Understanding the Important Difference Between Classroom, Online and On-The-Job Training
by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.
In a past issue of Proactive Technologies Report article entitled, “Thirteen Good Reasons Why Structured On-The-Job Training Should Be Part of Your Business Strategy” I laid out 13 very important reasons employers should seriously consider adding structured on-the-job training to their business strategy. This is based on the supposition that the difference between “structured” and “unstructured” on-the-job training is clear and recognized, and the vast difference between true structured on-the-job training and “classroom” or “online” learning is unquestioned. It also needs to be understood that structured on-the-job training is not interchangeable with classroom and online learning, but rather the “capstone” of applying core skills developed from the latter into mastering units of work for which an employer is willing to pay wages.
click here to expand
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
The Covid Pandemic Might Have Exposed the Perils of Non-Compete Agreement Over-Use
by Stacey Lett, Regional Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.
The recent Covid pandemic has opened up many unforeseen or unconsidered scenarios in human resource management and labor law. One of them is the growing overuse and, perhaps, misuse of non-compete agreements between employers and employees.
In the past, non-compete agreement use was limited to an employer’s need to protect intellectual property and trade secrets. It was enforced sparingly by the courts when an employer could articulate the nature and level of risk to business operation and owner equity. Their use was targeted toward those employees with access to highly sensitive and confidential information, processes or strategies.
click here to expand
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
Workforce Development Realism: Properly Weighing Structured On-The-Job Training and Related Technical Instruction
by Frank Gibson, Workforce Development Advisor, retired from The Ohio State University – Alber Enterprise Center
With all the distractions caused by COVID-19 pandemic, employers and workforce developers are being forced to reevaluate what they thought were effective workforce development strategies. Work is being redefined, jobs are being redefined, and people are being reassigned to adjust to changing supply chain requirements and to the new realities of work. Unlike any time in history, except perhaps the Crash of 2008 and the Great Depression of 1929, have employers been required to expedite such mass reconsideration of its human assets – all while under a national health threat.
Prior to this pandemic, adult and continuing education was pretty settled in their approaches to training workers for today’s work. Classes and certificates were linked to what they believed were today’s realities, But the paradigm shifted with no indication yet that things will entirely return to that “normal.” Not only are educational institutions redefining themselves, their products and services, and their delivery methods, they are doing so while employers are in the process of redefining themselves to their new operational needs. Both transformations are impacting not only trainees who were currently taking related technical instruction classes at a community college in preparation for employment, what the employer does once they hire the individual in many cases is less defined now then it was poorly defined prior. In short, this is a period of flying blind to a moving target.
click here to expand
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
What is So Radical About Workers Asking for a Return of What was Taken From Them? Part 1 of 2
by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.
Incremental change can camouflage the growing accumulation of small impacts that when weighed in their totality can be life-altering. The pressures of life, or a plethora of streaming entertainment, sports, social media interactions, can cast shade on perhaps the most important events in our lives without us noticing. Then, one day a “last straw” or “last Jenga peg pulled” causes our world to tumble and us to reevaluate what was missed and what we could have done differently – but not before we find bottom an inventory of damage is taken.
In trying to understand the angst felt by, it appears, most of the workers in America who struggled with the trauma of the 2008 economic crash only to be knocked down again by the Covid pandemic and its effect on our economy and society, one needs to establish a benchmark for comparison. Both of these largest of economic events in recent history peeled back the illusion of an America where everyone is happily consuming and life couldn’t get any better – the version the media is keen on promoting. It caused me to draw a comparison to my experiences as a worker in my earlier years.
click here to expand
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
Read the full November, 2021 Proactive Technologies Report newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.
Proactive Technologies, Inc.®; PROTECH; Human Resource Management for Tomorrow...Today!® and logo; br>Accelerated Transfer of Expertise System™; Certificate of Job Mastery Program™, Certificate of Task Mastery Program™ are all trademarks of Proactive Technologies Inc.®;