[LINK] Business invests in worker skills?

[Adam Todd]

> >Why on earth would a business want to invest in training
> >workers to do the job the worker is employed to do?
>
>So they can do the job better.

So I need to employ someone at $400 a week, to teach the person I pay $400 
a week to learn how to do the job?  That's $800 a week and two man weeks.

I'd rather do it myself, pocket the $800 and work a little harder.

No wonder we have such high unemployment in this country.  It costs me 
twice to employ anyone and that's before TAX, Superannuation, Training Levy 
and other hidden costs!

> >Isn't that what the Education system is for?  To train people
> >to be capable of doing the job they were employed to do?
>
>Absolutely not, no, no.  You are wrong. What the education system exists for
>is to help children become balanced, wise and reasonable people, to assist
>with understanding whatever it is that takes their interest and to show them
>what has been discovered by those who have lived and died before them, so

School failed me then.  And my Three Degree holding wife!

>that each generation can go on to add to the wealth of knowledge that we
>have.

Uhuh.  What how to use knives in school?  How to slash a teacher with a sword?

>Someone with a successful education will be much easier to train, and
>will often be able to infer a lot of the job from intutition, experience and
>common sense.

Really?  I've found flunky year ten students easier and more adaptable to 
IT than Post Graduate Uni students who think they know everything because 
they have a degree and I don't!

Lets not get into film making.  We've had to UN-TRAIN people who have 
finished their three years of University.

"I learned more in a week with Iconoclast than I did in three years at Uni, 
and I still don't know enough about making a film."

So my tax dollars went to a Uni to do what?  Encourage me to employ them 
and a trainer to teach them to do the job?

Sorry I'm not a strong supported of Modern Education, but as a business 
person, I fail to see why I should pay to teach people how to unlearn their 
mistakes and methods from people who failed in business.

>That's why you don't necessarily need such a strong emphasis on IT in
>schools.  Information isn't knowledge, and knowledge systems are a bit out
>of scope (and price) for schools.

IT, Film, Arts, Science, Music, Teaching ...

>Of course what it's used for these days is all to often exactly as you say,
>but education can't stop at 17 -- imagine if you had never learned anything
>after that?

Well considering I failed year ten with a total of 22% across all 11 
subjects, and still earned $50,000 in that year, and landed two jobs the 
next year, as as previously mentioned was kicked out of computer class, but 
was employed by a Mainframe Maintenance company repairing and fixing 
terminals, Vax's and getting a lot of exposure to the PDP systems, I can't 
complain.

Had I not failed school, I'd have not go the job!

> >That seems like paying people to learn and paying for them to learn.
>
>Typically the society funds education for the benefit of the society, not
>for the individuals -- but these days that's more about paying to keep them
>off the streets.

Very much about keeping them off the streets.

"Learn or Earn" sounds like 100% Employment.  If everyone "unemployed" was 
"learning" then they'd not be unemployed.

> >especially at a time where cashflow is so critical and the
> >Government wants
> >it's Tax Paid in ADVANCE, rather than after you earn the cash.
> >
>No, you employ someone who can already do what you want them to do, however
>you should pay for them to learn xyzHTML,

Shouldn't they learn xyzHTML and then come and tell me how great they are 
and they want a pay rise?

I'd rather they learn on their own time, save me the $400 a week I'd pay 
the trainer and give them a pay rise, assuming xyzHTML was useful to my 
business strategy.

>or  some other new tech that is
>released while you employ them (at least paid time off when required as a
>minimum, if you can't fund the course).  It used to be called patronage or
>for cheaper training, apprenticeship.

Employers don't pay for the apprenticeship time, they only pay for the 
hours on the job.

> >business we don't actually employ people - VERY FEW actually
> >know how to do the job they want, we actually TRAIN THEM at OUR EXPENSE 
> (and
> >time) to do the job they want to do.
>
>That's the other idea.  If as a private enterprise you want to make money,
>and the skill set required is one which is both complex and not in wide
>demand then you WILL and SHOULD have to train people at your expense.

What so they can go out and compete against me?  No thanks!

"A smart employer will employ people smarter then he is, hence he is 
smarter than they are."

If an employee is dumber than me, I don't need them.  I employ SMART people 
who are SMARTER than me.  (Some people say that's nearly impossible, but 
I'm not brilliant at everything.)

>If you want to use special expensive German cameras, you have to pay, not
>the taxpayer.  If you have a demand and supply is short, the govt. should
>not be subsidising your business because it's hard to get staff.

But the Government isn't training people to do the jobs that are available 
NOW.  I don't want to have to spend six months and double the cash to train 
someone to do something that is needed NOW and will be long over in four 
months.

>However, if the society wants employment, and they want movies made, then
>some subsidies are available -- Check with centrelink and see what newstart
>is called these days, or perhaps you can get trainee or apprenticeship
>funding.

<smile> Looking at those actually.  I spoke to two ministers today.  One 
useful, the other referred me back to the other.  <sigh>


> >Maybe we should start an Institution?

And my team decided to do this and it's going to be announced next week :)