熟练工人稀缺，美国该怎么办？

在美国政界两极分化的时期，鲜有政策观点能让民主党和共和党都积极响应，不过学徒培训和重振技能教育是其中少数例外。奥巴马任总统期间，美国联邦政府投入数百万美元成立了联邦学徒办公室。特朗普上台后一直努力让经济萧条地区重新走上工业化道路，因此也将学徒项目作为标志性的执政理念。

无论哪个党派上台，目标基本都是两个：复兴制造业，为熟练劳动力提供就业；发掘获得好工作的途径，特别是为没有大学学历的年轻人，一些美国职高、社区大学和培训计划一直设法为这类年轻人寻找职场出路。决策层几乎一致同意：美国必须推动国内劳动力结构进一步转型，目标是以熟练产业工人为基础的德国和奥地利。

虽然政界达成共识，但实践步伐仍远远落后，尤其在扩大学徒项目和技能教育等基础建设方面。目前在美国联邦政府注册的学徒有50.6万人，政府拨发了27亿美元提供支持。而在经济体量只有美国四分之一的德国，学徒多达140万人，每年政府相关支出达90亿美元。德国工人的技术水平全球首屈一指，从而成为国际贸易领头羊。可以说，德国在工人培训上的投资回报相当可观。

美国政界认可学徒项目的价值，就如何资助项目却未达成一致。美国企业总是抱怨合格的员工难找，另一方面却不愿意为提升劳动者技能投资。他们担心为他人做嫁衣裳，砸下真金白银培训出优秀员工后被对手挖走。很少有公司敢为人先，承担竞争对手不愿支出的培训费用。在美国南卡罗来那、田纳西、密歇根和马萨诸塞等州，政府正在搞试点通过税收优惠减少企业培训成本，也已获得不少成效，但相对于全国性的人手短缺还远远不够。

随着美国婴儿潮一代蓝领工人离退休越来越近，许多公司都担心未来人员补充问题。我们预计，仅马萨诸塞州未来十年就缺少超过4.4万熟练工人。全国范围的用工缺口还在飞速扩大：随便挑个时间，制造业对高中毕业后受过培训但没有大学学历的工人缺口都超过60万。填补这些岗位最适合的就是技能教育和学徒制毕业生。用人企业称这类岗位空缺非常多，但不知道该去哪里找人。

有一种模式可能改变美国劳动者匮乏的局面，我们应该仔细研究下，即英国的学徒税。英国保守党政府通过这项税收的法律后，激发学徒制飞速发展，而且对私人企业来说成本可以接受。该方式可以真正促进技能培训，制造和服务业的企业都可受益。预计这项税收可在三年里扶持300万新增学徒。

该法律规定，员工合计薪酬超过300万英镑的英国公司要缴纳相当于薪酬总额0.5%的税，税款投入一个特别为学徒设立的基金。在英格兰，占企业总数九成的小公司只需要负担学徒成本的10%，政府承担其余90%的费用。（苏格兰、威尔士和北爱尔兰都有各自的学徒项目。）对于员工不足50人的公司，英国政府负担16岁到18岁新学徒的所有费用。每个月英国政府还为每家公司的学徒服务账户增加补助，补助额为账户金额的10%。

英国企业可以用学徒基金账户的资金支付学徒的薪水，为培训服务买单（包括为提供培训的老员工提供补贴），负担其他一切与学徒项目有关的费用。公司可以充分利用资源培养各种水平的学徒，从半熟练操作员到有大学学历的工程师都可参与。每家公司都能从纳税额中抵扣1.5万英镑（约合2.5万美元），学徒基金使用期限为两年。

考虑到不同行业的培训成本各异，英国政府提供了15种不同等级的基金。假如企业要培养工程学与技术相关领域的学徒，等级就高于服务业培训。由于各项培训成本获得的补贴有高有低，英国的高科技企业参与学徒项目也一样积极。

如果美国希望解决制造业和服务业的劳动力需求问题，就要认真对待技能培训和一线经验积累。仅仅讨论何学徒制多么好是没用的。美国一定要设立便于企业参与的财务系统。要迈出第一步，我们可以先学学大洋彼岸的英国政府。（财富中文网）

本文作者凯瑟琳.S.纽曼为美国马萨诸塞大学安姆斯特分校Torrey Little社会学教授。另一作者赫拉·温斯顿为美国布兰迪斯大学调查新闻研究院Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism的高级研究员。两人共同著有《美国重拾技能：如何加强21世纪的劳动力》一书。

译者：Pessy

审稿：夏林

Very few policy ideas excite both parties in this period of political polarization. Apprenticeship and the renaissance of technical education is, however, one of them. The Obama administration invested millions to launch a federal apprenticeship office, while President Trump has made it one of his signature ideas as he tries to address the re-industrialization of economically depressed regions of the country.

Twin goals are at play on the right and the left: the revival of manufacturing industries, which are desperate for skilled labor, and the need to develop pathways to good jobs—especially for non-university-bound youth—that technical high schools, community colleges, and training programs have been trying to forge. Virtually everyone in the policy world accepts that we must do more to move the American labor force toward the kind of high-skilled foundation that is common in Germany and Austria.

Despite this consensus, the U.S. is very far behind in expanding apprenticeship and the technical education that underpins it. We currently have 506,000 federally registered apprentices and have allocated $2.7 billion dollars to support them. In Germany, with an economy one quarter the size of the U.S., there are 1.4 million apprentices and the annual expenditure for them is $9 billion. The skill of the German labor force is unparalleled in the world and has helped that country become a dominant force in international trade. Its investment has paid off handsomely.

Political accord about the value of apprenticeship in the U.S. has not been accompanied by agreement on how to fund its growth. American employers complain about the difficulties they face finding qualified workers, but do not seem eager to invest in upskilling the labor force. They worry about ‘free riders,’ firms that will scoop up the workers they have paid to train. Few are eager to be first movers, to incur expense that their competitors are avoiding. State governments—especially in South Carolina, Tennessee, Michigan, and Massachusetts—are experimenting with tax breaks that make it less costly to support training, and they have a lot to show for their investments. But their efforts are not sufficient to answer the national demand.

With the impending retirement of the Baby Boom blue-collar labor force, many firms are worried about where they will find the workers of the future. In Massachusetts alone, we are expecting a shortfall of more than 44,000 skilled workers over the next decade. Nationally, the shortages are skyrocketing: Over 600,000 manufacturing jobs are posted at any given time that require post-high school training, but less than a college degree. These are exactly the kinds of jobs for which technical education and apprenticeship are the best preparation. Employers report that they can’t fill many of these jobs, and they’re wondering where they are going to find these workers.

We should look carefully at one model that could be a game changer in the U.S.: the U.K. apprenticeship tax. Passed into law by the conservative Tory government, this tax is igniting rapid growth in apprenticeships at modest cost to individual firms. It is creating a true pathway to robust technical training to the benefit of manufacturing firms and service industries alike. The levy is expected to support 3 million new apprenticeships in the next three years.

British employers with a payroll exceeding 3 million pounds ($4 million) pay a modest .5% payroll tax into a fund specifically earmarked for apprentices. Smaller companies—which amounts to 90% of the firms in England—will instead pay only 10% of the cost of apprentices, while the government will pick up the rest. (Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have their own programs.) For companies that have fewer than 50 employees, the government picks up all costs for new apprentices aged 16 to 18. The U.K. government adds 10% to the funds in every English company’s apprenticeship service account, applied monthly.

Employers can draw on these funds to pay the wages of their apprentices, to pay for training services (including subsidies to senior employees they may choose to provide training), and any other expense associated with the program. They can use these resources to train apprentices at all levels, from a semi-skilled operator to a graduate engineer. Each employer has an allowance of 15,000 pounds ($25,000) to offset against their tax payment, and they have up to two years to make use of their apprenticeship funds.

Because the cost of training varies by occupation, the U.K. government provides for 15 different “bands” of funding. Engineering and technology-related apprentices qualify a firm for a higher band than service-sector training. Recognizing these differential costs enables high-tech firms to participate as readily as any other kind of company.

If the United States wants to solve its labor demand problems in manufacturing and service industries, it has to get serious about technical training and shop-floor experience. It will not be able to do that just by talking about what a good idea apprenticeship is. The country has to settle on a financing system that will make it easy for companies to get into this game. We could do worse than look across the pond at our British cousins to see how it could be done.

Katherine S Newman is the Torrey Little Professor of Sociology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Hella Winston is a Senior Fellow at the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism at Brandeis. They are coauthors of Reskilling America: Learning to Labor in the 21st Century.