As one skills body closes, Iain Mackinnon warns against taking a ‘no smoke without fire’ attitude
I’ve always disliked the cold rationality of the term “human resources”, and hope I never forget that the first of the two words is “human”.
So when I heard that Skills for Logistics is the latest Sector Skills Council to close, my first thought wasn’t about the policy implications – though I’ve been deeply immersed in skills policy for many, many years; it was about the people who work there. I know many of them. People I know, like and respect are losing their jobs. However able they are they’ve found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. And I know that however able they are, things can go wrong when people are made redundant.
We all know people who’ve been made redundant and bounced back gloriously, using redundancy as a spring board to something better. But many of us also know people who don’t bounce back, and who find themselves settling for something below their capabilities.
As secretary to the Maritime Skills Alliance I have worked with Skills for Logistics to get qualifications quality assured and approved, and to make changes to our apprenticeship frameworks in England and Wales. The people I work with are talented and hard working, committed to the value of skills and to doing what they can to encourage others to share that commitment.
I’m very conscious of the pernicious undercurrent to the words ‘no smoke without fire’. It’s all too easy to assume something a bit negative about people who are part of an organisation which folds - though it’s just as illogical as assuming good things about people who are part of an organisation which is working well.
And we need to keep reminding ourselves that despite the use of the term ‘redundancy’ on occasion to get rid of people managers badly want rid of, in most cases businesses are genuinely making the job redundant. So, to use a nautical metaphor, the casualties should be piped ashore with dignity, not made to walk the plank.
I happen to know a good deal about Skills for Logistics because as a consultant I’ve worked with them on and off since before the organisation was created, and also with its predecessor. And from several perspectives I’ve been involved in the changes in sector skills policy from the days when the Thatcher government abolished most of the 1964-era Industry Training Boards, through Industry Training Organisations and National Training Organisations to today’s dwindling band of Sector Skills Councils.
It has not proved easy to find a sustainable model for sector skills organisations. The one I work for part-time now alongside my consultancy, the Maritime Skills Alliance, is sustainable because we are funded by 16 organisations paying an annual subscription. But we’re tiny - the ‘executive team’ is about half of me – so we have to be very focused in what we do.
Some of the remaining Sector Skills Councils are clearly flourishing, and the demise of one of the original number should not be read across to the disadvantage of the rest. But in policy terms it’s a mess. Some sectors have good coverage, but with increasing diversity as entrepreneurial teams find different ways to balance the books so they can keep doing something useful for their sectors. But other sectors are left wanting. And there’s a national policy vacuum, with no core funding any more, and no credible proposals to find a better way forward.
Meanwhile, there’s a bunch of talented people in Milton Keynes on the market. Worth a look.