Gen Z Isn’t ‘Work-Ready’? Why Nearly a Million Young Britons Are Unemployed — and What Needs to Change
Key Takeaways:
- “Work-readiness” is a systemic issue, not a generational flaw — Nearly one million young Britons are unemployed largely due to disrupted education, lost early work experience, and structural labour market changes following the pandemic.
- The traditional pathway into work has broken down — The decline of part-time and entry-level jobs, combined with AI-driven recruitment and automation, has removed key stepping stones that once helped young people develop workplace skills.
- Employers and policymakers must adapt — Addressing the crisis requires renewed investment in training, fair recruitment practices, and lawful pathways into work, rather than placing blame on Gen Z for gaps created by the system.
Nearly a million young people in the UK are now classed as NEET — not in education, employment or training. According to the Office for National Statistics, between July and September 2025 almost one million people aged 16 to 24 were outside the labour market, with around 600,000 not even actively looking for work. That figure has sparked alarm across government, business, and the legal profession alike.
At first glance, the explanation offered by many employers appears blunt: Generation Z “isn’t work-ready.” But that phrase oversimplifies a far more complex problem — one rooted in pandemic disruption, structural changes to the labour market, and a steady erosion of the traditional pathways young people once relied on to enter work.
From an employment and regulatory perspective, this is not simply a youth problem. It is a systemic one, with implications for workforce planning, equality, skills development, and long-term economic stability.
A crisis recognised at the highest levels
The scale of the issue has been acknowledged by government. In December 2025, ministers launched an independent review into the rising number of NEETs, led by former Labour health secretary Alan Milburn. Describing the situation as a crisis, Milburn has pointed to a sharp decline in opportunities for young people — especially entry-level and part-time roles that once acted as a bridge between education and full-time employment.
His assessment echoes what many employers are already saying privately: young recruits often arrive without the practical experience, confidence, or workplace awareness expected of them. But the question Parachute Law continues to raise is whether employers are expecting skills that the system itself has failed to provide.
The pandemic’s long shadow on work readiness
For Gen Z, the transition from school to work was fundamentally disrupted by Covid-19. Lockdowns removed far more than classroom learning. They erased informal but critical experiences — in-person interaction, part-time jobs, work placements, volunteering, and early exposure to workplace norms.
Julie Leonard, Chief Impact Officer at Shaw Trust, describes a “socialisation gap” affecting young people now in their early twenties. Virtual learning, prolonged isolation, and reduced face-to-face contact meant many never developed core “human skills” — communication, teamwork, resilience, time-keeping, and following instructions — that employers assume young workers already have.
From a legal standpoint, this matters. Employers can train technical competence, but workplace culture, behavioural expectations, and interpersonal conduct are harder to retrofit. When these gaps go unaddressed, young employees are more likely to struggle during probation, face disciplinary action, or exit roles prematurely — increasing turnover and employment risk for businesses.
The disappearance of the traditional stepping stones
Previous generations rarely entered full-time work cold. Saturday jobs, paper rounds, babysitting, shop work, and casual labour provided early exposure to discipline and accountability. These roles taught young people how to take instructions, interact with customers, and navigate hierarchy — all without the pressure of a formal career.
That ecosystem has largely collapsed. Retail automation, tighter margins, and regulatory compliance costs have reduced employers’ willingness to hire young, inexperienced workers. Child labour protections — while essential — have also narrowed lawful opportunities for under-18s to gain work exposure.
The result is a paradox: employers want “work-ready” candidates, but many of the environments that once created work readiness no longer exist.
A labour market stacked against new entrants
Even for those actively seeking work, the numbers are stark. Job vacancies fell nearly 10% year-on-year to around 729,000 in late 2025. Competition has intensified, with roughly 2.5 unemployed people per vacancy — up from 1.8 the year before.
Graduate recruitment illustrates the imbalance. More than 1.2 million applications were submitted for just 17,000 graduate roles last year, according to the Institute of Student Employers. At the same time, artificial intelligence and automation have quietly eliminated many entry-level administrative and junior professional roles — historically a key access point for young workers.
From a legal and policy perspective, this raises difficult questions about fairness, access, and long-term workforce sustainability. If early-career roles disappear, the pipeline for future skilled workers narrows — creating shortages further down the line.
Digital hiring and the rise of impersonal rejection
Recruitment itself has changed dramatically. Online portals, AI screening tools, and automated rejection systems dominate early hiring stages. While efficient, they are unforgiving to candidates without polished CVs, strong digital literacy, or insider knowledge of keyword optimisation.
Many young applicants now submit dozens — even hundreds — of AI-generated CVs, often receiving no response at all. This depersonalisation erodes confidence and reinforces disengagement, particularly among those already uncertain about their place in the workforce.
From an employment law perspective, employers should be mindful of indirect discrimination risks. Automated recruitment tools can disproportionately disadvantage younger applicants, neurodivergent candidates, or those from less privileged backgrounds — especially if systems are not regularly audited for bias.
Are employers misdiagnosing the problem?
Some large firms have begun to acknowledge that the issue is not simply generational attitude. PwC introduced resilience training for graduate recruits in 2025, explicitly linking skills gaps to pandemic disruption. KPMG followed suit, rolling out structured training on teamwork, communication, and presentation skills.
These initiatives suggest a shift in thinking: that “work readiness” is not a fixed trait, but something that must be actively developed — particularly in the wake of unprecedented disruption.
For employers, this reframes onboarding and probation not as filtering exercises, but as risk-management tools. Investing early in structured support may reduce disputes, underperformance, and early exits — all of which carry legal and financial consequences.
Old-school job hunting in a digital world
Interestingly, some of the most effective solutions being proposed are also the simplest. Shaw Trust encourages young people to step away from purely online applications and re-engage with local employers directly — walking into shops, cafés, and small businesses with a CV and a willingness to talk.
While not suitable for every sector, this approach restores human connection to hiring and helps rebuild confidence. For small and medium-sized enterprises, informal recruitment can still play a lawful and effective role — provided employers remain mindful of right-to-work checks, minimum wage obligations, and fair selection practices.
What needs to change — legally and structurally
The NEET crisis cannot be solved by blaming young people. It demands coordinated reform across education, employment, and regulation.
From Parachute Law’s perspective, key priorities include:
- Rebuilding lawful pathways into work through supported internships, apprenticeships, and entry-level roles that comply with employment and wage law.
- Encouraging employers to invest in early-stage training, recognising pandemic disruption as a mitigating factor rather than a personal failing.
- Reviewing recruitment practices, particularly AI-driven screening, to ensure compliance with equality and data protection obligations.
- Strengthening collaboration between schools, employers, and policymakers to align education outcomes with real workplace expectations.
A generation at risk of being written off
Labeling Gen Z as “not work-ready” risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. The reality is that many young people are willing to work, but lack access, opportunity, and support at a critical moment in their development.
For employers, the choice is stark: adapt recruitment and training practices to today’s realities, or face long-term skills shortages and workforce instability. For policymakers, the challenge is to rebuild the bridges into work that once existed — in a labour market transformed by technology, regulation, and global crisis.
This is not just an employment issue. It is a question of social mobility, economic resilience, and fairness — and one that demands urgent, legally informed action.
Related Articles:
Rising Costs and the Employment Rights Bill: Why UK Businesses Fear for Jobs and Growth
