You need to invest in the local population first before you look to external sources for your skilled labour pool. I think there are lots of people out there who would jump at the chance to gain an apprenticeship or learn a skill IF said businesses were willing to train.

” I think there are lots of people out there who would jump at the chance to gain an apprenticeship or learn a skill IF said businesses were willing to train.”

I’m not buying the argument that businesses aren’t willing to train. In this day and age it’s extremely difficult to find someone who wants to be trained; we’ve raised the last few generations with the idea that they don’t have to work to hard, that society will look after them.

Most of those lower mainland immigrants that come into Canada are mothers,fathers,grandparents,uncle,aunts not skilled labour, other than cash paid berry pickers.

Well said Mercenary. Totally agree.

The CTC program is where kids in highschool start trades training at CNC in grade 11 but go back to highschool to finish grade 12 and graduate. It’s a great program to get kids into the trades. Most of the time the program isn’t even full. The problem is that the kids need to get a certain number of hours of work experience in their trade during the summer and it’s really hard to find someone to give them a job.

Companies are head hunters! They are more than happy to hire someone that was trained by someone else. The CTC program is only successful if the students find someone to indenture them. The kids would be better off staying in school and take an entry level course once they graduate.

Mercenary has it right! Invest in our populations here first!

During the trade shortage of the 70’s, didn’t each business have a mandated apprentice to journeyman ratio? The pulp mills now have a program in place where they offer an apprenticeship for every 3 journeymen they hire.
Also, there are many folks that would jump at an apprenticeship if companies offered them. People still work hard in forestry, mining, sawmills, etc. I think the swelling ranks in the corporate offices are the ones getting the gravy and the fat wages.

More businesses would be willing to train if only they could afford to train. They can’t. Not only are the margins far too tight nowadays for many of us, but governments have imposed changes to various things which often now result in heavy potential liability issues for employers.

For instance, and this is just ONE example of many I could cite, worker’s compensation was originally conceived as an employer paid, “no fault”, mandatory insurance scheme.

Today it’s still employer paid and mandatory, but EVERY accident that occurs is now viewed as the employer’s fault ~ whether that’s actually the case or not.

“Inadequate training” is usually cited as the reason for the penalties and additional premiums arbitrarily imposed if an accident occurs. But tell me this, just WHAT is an apprentice, whether in a certified trade or a job that is not, there for if other than TO BE trained?

Who can afford to take him by the hand and ensure his every move will be a safe one all throughout this period? Because that, in the view of WorksafeBC, seems to be virtually what you have to do. As if he has no brain whatsoever, and is completely bereft of not only common sense, but the ability to carry out simple given instructions, no matter how often or thoroughly safe work practices are stressed when they’re issued.

What small or medium sized business nowadays can afford to maintain the documentation necessary to avert bureaucratic penalties? Not just with WorksafeBC, but with numerous other government agencies ~ any one of which is full of people just salivating to prove their vital necessity by making any supposed errant employer’s life a living, and financial, Hell.

Better run this by the steel workers union first..

Socredible has some good points.

I think that the Government is out of control when it comes to laws, rules, and regulations.

We need intelligent people in Government who’s job is to make things safer and easier for business and employee’s. This can be done without a bunch of rules and regulations, that basically strangles initiative, and production.

The longevity, and profitability of companies depends on well trained, hard working, well paid, employee’s, who realize that thier jobs are tied directly to the well being of the company. Companies need to be more responsible when dealing with thier employee’s, and should take whatever action is necessary to keep them.

Government on the other hand, needs to ensure that they are a help, not a hinderance to the well being of all. Seems in this day and age it is the Government that spends all its time and money on ensuring that it survives, and to hell with the rest of us.

On the WCB issue I concur. In my management experience, on one hand were employees who even after being told not to do something unsafe (like wearing earbuds and listening to ipods), would do it anyway – and on the other side, a union that had an on-staff lawyer that would labour board you to death if you “unfairly” disciplined the employee – and pretty much anything you did, was unfair.

But just a different take on this. Seems what we’re talking about is a skill shortage to handle resource extraction – solution – bring in someone from somewhere else. Hows this – only remove as much resource as we have the workforce to do it, and leave the rest in the ground or growing in the forest, and let our future home grown generation extract or harvest it. Because what happens, when all these people we’ve brought in to extract and harvest, are still here when there is nothing left to extract? What’s the rush. The stuff has been in the ground for millions of years, a few more generations won’t kill us.

Looking forward to having all these people relocate here in PG because Dave Wilbur once told an audience that “we need more people in PG in order to lower taxes”. That’s what he said. I was there. Of course I could have “taken him out of context”, but Hey! That’s me.

“But just a different take on this. Seems what we’re talking about is a skill shortage to handle resource extraction – solution – bring in someone from somewhere else. Hows this – only remove as much resource as we have the workforce to do it, and leave the rest in the ground or growing in the forest, and let our future home grown generation extract or harvest it. Because what happens, when all these people we’ve brought in to extract and harvest, are still here when there is nothing left to extract? What’s the rush. The stuff has been in the ground for millions of years, a few more generations won’t kill us.”

I agree ski50, in a perfect world, we would be managing our resources with utmost care.
Unfortunately voracious corporate greed holds the reins at the moment and the government chooses to look the other way to “keep the economy humming”. Short sited, stupid and we will all pay mightily for it down the road.

Many companies are also not interested in training new employees or apprentices, because once they get the experience and or the company training, they take off. Leaving the employer to find someone else to train.

Another point, is that many of the younger people, don’t want to start at the bottom of the ladder at lower wages and work their way up. They want to start higher up on the ladder at higher wages.

There are a lot of factors that goes into hiring and training employees. These are just a couple. Previous posts have mentioned others. There are no easy solutions to a complex issue.

The days of employer & employee loyalty is nearly dead. There are some companies (large, small and in between) that treat their employees very good and other do not. Also, some employees do not care about their employer and would leave in a heart beat, regardless of how well the employer treated them.

Ideally, it would be great if they hire from the local labour pool and would be offering to train the new workers, rather than hire someone from some where else.

Another thing to keep in mind, is how long will the employment opportunity last? Are they hiring for a special project that will only last 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? or is full time permanent work.

Socredible has some great points for those who cannot take the responsibility to ensure the running of a business which looks out for its employees as well as its customers. A real throw back to the dark ages. It is the reason why the criminal law was change to make people like socredible is talking about accountable for their non-action.

By all means, remove WorkSafeBC and let the courts take care of it. Good luck getting insurance coverage for negligence.

We are living in a different world these days. Socredible and Palopu have not figured that out yet.

That just doesn’t wash Thunderboltz. Most people I know that work for good companies STAY with those companies. Management needs to have adequate people skills to recognise those folks who will take off at the earliest opportunity and those who are truly your long term employees.

Quit telling people that there are 50 guys lined up behind me who could do my job…because obviously that just isn’t true anymore…..

“Many companies are also not interested in training new employees or apprentices, because once they get the experience and or the company training, they take off. Leaving the employer to find someone else to train.”

Thunderboltz has hit the biggest nail squarely on the head.

Go find a place where this all works, like the kind of places that the immigrants come from who have a trade certification in their country.

Then get with it and do it rather than smoking pot and visioning while sitting on your asses around a table.

“Most people I know that work for good companies STAY with those companies”

The key is GOOD. A GOOD compnay is one which stays in business with the same owner or a like minded new owner. With the way things are these days, that is not that common anymore. Owners have the best intentions, but they can only be squeezed for so long before they have to make tough decisions.

I was part of that in the late 1970s when a company of 25 went down to 2, the owner and a junior helper. All professionals scattered over a 2 year period. Most of that work is outsourced now to Alberta and the lower mainland.

BTW, where did those 25 come from originally? Australia, HongKong, Britain, Czechoslovakia, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan …. and even a few from the lower part of the province.

That was during the boom years.

Things really do not change much.

Oh, and when there were not enough companies employing apprentices anymore in the early to late 1980s …. the system was changed and the college created the jobs with government help and built places like the then new tourism building on Victoria and 15th, Camp McInnis, Spruce Kings lottery homes, etc.

But, every generation has to learn for themselves, eh??????

At the end of the ’90’s we were all hearing from the corporate sector that workforces needed to be mobile and flexible; this followed on the heals of massive lay-offs during the ’90’s and the introduction of terms, such as “down-sizing” and “right-sizing”. As the tendency of traded companies in tough financial straights became to randomly lay off large segments of their employees in order to keep their stock prices from tanking, workforces actually did become far more mobile, migrating to where the work was and decimating the communities they used to reside in.
Now we’re hearing these companies bleat about a lack of worker loyalty?
And generalities about the current generation of workers is not necessaarily helpful in understanding or fixing the current issue of worker shortages. I was pretty useless back in my day (be honets, how many of you were, too?), but wised up – I suggest that with a bit of patience and guidence the current cohort might also prove their worth.

Have you ever tried to run a business, gus? You make it sound like it’s all so simple, that the employer just sets up some form of chain of command, and issues directives from on high, and they are all carried out to the letter.

And if they aren’t, and someone gets hurt as a result, then it’s always all the employer’s fault because the directives weren’t complete enough, or he didn’t somehow insure, and document down to the last detail, that the employees to whom they were issued fully understood them.

The REALITY, gus, is far more often NOT one of ‘greedy empoloyers’ seeking to cut corners and get by as cheaply as possible to further pad their already bloated bottom line, but ordinary people trying to survive in a business climate that’s increasingly making that very survival more and more difficult each passing year. Our biggest problem today IS the growth of government bureaucracy, and trying to comply with its complete lack of common sense as it tries to plan an Earth for us that can only end up the complete antithesis of anything remotely sensible, sustainable, and human.

I’m with socredible on this one. WorkSafe’s idea that the company is responsible when sometimes it is just the stupidity of the employee. Why can’t the employees pay into Worksafe and be responsible for their own actions?

What other people have said about Gen. Y is also true, from what I have seen in business. We get 19-30 yr olds coming in with no experience and big attitudes. They don’t want to start at the bottom and they want the right to text whenever they want. And they want big wages. Wow, did we screw up in the work ethics department in that generation.

I think looking to hire new immigrants is a great solution. If there aren’t the workers to fill jobs, and in many cases there aren’t, then why not use the immigrants. Isn’t it better to have them paying taxes rather than possibly living off the “system” while they are not employed?

I don’t know where someof you have been employed in the past,but in my experiences of being a long term employee,both times it was the employers decision to cut and downsize.As for every experience I have seen with injured workers,it was the employer blaming the employee for the accident.As far as I have seen with the training of apprentices,most employers don’t want to take on the time and the cost of training first or second year apprentices,they would rather snatch up all the third and fourth year apprentices.The only exception is if you are an apprentice and are related to the owners or management of that employer!

My son was part of the CTC electrical program year before last and part of their curriculum was to try to get some hours in over the summer with an electrical company. He went several times to all electrical companies (even trying to work for free just to get the required hours). He was unsuccessful even with that and now works as an electrical apprentice in Grande Prairie – pretty bad at age 18 when you have to leave your family and your province just to find a job in a trades field… when everyone tells us how short we are on skilled workers.

Thunderbolt,

As a contractor I cannot even respond to your comments without getting booted from the site.

Balboa. It looks like you have some passionate view points on the training issues. I’ve just started an apprenticeship at the age of 48 years old. In the last few months I’ve seen most of the negatives and positives discussed lately. What are your opinions.

We can’t attract immigrants to work in PG if we don’t have bridging programs to get their credentials recognized. Kamloops, Surrey, and Nanaimo have bridging programs, but PG does not.

Why can’t bridging programs for immigrants be rotated throughout the province including PG? Sort of like the underground mining program announced today by 8 Northern colleges… sharing resources.

Some immigrants would gladly locate in PG if they could get quality affordable rental housing located close to school and work with good transit, functional sidewalks, and bridging programs to have their credentials recognized here in Canada.

Any new immigrant is not going to be able to get a drivers license for at least one year due to ICBC regulations for new drivers, and this factors in huge in where they will locate… thus big urban centers is where they go.

Hey, socredible …. based on your words, I think the following narrative represents you leadership style.

•Proceeds from the assumption that workers have evolved from lower life forms.
•Provides scant guidance or training, preferring to let the fit, clever and able distinguish themselves, while allowing the less gifted to flounder.
•Encourages competition among workers.
•Has a safety policy mission statement of “sink or swim”.
•Believes that there are stupid questions, that stupid people deserve to get hurt, and that everything works out, even if it’s poorly.

Work for him if you consider yourself a survivor, fit, capable and lucky.

If he is a potential line manager for your company, hire him if you consider yourself impervious to lawsuits.

As it is right now, gus, most of what you’ve said above would be assumptions people like yourself seem to apply to employ-ERS, rather than employ-EES. It’s an unfortunate perception, but one all too common to those who’ve never been on BOTH sides of the fence. And are ignorant of the CAUSE of the very real problem BOTH employers and employees are increasingly facing. One which won’t EVER be solved by looking, however fervently, for a solution where we have been looking.

Read the linked report and weep, socredible. It is called participatory action. You want to make changes? One has to involve the people so that they become part of the process which makes change. The early beginnings are almost one hundred years old.

The report deals with forestry workers involvement in making changes to improve safety some 30 years ago in BC.

There was a resulting 75% decrease in accident frequency and 62% drop in compensation claim costs.

http://www.moderntimesworkplace.com/Safety_all.pdf

If you want some further reading, look at Participatory Action Research which is one of several approaches to a continuous improvement workplace management culture involving all parties to improve work efficiency, effectiveness and safety in cases where safety is also a major issue.

The November issue of Harvard Business Review also has an article by John Kotter about staying competitive in a business environment which finds itself in times of turbulence and disruption. It basically uses similar approaches to move companies ahead by working with two operational models, one within another – the traditional hierarchical system within which a network of staff from managers to “workers” work on special projects to initiate new ideas and implement the best on a trial basis to determine whether they should be introduced into the company culture.

It also gives some insight on what is going wrong with some of our traditional institutions, especially government-run institutions. I think most of us living in PG understand some of those which frustrate some of us more than others.

Having worked with such concepts for some time, and seeing what is going on in many public organizations can be extremely frustrating for some of us.

Those things don’t even begin to address what’s really wrong, gus. Whatever their merits, and admittedly there are, or at least seem to be, some, they won’t deal with the problems that I, Palopu, and others, were alluding to. The “why” that government bureaucracy has grown exponentially, and has become increasingly counter productive as we try to pay for it and live under its edicts.