Proactive Technologies Report – November, 2021

There are not many jobs available for which employers are recruiting people who have taken classes, or a lot of classes, as if that is where value lies. If one finds a job like this it is because the employer believes, legitimately or mistakenly, it has a strategy to cultivate those core skills into the performance of work tasks. A task is recognizable by a beginning point, and ending point and a series of steps that, when performed in the right order to the right specification, result in a recognizable and desired outcome. No employer hires people and pays them wages for “being good at math,” “reading exceptionally well,” being aware of safety rules.” Rather they are hoping those skills are current enough, and apply directly enough, to tasks that need to be mastered and work the needs to be done.

To understand the importance of structured on-the-job training, it is important to differentiate between the three main types of learning in the workplace: classroom, online and on-the-job training. Read More

These agreements protected the employer against an employee from leaving the company and going to work for a competitor, bringing all this proprietary information with them. A time limit was specified in the agreement when the terms would “sunset,” and for the most part employees and employers respected the agreement’s spirit and intent.

In recent years, encouraged by state employer councils and opportunistic attorneys, non-compete agreements started to appear in non-traditional roles and atypical industries. Some employers began to see it as a way to keep employees from leaving even if the conditions of employment were untenable. After all, if an employee is particularly skilled in an area useful for employer A, what better way to maintain an employee than to say you can leave but you cannot take your skills with you to a similar job with employer B.

This practice had been quietly taking a toll on some workers until events, such the Covid pandemic and subsequent lockdown caused a lot of reconsideration of what was considered “normal” employment practices. Beyond high-tech manufacturing and technology company use, non-compete agreements have found their way into the hospitality, retail and shipping sectors, to name a few. Studies are being undertaken to see if these agreements are playing a role in the shortage of workers employers say they are encountering. Read More

When Education encounters disruptions such as covid-19, institutions shut down, instructors wait at home, training providers are sidelined, and some of these even move on if the opportunity arises. Yet their employer – many left open as essential industries – are continuing to employ, informally train incumbent, new and transferring workers. Those employers that invested in a structured on-the-job training infrastructure were able to adapt and minimize the impact. Even those without a formal structured on-the-job training system were better positioned to continue to deliver training (albeit informal and ad hoc) compared to educational institutions and providers that were essentially shut down waiting for the green light on when and how to reopen. Read More

When I attended high school, in addition to the classes I and everyone else was required to complete for graduation, we were offered “vocational training program” options. These programs – automotive, electronics, drafting, woodworking, and others – were not seen by all of us as just an alternative to college. These programs were robust and highly rated by employers. I selected a 2 ½ year electronics program. Some of my peers found jobs immediately upon graduation, and some of us used it as a preparatory program for college to further pursue our interests.

It was easy for me to begin a career in manufacturing while pursuing a college education throughout the 1970s and 80s. I guess I took for granted the inherent fairness of the worker/employer relationship then. Sure, some employees had their grievances. But it seemed to me as long as an employee gave the job their best effort and expressed loyalty to the employer, most employers felt inclined, if not obligated, to reciprocate. Today, I do not sense the same general sentiment among employees I encounter or some of the many employers with whom I come in contact. The growing mutual distrust and adversarial relationships, and the tension it creates, is palpable. To understand the inherent terror workers must feel in struggling to find a way to fight back or explore a path to a new career, we must look beyond the present for clues.

In the 1980’s, I noticed things beginning to change. In the years prior, nearly every employer had a competitive wage and benefit package or they had a hard time attracting workers. Probably due to the existence of strong unions(union membership was in the 20% range), many employers were afraid that the workers would become disenchanted and organize a union themselves. So they set their prevailing wage and benefits similar to jobs in local companies with a union bargaining agreement. Since “inflation” or “the consumer price index” used to calculate the annual “cost of living adjustment” to pay rates was calculated under the old, simple formula before it started changing in the 1980s, workers were not as concerned about inflation since wages usually kept pace.

Most employers offered two weeks of paid vacation – available after your first year of employment. Some allowed increased vacation time up to six weeks the longer you stayed employed with the company.

Many employers had paid sick leave, so a sick worker could stay home rather than infect their coworkers because they couldn’t afford not to work. We had paid bereavement, paid time off to vote, and some employers offered sabbaticals to employees who felt the need to “find themselves.” Read More