ANNEXURE D - Learnership Agreement ANNEXURE E - Learnership Project Plan
3.8 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON WORKPLACE LEARNING
3.8.1 WORKPLACE LEARNING IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM: A FREE MARKET MODEL
There is little involvement of the state and labour in workplace learning due in the free market ideology. It is driven largely by business. Mainstream training and development has remained firmly in the hands of the employers. This led to the formation of skills standards by the different industry sectors. However, the Federal government’s initiative to rationalise and formalise these standards into a nationally recognized collective remains a challenge.
Politicians and employers resent what is perceived as the ‘interference’ of the Federal government and have prevented the introduction of a national competence-based scheme. The main push for the development of workplace learning has come from larger employers, especially multinational corporations and professional associations such as the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), emphasised Ashton in (Rainbird, 2004:
26).
The United Kingdom, being a free market model, adopts a similar framework as the United States of America; however, the UK government has been more active in developing programmes than the USA. The Learning and Skills Council administer government programmes at local level, while the Sector Skills Council identifies sector skills needs and advises business on workplace learning. In addition, the Regional Development Agency also funds experiments in workplace learning. Regarding certification, the UK government has been more successful than the USA in linking certification to workplace learning. The UK has a greater degree of centralisation of power which enables the state to implement policies without the fear of challenge from subordinate agencies. This has made it easier for the central government to launch programmes such as the National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs), proffers Ashton (in Rainbird et al., 2004: 28).
3.8.2 WORKPLACE LEARNING IN DENMARK AND GERMANY: A CORPORATIST MODEL
In Denmark, there is a strong collaboration between labour and business when formulating workplace learning initiatives. The state merely acts as a facilitator in this process. The system is highly decentralised where labour and business play important roles at ministerial, institutional and enterprise levels in determining the content, structure and delivery of workplace learning programmes. One of the main reasons for this strong commitment of business and labour to training and development initiatives, is the unique characteristics of Danish enterprises. In Denmark, an enterprise consists of a number of mini- enterprises. Within each mini-enterprise, a skilled worker with the support of semi-skilled workers, integrate plans, programmes implements, engages maintenance and introduces innovations into the workplace. These skilled workers have considerable power over their workplace which enables them to continually seek to improve and update worker skills (Ashton in Rainbird et al., 2004: 29).
Germany is similar to Denmark concerning the role of the social partners.
However, Germany is a much larger country with a federal political system.
The organisation of training is a joint enterprise between the federal government, the states, chambers of commerce, business and labour.
However, this is primarily concerned with initial apprenticeship training (Culpepper, 1999: 45). This system of initial vocational training is highly regulated, but thereafter, the state plays a minor role concerning continuous training. Given the lack of a particular framework, incentive scheme or standards there is no particular emphasis on workplace learning and training as a separate system (Ashton in Rainbird et al., 2004: 32).
3.8.3 WORKPLACE LEARNING IN SINGAPORE AND SOUTH KOREA:
A DEVELOPMENTAL STATE MODEL
In Singapore, the state still retains a high degree of autonomy from both business and labour. Although there are many multinational corporations, the
fragmented power of business is not strong enough to exert any form of pressure on the state. Singapore is perceived to have a competitive edge in the life science and electronics industry and here government plays a proactive role in anticipating and fostering the demand for higher levels of workplace learning. It has done this in two ways. The first is to encourage employers to adopt best practices in business management. Here, the Job Re-design Programme assists in helping business to achieve higher levels of productivity. The second way is by increasing the supply of new skills which takes two different forms, firstly, by providing guidance to employers on how to structure informal, on-the-job training for key workers. Subsidies are available through the Skills Development Fund. Secondly, it is through the Critical Enabling Skills Programme which delivers modules in a range of ‘new skills’ from communication to leadership and problem solving. In the field of certification, Ashton (in Rainbird et al., 2004: 32-3) asserts that recognition of middle and lower levels of workplace competencies are facilitated through the National Skills Recognition System.
In South Korea, giant conglomerates initially assisted by government are no longer being influenced by them. The implications are that the state has little power to determine the skills agenda. This is in the hands of a strong labour movement. Skills formation therefore is centred in the internal labour markets of the large corporations with their near lifetime employment, meaning there was little demand for a system of skills certification. While workplace learning gained importance, Ashton (in Rainbird et al., 2004: 33-4) highlights that it is the large corporations that remained firmly in control of the skills agenda.
There are three predominant types of workplace learning intervention that are practised in South Africa regarding skills development. These include apprenticeships, internships and learnerships. A succinct discussion of these pertinent interventions is presented in the next discussion.