在美國政界兩極分化的時期，鮮有政策觀點能讓民主黨和共和黨都積極響應，不過學徒培訓和重振技能教育是其中少數例外。奧巴馬任總統期間，美國聯邦政府投入數百萬美元成立了聯邦學徒辦公室。特朗普上臺后一直努力讓經濟蕭條地區(qū)重新走上工業(yè)化道路，因此也將學徒項目作為標志性的執(zhí)政理念。

無論哪個黨派上臺，目標基本都是兩個：復興制造業(yè)，為熟練勞動力提供就業(yè)；發(fā)掘獲得好工作的途徑，特別是為沒有大學學歷的年輕人，一些美國職高、社區(qū)大學和培訓計劃一直設法為這類年輕人尋找職場出路。決策層幾乎一致同意：美國必須推動國內勞動力結構進一步轉型，目標是以熟練產業(yè)工人為基礎的德國和奧地利。

雖然政界達成共識，但實踐步伐仍遠遠落后，尤其在擴大學徒項目和技能教育等基礎建設方面。目前在美國聯邦政府注冊的學徒有50.6萬人，政府撥發(fā)了27億美元提供支持。而在經濟體量只有美國四分之一的德國，學徒多達140萬人，每年政府相關支出達90億美元。德國工人的技術水平全球首屈一指，從而成為國際貿易領頭羊?？梢哉f，德國在工人培訓上的投資回報相當可觀。

美國政界認可學徒項目的價值，就如何資助項目卻未達成一致。美國企業(yè)總是抱怨合格的員工難找，另一方面卻不愿意為提升勞動者技能投資。他們擔心為他人做嫁衣裳，砸下真金白銀培訓出優(yōu)秀員工后被對手挖走。很少有公司敢為人先，承擔競爭對手不愿支出的培訓費用。在美國南卡羅來那、田納西、密歇根和馬薩諸塞等州，政府正在搞試點通過稅收優(yōu)惠減少企業(yè)培訓成本，也已獲得不少成效，但相對于全國性的人手短缺還遠遠不夠。

隨著美國嬰兒潮一代藍領工人離退休越來越近，許多公司都擔心未來人員補充問題。我們預計，僅馬薩諸塞州未來十年就缺少超過4.4萬熟練工人。全國范圍的用工缺口還在飛速擴大：隨便挑個時間，制造業(yè)對高中畢業(yè)后受過培訓但沒有大學學歷的工人缺口都超過60萬。填補這些崗位最適合的就是技能教育和學徒制畢業(yè)生。用人企業(yè)稱這類崗位空缺非常多，但不知道該去哪里找人。

有一種模式可能改變美國勞動者匱乏的局面，我們應該仔細研究下，即英國的學徒稅。英國保守黨政府通過這項稅收的法律后，激發(fā)學徒制飛速發(fā)展，而且對私人企業(yè)來說成本可以接受。該方式可以真正促進技能培訓，制造和服務業(yè)的企業(yè)都可受益。預計這項稅收可在三年里扶持300萬新增學徒。

該法律規(guī)定，員工合計薪酬超過300萬英鎊的英國公司要繳納相當于薪酬總額0.5%的稅，稅款投入一個特別為學徒設立的基金。在英格蘭，占企業(yè)總數九成的小公司只需要負擔學徒成本的10%，政府承擔其余90%的費用。（蘇格蘭、威爾士和北愛爾蘭都有各自的學徒項目。）對于員工不足50人的公司，英國政府負擔16歲到18歲新學徒的所有費用。每個月英國政府還為每家公司的學徒服務賬戶增加補助，補助額為賬戶金額的10%。

英國企業(yè)可以用學徒基金賬戶的資金支付學徒的薪水，為培訓服務買單（包括為提供培訓的老員工提供補貼），負擔其他一切與學徒項目有關的費用。公司可以充分利用資源培養(yǎng)各種水平的學徒，從半熟練操作員到有大學學歷的工程師都可參與。每家公司都能從納稅額中抵扣1.5萬英鎊（約合2.5萬美元），學徒基金使用期限為兩年。

考慮到不同行業(yè)的培訓成本各異，英國政府提供了15種不同等級的基金。假如企業(yè)要培養(yǎng)工程學與技術相關領域的學徒，等級就高于服務業(yè)培訓。由于各項培訓成本獲得的補貼有高有低，英國的高科技企業(yè)參與學徒項目也一樣積極。

如果美國希望解決制造業(yè)和服務業(yè)的勞動力需求問題，就要認真對待技能培訓和一線經驗積累。僅僅討論何學徒制多么好是沒用的。美國一定要設立便于企業(yè)參與的財務系統。要邁出第一步，我們可以先學學大洋彼岸的英國政府。（財富中文網）

本文作者凱瑟琳.S.紐曼為美國馬薩諸塞大學安姆斯特分校Torrey Little社會學教授。另一作者赫拉·溫斯頓為美國布蘭迪斯大學調查新聞研究院Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism的高級研究員。兩人共同著有《美國重拾技能：如何加強21世紀的勞動力》一書。

譯者：Pessy

審稿：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.