Some people argued that re-training should be matched against job opportunity. I am in favour of a more broad-based approach.
In a recession, companies are cutting down jobs. There are few job opportunities to match the re-training.
I suggest that the retrenched workers should be allowed to attend training courses that will upgrade their educational level, such as language, mathematics, customer service and IT skills. These skills will be useful in most jobs.
Many of the older workers have low education. It will be a good time to let them catch up on these shortcomings. They can receive a training attendance allowance. It will also create jobs for other people to be instructors.
In many advanced countries, the retrenched workers receive an unemployment benefit without having to attend training. If we do not wish to give this benefit so easily, we can require them to attend re-training, but a more flexible, broad based approach can be adopted. Let them be trained on the skills that are most useful, and not necessarily be tied to a specific job opporunity.
Poll: What type of training courses should a retrench worker attend, to receive a training allowance
Number of replies: 106
A training course tied to a specific job: 17%
Any useful training, including upgrading of education and general skills: 63%
They should receive an unemploymenet benefit that is not tied to training: 16%
No training allowance or unemployment benefit: 2%
Job matching & training should be given to those that are willing to work in industry that are short- handed e.g. service & retail. If the person is too picky, they should not be given the training at all less they waste the money & time.
ReplyDeleteTraining is only helpful if the cause of the unemployment is due to deficiencies in knowledge, skills or attitude. Indiscriminate training without understanding the underlying cause of the problem is like simply wasting time and resources. However, it is a useful tool to make the general population feel good and is good for morale of the masses. It is also a sign that the planners have run out of ideas and taking a safe route.
ReplyDeleteFor example, when many people are being sent for a technical course like the NTC 3 and then NTC 2 in a specific skill. If there is indeed a shortage of people at that skill level then it is helpful. But if existing NTC 2 graduates are also being retrenched then what is the point of preparing more people for that level? Of course, the argument could always be that they are preparing for the long term. But this argument seems tired just like any investment that is losing money can be said to be for the long term. Sometimes investments like the ABC Learning centre in australia has no more long term to talk about, just like the 50 or 60 year old retrenched worker has no more long term to talk about when it is well known that employers already do not want to employ 40 year olds!
i been to broad and specific based training, both
ReplyDeletethe good news is i enjoyed that i am trained every time
the bad news is i dont enjoy the look on the face of the management review board each time i told them happily i was trained
I am not sure if its my Tie
If the Gahmen don't talk about retraining, what else can they talk about helping people in recession?
ReplyDeleteThey can't talk about providing suitable jobs, about social welfare or safety net, about the reality of discrimination, about foreign labour still being cheaper and needed.
So whether retraining can help or not, still have to talk about it. Must do or say something what, right?
In her reply "PMETs represented in NTUC" which was in response to my letter to Today (28 Nov 2008), Mdm Halimad Yacoob had explained that NTUC had proposed, and the triparte partners agreed to amend the Employment Act to protect workers and junior executives earning monthly salary not more than $2,500. While this is a marked improvement, why and how is this salary peg arbitrarily applied?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.todayonline.com/articles/289592.asp
The NTUC is spending $600 million on Skills Programme for Upgrdaing and Resilience (SPUR) but the paradox and irony is if that workers and / or junior executives are better trained and now earn $2,500 per month, they will no more be entitled to seek retrenchment claims under the Labour Court.
Care and trust cannot be achieved through legislations as said by the NTUC Chief, but due to this arbitrary low peg at $2,500, many are not protected and risked being victimised during retrenchment exercises, when "care and trust" alone could not be relied on for a fair solution.
In a severe Recession, the old workers nearing retirement should be paid off so that the young workers will continue working!
ReplyDeleteAfterall, life is not all about working and no time to enjoy retirement ......you only live once and life should be a BALANCE.
Retraining should be in the work place curriculum and not wait for retrenchment to happen and go back to school
Employers still look at academic qualifications. If one can upgrade to get "O" levels, "A" levels or Diploma, it will really help the worker on a long term basis.
ReplyDeleteRetraining is just another wayang.
ReplyDeleteIt is another excuse to make some money from you when u are already jobless.
After training, u are older, less savings (pay for the training), and is still unwanted. Sad.
aiyoyo
ReplyDeleteis it the ELITEs job + responsibility to constantly ensure there's enough/sufficient jobs available in this country? those ELITEs should be able to see further/clearer than commoners, correct?
”坐高能望远“
if during normal time, those ELITEs had done proper & good homework, then believed during crisis/gloomy economy, then no need to panic, job loss, talk 'retraining' etc. etc. correct?
aiyoyo
If they are sincere, a lot more could be done.
ReplyDeleteWhen there are many matured, experienced & highly educated people who are jobless, under employed & could not find full time job, they should be employed as trainer so that at least they can earn some income.
But this is not the case. These mature PMETs are send for "lower level" retraining to pay fees to support younger trainers.
After "retraining", they are getting older, poorer and still jobless.
In the minibond saga, notes holders after lossing their savings, are being accused of "deserved it, stupid, fully aware yet doing the follish act", etc." So they felt ashame and dare not tell people they hv lost money.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of retraining, older worker, some highly qualified, are being accused of "Useless" bec they still cannot find a job after retraining. They felt ashame, so they dare not tell people they hv gone thru retraining.
After RT, they are older, poorer, and still jobless, and again being ridiculed as "useless".
Mr Tan,
ReplyDeletei think the most important re-training required at the moment should be among our MPs and govt leaders.
How to Handle Queries from the Public Whom You Serve 101
Public Monies and Transparency 101