The employer’s perspective

The employer’s perspective on training is considered to be quite different in comparison to the other major stakeholders in the industrial relations framework. As the level of casualisation continues to increase, and the dividing relationship between permanent employee training and causal employee training is increasing considerably, the skills and knowledge that Australian workers once had is decreasing.

Statistics have shown, that increasing casualization, increasing levels of outsourcing, and decreased levels of training provided for causal employees, would lead Australia behind in competitiveness in comparison to other countries on a world standard. The major aim for employers’ has been to increase profits in the short-term period by increasing levels of casualisation and outsourcing.

The major reason for this has been the avoidance by employers in training casual employees and to search for labour in the external market, which in the long run is less costly for the organisation, thus shows how the concepts of casualisation and outsourcing does have a detrimental impact on the level of training within an organisation.

Campbell (2001) mentions this issue in his article, emphasising Connell & Burgess (1998) and their point that, “what may be rational for individual employers in the short-term in avoiding training and costs may be disastrous in the medium or long-term, since it may facilitate skill shortages, poor planning, inadequate innovation and a slowdown in productivity growth” (p. 73). This type of view can be detrimental to an organisation, take the following example of Broken Hill Proprietary Limited (BHP). Previously BHP altered

their industrial relations framework within the organisation, changing from their traditional function to the reliance on outsourcing. The organisation went through organisational change, i. e. environmental changes. As a result of these changes, the employees were not suitably trained to cope with such changes, and they were dismissed. In the article by Lewer & Gillmore (2001), they conclude by suggesting that outsourcing should only be carried out within the organisation, when there is suitable knowledge of the tasks in the organisation are general and that the task frequency needs to be high (p.

154). Many employers are quite aware of the obstacles in the actual training process of employees. These obstacles can be identified by Campbell (2001) in the work by Curtain (1996), “as training costs, time constraints, a severe lack of flexibility in the provision of training, a lack of work recognition for skills, and a lack of support from employees” (p. 74). With causal employees not seen as valid in the eyes of their employers, due to the fact that employers value permanent employees more than part-time/causal workers.

The fact lies beneath that training costs have increased, and organisations have taken the approach of job casualisation and outsourcing rather than organisations physically training their work staff, due to the fact that job casualisation and outsourcing attracts a relatively short-term profit margin for the organisation. But, on the other hand, if the organisation was to look to the long-term prosperity of the organisation, they would see such benefits as, increased productivity levels and overall having a multi-skilled workforce as a result of training.

Employees also have their own differing views and perspectives as to whether or not their organisation provides them with training. Casual workers have been quite disadvantaged, as a result of employers’ lack of support for training. Casual employees have been given a clear and concise message from their respective employers’ that their skills are not as important to the organisation as in comparison to their permanent counterparts, who in fact have had some type of training, either on-the-job or off-the-job.

Many employers have shifted their training for employees on to the employees themselves, making them undertake their own training in their own time. With this employees have not had the financial capabilities to assist in their own training, which has caused their skill level to decrease. Campbell (2001) states “a disadvantage for many casual employees, who may be trapped in a degraded job unless they have the resources to pursue their own training” (p. 72). In the article by Whittard & Reeves (2001), they examine a group of hospital managers who express their views towards training.

The findings by Whittard & Reeves (2001) show the large majority of these managers examined will only show support for training if employees were to do the training in their own time, that “the permanent part-timers ability to be flexible and attend training on their days off meant that it was easier to approve their applications for training” (p. 176). The processes of outsourcing and job casualisation has made employees with organisations quite frantic in their positions, as they are regarded by management as less important in comparison to full-time workers.

As the large majority of the time, outsourcing is chosen over training within organisations. Connell & Burgess (2001) state “there are six possible sources of funding for skill acquisition: the family, the individual, the enterprise, the industry, the community and the state” (p. 6). The main argument to this point is casual employees are dependent on funding for their training, but most of the time now, they have to provide their own funding for their own training. Which will in turn cause some type of effect to organisations in the long run, as the levels of productivity and quality decrease.

It can therefore be concluded from the above arguments, that job casualisation and outsourcing does have a considerable negative impact and effect on training. If affects the major stakeholders identified, which are, employees, employers and government. In short, even though job casualisation and outsourcing does have its short-term gains and narrowly improving profit margins for respective organisations, but in the long run, the major stakeholders will be affected.