Skills Are Not Enough

To prepare for an uncertain future of work, Canada needs a comprehensive employment strategy.

Eighteen months ago I wrote an article outlining why I thought we were "paralyzed by #TheFutureofWork." My main point was that we needed to get past the hype about how many jobs might be lost or gained in the future, and act on what we already know about how work is changing (and already has changed). 

While I've been privileged to have been asked to talk to policy makers about this and a few other ideas in the time since the “paralyzed” article, my view is we're no closer to systemic action. This fact was painfully exposed by the recent Canadian Federal election campaign where no party even attempted a comprehensive or thoughtful employment strategy. 

Aside from a lack of political will or vision among the country’s current leaders, I think a significant issue is the focus of our bureaucracy and the public policy community on “skills” and “career pathways.” What skills will be needed in the future? If I start with job X, what skills do I need to get to job Y? How do we help people acquire these new skills? It’s not that these aren’t important questions, it’s that they’re being focused on to the exclusion of almost everything else.

And, on the topic of employment, there is A LOT of “everything else.” Our social safety net was designed for a different age of long-term full-time employment. Freelancers and entrepreneurs, increasingly important categories of workers, face huge hurdles to achieve the life goals that traditional employees take for granted. The employment and training ecosystem is a disconnected mess. What about the major white-collar employers that we know are in the process of significant automation? Do we have a plan for that? 

These are some examples. There’s so many more. 

Again, it’s not that the work on skills isn’t important. The problem is that even if you had perfect information about the need for skills, and the best possible way for people to learn them, our current systems would render most of this information useless. We should be spending at least as much time fixing our broken systems as we do on skills. Only a comprehensive employment program will lead to better outcomes, now and in the future.

So, as a new political cycle begins (at least at the Federal level), I've tried to summarize some thoughts and recommendations on what could be part of a comprehensive employment strategy in two articles.

In the first article, I discuss the importance of the uncertainty workers are facing as work changes. From the article: “If, instead of focusing on specific skills and jobs, policymakers were singularly focused on building systems that helped manage and mitigate uncertainty, how would their approach be different?” 

I outline four areas of focus:

1. Build a flexible, equalized social support system.  From retirement planning to renting an apartment, all our systems are designed for people in full-time work. With non-traditional work increasing, this will become an even bigger problem.
2. Fund WorkerTech.  Some social entrepreneurs, who understand the needs of workers who aren’t served by the current support system, are building start-ups to fill those gaps. We should be funding and supporting their work.
3. Develop a technology strategy for the labour market.  The section in which I get mad about the fact that people can’t seem to get over the Pheonix pay system debacle.
4. Ensure all efforts are part of a comprehensive plan.  Recent investments in lifelong learning expose the challenges of solving some problems while leaving broken systems in place. These investments are good, but as stand-alone efforts they will have limited impact.

This is obviously an incomplete list, but hopefully it’s a worthwhile addition to the conversation. The full article can be found here.

The second article was triggered by our Policy Editor’s recent deep dive into how the changing nature of work is affecting Oshawa. As I reflected on the amount of publicity and attention the announcement of the closure of GM’s Oshawa plant generated, I was struck by how different labour market disruptions will be in the next wave of automation. They will come in dozens and hundreds spread across many offices, and will generate very few headlines. It’s unclear whether politicians or the public will react as strongly in the future.

I dig into that in this article, using Canada’s big five banks to make the case for a new, more proactive company-specific playbook in response to white-collar automation. The best way to create good jobs is to keep the ones we have.

As always, I'd love any feedback!

Jon Shell is a Partner at Social Capital Partners, an independently funded non-profit that designs and implements systemic ideas to tackle social problems. Our main focus areas are employment and wealth inequality. If you want to hear more, please sign up for our newsletter, visit our site or follow us on twitter or Medium.