Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2EIt1u02252; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:55:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:55:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <18c.4d142d5.29c24b5e@aol.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: AndresMuro@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2077] Re: EFF and the workforce X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Status: O Content-Length: 6954 Lines: 109 Mark: I think that we are talking about different issues, and let me address them. Regarding the original post I was responding to the claim that workers miss work, are tardy, and have a poor work ethic, and, therefore, EFF could be used as a vehicle to address this. My point was that worker ethics are related to employer ethics. If employers treat employees with dignity and respect, and compensate them well, their workers are going to work hard. The alternative as you point out is that if employees depend on the job to eat, they will work as hard as possible. You bring another point, namely, employees qualifications. With economic globalization there is an interesting trend. The basic level jobs are leaving the US and the jobs that are remaining in the US require higher levels of skills. However, since these higher level jobs are becoming entry level in the US they are compensated at an entry level. Essentially, corporations want to pay entry level wages, that put employees below the poverty line, but they expect employees to have good literacy skills, computer skills, math skills, etc. etc. At the same time, the people with low literacy skills, no computer skills, no math skills, and limited verbal communication skills cannot find jobs, because nobody wants them anymore. Furthermore, they cannot get welfare, even if they may have worked their entire lives assembling parts, sewing clothes, picking crops, and building economies throughout the United States. What these corporations want is for literacy programs to train people with low educational attainment, who worked their entire lives and have been displaced, for the new minimum wage jobs. They expect literacy programs to provide literacy and vocational skills that may take years to acquire in short periods of time. Literacy programs, of course, with these expectations placed on them, target young, fairly well educated people, but poor people, who could do very well in college, and recruit them for short term vocational training. This is not the role of literacy programs or of EFF. The purpose of EFF and adult literacy is to facilitate language communication skills to people so that they can use language and math to make decisions about family, education, vocation and community life. This doesn't mean that we need to tell our students that they need to show up to work on time and that it is wrong to skip work. What it means is that we expose the students to career opportunities and choices for themselves and their families. We also expose them to available health care, community services, civic life, etc., etc. If corporations want skilled employees, they should pay for their training and compensate them accordingly. This is not the role of public education. Andres In a message dated Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:18:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, "mark kaufman" <markewk@hotmail.com> writes: > While I agree with many of the points raised in Andres' missive I have > observed a degree of validity in the NAM document. > > Many employers have reported a lack of employability skills that have a > deleterious effect on productivity. The developing nation factories seldom > have the same levels of tardiness, supervisory breakdown, and absence levels > that are common in US facilities. This may be due to the "hand-to-mouth" > wage structure and fear of losing the small income derived from what is an > almost "sweatshop" existence. > > We have performed surveys and employment analyses for several local and > national employers across the US and the reported problems are the same - > lack of basic skills and lack of employability skills. > > The changing nature of the manufacturing and service sectors requires a > greater flexibility and adaptability from workers (and should be accompanied > by higher wages). Plumbing service staff in the Gulf Coast region are > required to be computer literate (to use wireless LAN and inventory > software); Manufacturing line staff for Texas Instruments, HP and Compaq are > required to be able to read, understand and interpret engineering > specifications that change daily; Bricklayers are required to use geometric > and algebraic calculations to estimate pallet purchase needs by job; the > list goes on and on. > > People should be paid for the job they perform and those wages should be > commensurate with the requirements of the job. Employers must have access > to a pool of workers with the requisite skills. > > Who pays for the training? That is the ongoing struggle between > government/labor/management/community agencies and schools. > > The EFF worker role map and the associated EFF traits are valuable guides in > this massive endeavor in social change. > > Mark E. W. Kaufman, Ph.D. > Director > ICSD > > >From: AndresMuro@aol.com > >Reply-To: nifl-4eff@nifl.gov > >To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> > >Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2074] Re: EFF and the workforce > >Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:39:19 -0500 (EST) > > > >Even thought they may be poor, workers are not stupid. Corporations go to > >Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, Thailand, Central America, etc to exploit the > >highly poor and uneducated workforce that includes young children. They > >never > >complain about timeliness, absence from work, work ethic, etc. If that was > >a > >problem, they would stay in the US and pay for the a more 'professional' > >and > >educated workforce. > > > >The same applies to the US. if companies are dissatisfied with these > >issues, > >why don't they pay more and hire better prepared employees. I am sure that > >if > >they raise their wages, offer more job security, etc, etc. Employees would > >be > >more responsible towards their work. > > > >I doubt that EFF is about telling poor mothers that they should show up to > >work on time and work harder. Also, a lot of students attending literacy > >classes in the US went to school in other countries where attendance, hard > >work, and timeliness is mandatory. Poor people usually miss school or drop > >out, not because they want to, but because they have to work to eat. So, > >those who attended school in other countries already know about this. They > >do > >not need teachers to tell them very condescendingly that working hard and > >being on time is important. > > > >I wonder if the association of manufacturers noticed any relationship > >between > >wages, quality of workplace and the 'skills that they find deficient'. The > >problem is that they want to pay poorly, not pay benefits, not provide > >daycare, and have poor quality workplaces. They also want people to show up > >to work and be dedicated, regardless of the conditions, and they think that > >educators are responsible for this. > > > >Andres > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:45:26 EST