U.S. handed out around 2.5 million bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees — and a mere 849,000 associate’s degrees, according to the Department of Education. And during the recession, students with associate’s degrees in career and technical fields had a higher employment rate than students with four-year academic degrees.

High-schoolers aren’t being taught about how marketable they may be in manufacturing. Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute found last year that “among 18- to 24-year-olds, manufacturing ranks dead last among industries which they would choose to stat their careers.” Likewise, this year, Deloitte reported that only 35 percent of American parents would encourage their kids to consider a manufacturing job.

This means that most college students graduate without the skills they need to find a good job, says Greg Rintala, who heads up sales and education for Snap-on Tool Corporation, which produces hand tools for everything from cars to space stations. Not only do these students lack a vocation; many also can’t write or do basic math.

“Parents are making their kids go to college,” Rintala said. “College doesn’t equip them for anything but a liberal-arts degree and how to be a barista anymore. . . . There’s a lot of people out there with college degrees who just can’t find a job. They just don’t have the skills.”

If there’s been a cultural shift away from manufacturing and toward academic achievement, look to the government, says Lindsey Burke, Will Skillman Fellow in Education at the Heritage Foundation.

“So much of it is the continued push to increase federal subsidies to incentivize students to go get a four-year degree when it might not be the right fit,” she said.

The federal government has made access to student loans easier than ever before. Since 1982, the number of federal education subsidies and Pell grants has increased by 475 percent, Burke said. Programs once targeted at increasing the number of low-income students have been expanded to include many middle-class children. That’s driven up college costs, saddled graduates with high debt, and deflated the value of a four-year degree. Furthermore, many in the manufacturing sector say, it’s made young people turn up their noses at good manufacturing jobs.

Meanwhile, the manufacturing sector is adjusting, trying to come up with private-sector solutions, says Tracy Tenpenney, vice president of sales and marketing at Tailored Label Products, a Wisconsin-based company that manufactures stickers for everything from biomedical supplies to outdoor power equipment.

Tailored Label Products participates in the local Second Chance program, which works with high-school sophomores who have fallen behind track for graduation. Tailored Label Products holds classes for these students on its premises and sponsors some of them. The kids spend two hours in formal classes, then spend six hours working with a local manufacturer and learning the trade. Many Second Chance students end up graduating on time after all, leaving not only with a diploma but also with marketable skills — and sometimes a job. This year, Tailored Label Products is funding a college scholarship for a Second Chance alumnus to attend a local trade school.

“I think people are assuming kids aren’t attracted to manufacturing,” Tenpenney said. “I firmly believe that kids are attracted to being employed coming out.”

— Jillian Kay Melchior is a Thomas L. Rhodes Fellow for the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity.

The years of experience qualification is likely due to the number of people graduating from tech schools who claim they know what they are doing, but really don’t - and manufacturers who do not want to, or don’t have the time to teach someone the finer points. It also depends on the jobs they do at the shop as to what they are looking for. If you need someone who can do precision tolerance with little to no oversight, you aren’t going to want to hire someone straight out of tech school - you want someone with experience who can solve some problems on their own, and doesn’t need another machinist to babysit them (so to speak) so that production can be maintained at a decent rate, not to mention the labor rate. If you’re paying two guys to essentially do the work of one, it’s going to seriously hamper your ability to make a profit.

Yep, you’re definitely right about that. And, the qualified machinist workforce that came in during and after WII - who could manual machine (which is still needed also) are gone now, as well.

My husband was extremely lucky in that our High School was part of a unique program through the TMA about 20 years ago. Worked part-time his Sr. year of high school through a work-study program at the shop (in the shipping dept. mostly - separating parts, which tested his willingness to do the ‘crap work’ and put up with it - that separated out the serious ones. He went to work Full-Time at the shop the day after graduation (Monday morning bright and early). They not only paid him for his time at work, but then also paid for his schooling, and paid him for the hours in school. As a result though they had a VERY skilled precision/prototype journeyman machinist (after grad. and I think it was 2 years of work after?) who was well worth the investment - and my husband got an EXCELLENT education in his craft. He was very lucky to have been in that program, as it was rare back then (20+ years ago), and I’d bet it’s even rarer now.

From what I deal with every day, it’s a little bit of everything to blame for this. I’m responsible for hiring at an automotive plant (basic assembler to Engineer to Manager level), and from where I sit:

1) for the most part, the under 25 year-old crowd is bone-numbingly lazy. Exceptions to the rule, of course, and the hardest-working kids I’ve seen are the ones that come off the tobacco farms with no education beyond GED-level.

2) we have apprentice programs for Maintenance and Engineering. The apprentices that come out of the trade schools are real go-getters, the ones that graduate with degrees in Engineering don’t want to make anything less than $70k/year. Reality check time for many of them...they’ve been brainwashed into thinking a Mechanical Engineer can sit behind a desk making lists for others in their first year on the job...lol

3) we pay above market average, and have tremendous health benefits. Overtime is huge though, and the work is not easy. We have a lot of line workers quit within the first 3 months because they can’t hack standing all day.

4) many can’t pass background checks and/or drug tests.

My husband told me about how his first employer used to screen out those who were no good for them - when they brought in new apprentices they would put them in shipping and have them do nothing but sorting tools and parts for at least a week. If you put up with that (showed a good work ethic - good aptitude req’d to even get in the door first) then you would probably be worth the time and money it took to put you through school and train you. MANY dropped out within that first week as they just could not see through the ‘test’ and would get way too annoyed (also not a good trait for a machinist to not be able to put up with at least some repetition). As a result the company didn’t end up wasting money on people that wouldn’t be willing to actually work. [There were a few other things that that little test was able to tell the supervisors and managers as well, but usually the ones that would have been a problem quit of their own accord. DH says that there were actually very few who dropped out of the program after that point - almost all ended up going through and becoming journeymen machinists. Back then though - the ‘old timers’ were around to impress upon them how lucky they were to be getting the education as well...]

Nowadays, I don’t know if ANY kids starting out would put up with that - even with the good pay. It seems they aren’t willing to put in any effort at all in many cases. And to do real actual work??? Like you said, it’s not at all like it used to be. I see it all over - not just in manufacturing, that’s for sure.

I didn’t see numerous articles, but I did hear approximately this figure reported on Fox and I did read one article, the amount was $60,000.

I didn’t read any info as to how they arrived at this figure, so it could be a little misleading depending on the state and how their benefits are set up, and how many children they have.

When my daughter was unemployed, she did not qualify for most of the benefits due to the unemployment benefits being too much. She qualified for medical benefits for her daughter, but not herself, and no food stamps, so she didn’t qualify for anything close to that amount.

Take marijuana off your testing list, and my guess is that you’d have a LOT more applicants - qualified, hard-working applicants as well. Like someone else mentioned the prescribed meds that are “legal”, and even alcohol are more likely to be a big problem than someone who smokes a joint upon occasion.

The problem you have is that marijuana stays in your system for a long time in comparison to all of the other drugs you are testing for even though it is probably the most benign of them all - you could have someone who smokes perhaps once a week, on the weekends - or with friends at a party on occasion, and is completely sober at all other times, but will not be able to pass your drug test - particularly if your company is the type to do random screenings. For instance, you could have an employee off for a 3-day weekend that snorts cocaine the whole time, and say you pop a drug test on them on that Wednesday, and depending on age, weight, metabolism, etc... they could PASS the test.

Other drugs are out of one’s system in a matter of HOURS, and are WAY more likely to interfere with one’s performance on the job. Also, take into account that you could even have someone working for you that USED to smoke, and weighed a decent amount - if they lose the weight very quickly and you test them they could come back with a positive result (depending on how much they used to smoke, and how much weight they have lost quickly as it gets stored in your fat cells - not enough to make you “high” again, but enough to register on some tests once in a while). Granted, these are rare circumstances, but they do happen. Most people won’t, like you’ve noticed, even risk going for a job that tests for drugs - even if they are merely around friends who perhaps smoke marijuana because you CAN show positive from second-hand exposure. And, yet there are even many others that will not work for a company that tests - not because they do drugs themselves, but because they see it as a violation of their personal rights to do as they wish when they are not on the clock.

It’s honestly ridiculous, IMO, when a full-fledged alcoholic would be able to get hired, and depending on the amount they drink and how often they could still pass your test, but someone who smokes pot here and there would not - even if they NEVER, EVER get high when they are working. It’s not like you can’t tell when someone is high AT work - and that’s a completely different story, IMO. Most people also realize that if you are the type who partakes and you get hurt, you will likely not see a dime of any insurance money, etc...

That’s my personal opinion, and I know many others differ on the assessment of policies, and even risk with hiring. AND, the only reason I know some of these things is because of research when I was working on political stuff as far as the Constitutionality of drug testing. :)

Question:
Do you only do initial screening, or random screenings after hire as well? And, do you warn of upcoming screenings?

If the answer is only an initial test, then you’ve got those who - for instance - smoke pot working for you. I can guarantee it... You’d be mighty surprised if you randomly tested.

Also, my husband has worked in a variety of shops - even before drug testing was pretty common, and had no serious injuries for years as well, so that’s not a very good deciding factor, IMO.

Also, may I ask what types of machines you are running? How heavy/big are the parts you make? There are a lot of factors that go into how dangerous the machine you are working on is.

[Wish my DH was home at the moment because he’d have more questions, and probably more precise examples of companies he has worked for with similar accident records. I honestly find it hard to believe that you have only had people with sliced fingers - my husband had a corneal abrasion once WHILE wearing safety goggles. There was a burr in his hair, and it fell into his eyes. “Slices” on fingers happen everyday in the work he does. A cut on your finger isn’t even accident-report worthy, honestly. Now, if you’re talking about slicing a finger OFF, or de-gloving a hand, then that’s a little different - but again - that’s more to do with safety procedures and pure lack of common sense and incompetence than anything else in all the cases I’ve heard of. Half of those things - getting scalped, degloving a finger/hand, etc... are the horror stories they tell you about in school, and don’t happen nearly as often as it may seem.]

Almost ALL machinery could kill you instantly if you aren’t paying attention. Idiots who don’t follow safety rules are more likely to have problems. I’m guessing you are extremely strict in regard to safety procedures.

Husband just came in, so perhaps he has other insight to offer. I’ll ask him about safety records in the shops he’s worked in over the years - testing employers vs. non-testing employers.

Instead of playing defense and try to block a government bailout, the GOP should be playing offense. Something like this:

Allow a write-off at something like 25% of the loan value from the general fund (broke as it is) in return for broadly defined "public service."
The borrower gets 20% of the write-off, with the additional 80% transferred to the learning institution which generated the loan. They only have to collect on 75% (or 93.75% of the 80%) to break even. The balance would be profit and/or a write-off allowance.
The institutions now own the loans and governments at various levels have claims on the borrows for service for the 20% write-off.
Government educational loans at the federal level are now dissolved except as a record keeping entity for the various educational institutions which now own and service the loans.
The educational institutions who cannot or will not repay the loans will have liens put upon their endowments, real property or other assets until the 75% is paid off.
Said institutions can collect on their debt by the threat to suspend or even rescind the academic credentials of the borrowers in default.
The smart ones (especially those which trained their students with marketable degrees) would use the loan pool to generate a profit and line up lenders to feed more students into their system. This is exactly the model used successfully by Hillsdale College (Michigan) and being considered by other conservative colleges such as Liberty (Virginia), Grove City (Pennsylvania) and Brigham Young (Utah, Idaho and Hawaii).

There is no reason the same model couldn't be applied by colleges nationwide. If they turn out too many kids with unmarketable degrees, then their chickens come home to roost with them, not the taxpayer.

I don’t see any benefit to getting rid of drug tests. We do hair and urinalysis, 10-panel. Initial as pre-screening, and randomly upon hire. Meth and pain pill abuse are rampant in this area.

1) We operate some very dangerous machinery and operators need to be alert. 2) Our products go on the vehicles you drive, so you want to make sure the people putting it together, and the ones checking it for quality are on the ball. Failures that make it to the auto manufacturers can be dangerous and even life-threatening. 3) Bad behavior begets bad behavior. We’ve had to fire people who’ve come up positive on random screenings before, and found ‘nests’ of drug abuse among other associated employees as well.

Our supervisors are also trained to use ‘reasonable suspicion’ criteria if they suspect someone is on something or drunk while they’re working.

The only thing my husband had to add is this;

The really bad stuff that used to happen (scalping and de-gloving, for instance) happens a LOT less now due to more safeguards on the machinery itself. As technology has advanced, so have safety measures. Seeing as you stated you are a *new* company having arrived here in the early 90s I’m guessing you don’t have a lot of old machinery, and that it’s pretty modern, safety-wise. That’s a HUGE factor in the injury numbers for any given shop as well. The old manual machines that are still used in some places are so much more dangerous than the newer machines.

Injuries have a lot more to do with competence and actually following safety protocols (not running a machine without the guards in place, for instance), than other factors. And now, there is a lot more emphasis on safety, and more training on safety measures - usually a safety meeting every few months to remind the guys how important it is.

My husband says that the worst safety/injury things he’s ever seen is when managers push production numbers too high, or offer bonuses for those production numbers which in turn leads to the employees taking shortcuts to get the work done - and those shortcuts usually have everything to do with safety precautions being ignored because they eat up time.

As for the testing debate - he, like me, is of the opinion that it’s Unconstitutional, and wholly unfair for the reasons I stated above in regard to many drugs being out of your system in a matter of hours vs. other benign things lasting longer in your system, even if you are not under the influence at work.

One more thing my husband wanted me to add - and something that might have a LOT more to do with your inability to find qualified applicants than any drug-testing...

There really is a small community of qualified machinists (I’m not talking about assembly line workers, though and it seems two of you are). Once your company has a bad reputation in an area you will find it extremely hard to find those workers. Even if you up your pay, benefits, etc... if you’ve got (for instance) a manager that’s hard to work with, or someone who hasn’t the first clue about actual machining, but tries to tell the machinist how they should make a part and will not listen to the machinist when they tell them why it will not work to do one operation before another (for example), then even if the person is starving they will not go to work for you as it’s not worth the stress, and they will simply go elsewhere and not even bother applying.

We saw this happen first-hand with a company where we live. And, even if they were to fire the manager that got them the bad reputation it’s going to be VERY hard for them to get anyone in the door. Word of mouth in the industry travels quickly. I’m honestly expecting for the company I’m speaking of to be completely out of business within the next two years or so. They simply don’t have enough qualified workers left that are willing to put up with the one manager - and they refuse to fire him because he’s their friend from childhood. They’ve lost CUSTOMERS due to this person as well, and they still refuse to believe that he’s the problem. DH has seen guys lured in with promises of a huge raise, and two to three weeks later they are back at their old job simply because it is insane at the other company in regard to stress.

Don’t always assume it is the workers who are the ones causing the problems - sometimes people hire supervisors and managers who haven’t a clue, and think that with some business degree they can walk into a shop and do a good job.

Sometimes the attitude of upper management and supervisors can have a lot to do with the attitude of your workers, and the quality of work they do for you. The way it sounds like some of you view these people is kind of disturbing, honestly. [And, I’ve been in management - albeit in retail - so it’s not like I hate all management or anything of the sort. I know it’s not easy at times, at all - especially with this younger generation who really are a lot lazier than mine (Gen X), or especially in comparison to the one before me.]

My twenty-something son is trying to figure out how to get into a hands on job and I thought the job you do might be a good opportunity. Any advice on how to get the younger generation pointed into this field?

Another technically ept High School dropout here. I have heard "oh, you're one of those..." often enough to suspect that I'm no rare bird.

My user profile contains a short tutorial about how to write data driven webpages using free software on your personal machine. I wrote it with my nephew in mind and he is currently working the tutorial. Feel free to point him at it and I will answer questions from anybody who is working it.

My resume starts with a list of my skills software and hardware, then a list of what I have designed and built where. I have never listed any education credentials (outside of Naval Nuclear Power School) and have never had a problem with it. Building real stuff in the world is better than a masters degree, seriously.

Free course management software for homeschoolers and educators. Beta testers wanted, Free.

You hit the nail on the head and the exact point I brought up to my father-in-law over Thanksgiving in a private conversation at my house.

There are thousands, if not millions, of people, mainly blacks, but not limited to all races, who literally have not fended for themselves for a living, for 50 years.

They exist with meager means but have never lifted a box, sewn a garment, driven a bus or taught a class of children in generations.

Their money for food, housing and medical care comes via Direct Deposit...there is no conncetion with effort and lifestyle, none.

There are more robberies in the urban areas on the 30th than any other date. Why?

That’s the day the government checks arrive.

We are to blame, education is a disaster.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.