THE articles 'Bureaucratic meddling takes blame for skills gap' and 'Skills strategy needs sound research base' (Business Report, April 16) refer. Neither begins to address our problems.
Yes, indeed, there are many operational failures in so many sector education and training authorities (Setas). The major fault is the inability even to recognise that we have to train to global standards if we are to build companies capable of competing internationally. If we fail to do so, our decline in the Global Competitiveness Report will continue, what little is left of our share of global trade will vanish, and our prospects of growth and meaningful levels of job creation will not improve.
So we have to understand the demands of the global market, and those alone dictate what it is that we need to know.
But we do not do that. We have academics sitting in ivory towers creating Unit Standards that bear no relationship whatsoever to meeting global demands. Unit Standards are outcomes based, which we now recognise as being a useless system for matriculants, but seemingly still acceptable to train people in business.
The course material supporting the Unit Standards are then written by those who may or may not have any direct experience in, or understanding of, global demands, and probably have no practical experience at all of the topic they are creating a training programme for.
This is the bland leading the bland.
As but one example, there are no Unit Standards relating to the two most vital developments that together deal with the upgrading of human resources departments: people development and people management development.
These are crucial factors in upgrading companies that have been well proven over the past 20 or 30 years. Without these in place, no company will be able to develop to the level demanded of a successful global player.
The Unit Standards contain largely 20-year-old content, but far worse is the incredibly rigid, bureaucratic structure that keeps out all new material.
What did we see from the Seta system that was linked to moving companies forward during the worst financial downturn in 70 years? Nothing.
An inflexible programme that ignores changing market needs and keeps out new content is of no value.
The mechanisms, too, are flawed. We have at least a thousand so-called "accredited" training companies all following a similar modus operandi, of which less than 0.1 percent have any practical experience of global demands.
A number of these individual companies will take their particular pieces of the jigsaw puzzle of training into a company but take no cognisance whatsoever of the overall level of development of that company or its culture. There is no attempt to develop a holistic system.
The trainees are, in effect, given bits of a jigsaw puzzle with no idea of the completed picture because there is no integration of that training.
It is essentially functional or transactional training that trains the individual in isolation, not developmental training that develops both the individual and the company. It is only developmental training that adds real value, as we have long seen from the southeast Asian example.
So even Setas that may be functioning properly will not give us what we need. The Bankseta is the most effective, because activities within a bank can be clearly defined with high levels of commonality. South African banks do not compete, as we know, and are not known for having made any meaningful changes since the arrival of Trust Bank some 40 odd years ago.
They plan their new buildings in the certainty that their sheep-like customers will always outnumber their ability to serve them quickly.
There are far better examples around the world of effective training methods. In-house training has by far been the most successful, given by those who understand the needs of the global market.
Let's admit the error, throw the Setas into the dustbin where they so rightfully belong, and replace them with a proven system that has been effective in a developing market. Also, have it run by a private company and not by the government - it is far too important for that.
MALCOLM BIRKIN
WATERKLOOF
Classic anti-Semitism is the only way to describe Neil McCafferty's letter (Business Report, April 12), when he seeks to have the term "Anglo-Saxon" bankers broken down into bankers who are Jewish and those who are not.
Or is he suggesting that a banker cannot be Anglo-Saxon and Jewish?
He professes to be puzzled as to why Jonathan Yudelowitz did not draw out these statistics and yet shows no interest in a breakdown of banks that have, for instance, Catholic or Protestant, British or American, Swiss or German owners or managers. Only Jews interest him.
Perhaps Yudelowitz's "Jewish-sounding" name awakened some deep prejudice or resentment lurking within McCafferty's sub conscience (sic) that led him to make such an inappropriate remark.
SYDNEY KAYE
CAPE TOWN
Neil McCafferty's letter (Business Report, April 12) about greedy bankers leaves one with the impression that he believes "Anglo-Saxon" is a religion.
One wonders further about his knowledge of international and global banking.
NATHAN CHEIMAN
NORTHCLIFF
Terry Bell's article on the Terre'Blanche murder case (Business Report, April 9) leaves me with an additional area of disquiet on the matter. It seems that it also involves yet another government service delivery failure:
In recent years, revised laws and regulations around employment matters have come into force to protect workers from undesirable working conditions. In particular, these cover matters such as minimum wages and minimum employment age.
Reports seem to indicate that the alleged perpetrators of the murder of Eugene Terre'Blanche (ET) were involved in a wage payment dispute.
The wage levels reported seemed to be below the prescribed minimum levels, and one of the individuals was too young to be employed legally. Bell seems to throw some light on the wage-rate issue, but that of child-labour is totally unresolved.
One can ask: "Where were the Department of Labour inspectors in this case?" It would appear there was a prima facie case of a violation of the applicable regulations, but there are no reports of any official involvement in this respect.
Many reports seem to indicate that the work conditions involved are commonplace for the area and the agricultural industry concerned.
Also, if as Bell reports, the regulations are being side-stepped, where are the rule amendments to close the loopholes?
TONY FISHER
VIA E-MAIL
I have lost my faith in the weekly Fast Facts feature after the statement on Monday, April 12, that the UK has only two cities with a population in excess of 1 million (Fact 4, supplied by the Financial Times, no less).
I believe that there are six: London, Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds.
ERIC FIELD
HOUT BAY
I refer to Slindile Khanyile's report on Phelophepa, the health care train (Business Report, April 15) and, more particularly, the statement that "The train was (Lynette) Coetzee's brainchild 16 years ago".
For the record Phelophepa began in 1993 as the Eyecare Train, which was started by the Department of Optometry at the University of Johannesburg, then Rand Afrikaans University (RAU).
It was a project initiated and driven by Professor JT Ferreira.
WF HARRIS
UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG
So now we have one segment of our government (Finance) that believes in operating in a free market which allows the rand to find its own level, and believes (quite correctly) that high inflation represents a major impediment to the economy.
Then we have another segment (including Economic Development) that believes in a tightly controlled (almost socialist) regime where the rand is somehow manipulated to suit our exporters, and inflation is something we should not worry about.
This is bizarre to say the least and totally flies in the face of effective governance.
DEREK EXCELL
KLOOF