Question:
I am writing a paper about training of workers by employers assuming that aslong as education is a public good, employers do not want to train theirworkers properly, because they could leave the company and earn more elsewhere.Thus companies try to privatise this good by contractual restrictions, etc. inthe case of specialists who are not easily available on the labour market. Inthe case of non-skilled workers, who are usually avialable on the market,employers prefer firing those who cannot cope with new technologies and employnew ones. (-->make or buy decision)My conclusion for a public adult education framework is that the state shouldonly concentrate on the non-specialists because they are the ones who getfired more easily. Concentrating on the specialists is not necessary, becausethey must be trained by the employers themselves as long as they are notavailable on the market.aymore ideas different?
Answer:
Also, employers want obedient workers, not sharp workers and soworkers always know that an employer will allow them to learnvery little if the employer is allowed to determine the content ofthe supposed "training" .That is the why there needs to be public education, not employerprovided "training". And what I have found in Michigan in the U.S. is that employers preferto get workers who will work for lower wages, rather than puttingin new technology, and thus only very reluctantly, will companieslike the big auto companies for example, which are based in Michiganand upgrade their technology.
I was teaching computer programming to workers at the Ford RougeFactory in Dearborn Michigan in what was a pilot program.
The public schools were joined with private companies to supposedlyprovide education.
The schools allowed the companies to take over decision makingas to what the education would be despite the fact that theState of Michigan has a provision in its State Constitution thatforbids any public money from going to fund such public schools.
Despite the laws and State Constitution forbidding such, the publicschools just let the private company decide to get rid ofthe computer programming classes as Ford did not want itshourly workers learning computer programming.
Workers and I as the teacher fought this for 1-1/2 years atFord and then I fought thru filing at the local State laboragency as many rights that I had had were violatled.
The case dragged on for 7 years and many illegalities werecommitted to defend the private company doing something thatwas unconstitutional.
Despite hte fact that the state labor board reversed the decisionof one of its judges and stated that there had to be a fullhearing with the right to submit evidence in the case, the jdugerefused to do so, and years later the state labor board ignoredits own previous ruling.
Workers who are in classes at a private company cannot speakup or they might lose their jobs, and the teachers have theirrights violated as there are no public obligations for privatecompanies to respect the rights of public school teachers.
Thus public money is spent, but there is no means of oversightover that public money and there is no public purpose thatis therefore carried out by the private companies.
I agree that there needs to be public adult education - but I havelearned it is needed by all, not only non-specialists.
I have many thousands of pages of public documents where theprivate company getting public funds and making the public schoolsdo illegal things for the private company were acknowledgedbut the public officials collapsed in regard to being strongenough to stop the illegal practices or require any penalty.
And the education was the victim.
For example, the private company had the public schools buyequipment for the private company without any sales tax being paidon the equipment and then the private company took over the equipmentas its own -
The private company has built a big building on public schoolsystem property that the public pays to have insured andto have other services done to it, but the public is forbiddenfrom going in the building or parking on the grounds even thoughthe grounds are community college grounds supposedly belongingto the public.
TBut the worst problem is that there is no public purpose forthe supposed "training" that the company is doing with publicsubsidy.
And the State of Michigan has thrown up its hands and said thatprivate comapnies may do whatever they wish.
Whereas if there is public education, there are regulationsand laws that the public has recourse to if there is noeducation going on.
That is not true with private company "training".
Also, I had previously taught in public schools where one knewwho was in charge and what chain of command was the supposedsupervision.
That was not true in the private "schoolhouse in the factory"at Ford.
There who was really in charge was hidden and the working conditions werefar inferior to any that I'd ever had before.
The comany wouldn't provide money to get the needed markers tobe able to write on the board - they crowded students at computersmaking them share computers even though they knew that this wouldinduce people to drop out.
Also, the company would not advertise the classesxz and then wouldclaim that no one wanted the classes, when they had failed theobligation to let workers know the classes were being offered.
Thus there are many games that a private company can play and willand the public officials have no way of overseeing wht is happeningand it is politically discouraged that they oversee such.
Thus the whole notion of private "training" is really a fraud fromthe experience I have had - and which has been documented in manypages of submissions to public officials, but they refuse toeven look at any of it but only to yell how wonderful isprivate training.
So there is a real need to end any public subsidy to private"trraining".
