A job theory or job plan is not a job creation. Prudent, this is all in your mad head. Bring some industries & companies from New York to Saint Lucia and let those establishments train our people for employment in the various sectors and then you can talk the talk. Till then, stop all your fantasies in your big head......you crazy fool.
This is the most asinine self-serving piece of political crap ever proffered (in a legal sense), as an economic solution. This all-wet-behind-the-ears economist is probably in, or more suited career-wise to the entertainment business. Woy!
Written in simpler language for a person famously known for writing novels, that account could have been a darn good children bedside story. Hey man! Stick with the knitting.
Good move Mr. Prudent. Show them how to lay the proper foundation for good things to come. Thanks for not putting the cart before the horse. Take them back to basics. I agree with you that the only way to solve the problem is to determine who are the unemployed persons etc. Brovo Sir!
@ 8:38 am you are on Target. Those who are bashng the man have nothing better to do or offer. I have never heard of any country or town attacting new business without first having a contingent plan to accommodate the needs of those new investors. Only a fool would find fault with what the man is proposing. Choops!!!
Here are some of the short-comings of the piece. We have no data on the labour participation rate for our domestic economy. The Ministry of Labour has never convincingly determined that. Perhaps it does not have the necessary skilled personnel to determine that.
If we do an unemployment survey and according to Mr. Prudent, supposedly in such detail as to pinpoint who is, and who is not employed, one wonders whether the information will be so granular as to enable privacy encroachment to determine whether for example, Moses, son of Joseph is unemployed and Marlene, daughter of Ma Degonzag has been out of work since 2012.
What is funny is that after this unemployment determination, there is no idea of what the training needs of those individuals in particular would be, vis-à-vis hopefully, a listing of potential job types to be created, or to be offered using this or that skill. One has to be careful too, about whether the skill-sets or training gaps will be closed afterwards.
The fear is expressed too, that if those jobs have been, or were already available before all this largely self-serving political piece surfaced, whether persons would not have been be out there trying to learn the skills to fill them, all on their own.
Mr. Prudent's piece does suggest that this grand initiative is an attempt to match unemployment, with job vacancies and that this parochial take on Gros Islet's unemployment is due in some way to the lack of information on the part of job-seekers. Mind you, he did not say what types of job vacancies were going to be filled.
Some pertinent questions therefore are in order here. Who identifies the training needs? Who conducts the training needs analysis? Who pays for the training needs analysis? Who conducts the training? Who pays for the actual training of selected individuals? Where and when, and what is the duration of the training? How do you determine whether the unemployed person is trainable or not?
All these questions going unanswered in the piece, point to wishful thinking, with the cart firmly placed well before the horse.
Yet, if all of these issues are glossed over, as someone said, does the identification of the training needs and who is to get what training automatically create job vacancies or job offers?
The question still needs to be asked about the actual numbers of jobs or the positions that will be filled and ... in which companies.
Next question: Would all the unemployed people in Gros Islet be trainable? Should those not be the first sets of questions to be asked? Therefore again, is the cart not certainly placed before the horse here?
Even when some companies do undertake and pay for training, there is no guarantee that the training will be utilised. So then, what if the companies identified say 'yes' to this or that type of training as a need, especially if they are not shouldering the cost, irrespective of the duration of the training, but say at the end, that they are not quite ready to hire?
This last factor depends on the business climate, domestically and the buyers of our domestic output around the world. It is also very sensitive to the global economic picture and to our own sectorial demands for labour.
Where we are too, in terms of our own business cycle (in or out or emerging from a recession) will also determine this, and not just the development of skills and training courses for which there is no corresponding labour demand.
If we are thinking seriously about private sector training involvement, we must be very careful to address their members' needs and the important matter of return on investment.
8 comments:
MR LPM!
START DE BALL ROLLING. employed the those you want 2 see get off their asssss and then, PAY DE FIRST MILLIONS.
11:24
SIMPLE AS THAT. LOL
A job theory or job plan is not a job creation. Prudent, this is all in your mad head. Bring some industries & companies from New York to Saint Lucia and let those establishments train our people for employment in the various sectors and then you can talk the talk. Till then, stop all your fantasies in your big head......you crazy fool.
This is the most asinine self-serving piece of political crap ever proffered (in a legal sense), as an economic solution. This all-wet-behind-the-ears economist is probably in, or more suited career-wise to the entertainment business. Woy!
Written in simpler language for a person famously known for writing novels, that account could have been a darn good children bedside story. Hey man! Stick with the knitting.
Good move Mr. Prudent. Show them how to lay the proper foundation for good things to come. Thanks for not putting the cart before the horse. Take them back to basics.
I agree with you that the only way to solve the problem is to determine who are the unemployed persons etc. Brovo Sir!
@ 8:38 am you are on Target. Those who are bashng the man have nothing better to do or offer. I have never heard of any country or town attacting new business without first having a contingent plan to accommodate the needs of those new investors. Only a fool would find fault with what the man is proposing. Choops!!!
Here are some of the short-comings of the piece. We have no data on the labour participation rate for our domestic economy. The Ministry of Labour has never convincingly determined that. Perhaps it does not have the necessary skilled personnel to determine that.
If we do an unemployment survey and according to Mr. Prudent, supposedly in such detail as to pinpoint who is, and who is not employed, one wonders whether the information will be so granular as to enable privacy encroachment to determine whether for example, Moses, son of Joseph is unemployed and Marlene, daughter of Ma Degonzag has been out of work since 2012.
What is funny is that after this unemployment determination, there is no idea of what the training needs of those individuals in particular would be, vis-à-vis hopefully, a listing of potential job types to be created, or to be offered using this or that skill. One has to be careful too, about whether the skill-sets or training gaps will be closed afterwards.
The fear is expressed too, that if those jobs have been, or were already available before all this largely self-serving political piece surfaced, whether persons would not have been be out there trying to learn the skills to fill them, all on their own.
Mr. Prudent's piece does suggest that this grand initiative is an attempt to match unemployment, with job vacancies and that this parochial take on Gros Islet's unemployment is due in some way to the lack of information on the part of job-seekers. Mind you, he did not say what types of job vacancies were going to be filled.
Some pertinent questions therefore are in order here. Who identifies the training needs? Who conducts the training needs analysis? Who pays for the training needs analysis? Who conducts the training? Who pays for the actual training of selected individuals? Where and when, and what is the duration of the training? How do you determine whether the unemployed person is trainable or not?
All these questions going unanswered in the piece, point to wishful thinking, with the cart firmly placed well before the horse.
Yet, if all of these issues are glossed over, as someone said, does the identification of the training needs and who is to get what training automatically create job vacancies or job offers?
The question still needs to be asked about the actual numbers of jobs or the positions that will be filled and ... in which companies.
Next question: Would all the unemployed people in Gros Islet be trainable? Should those not be the first sets of questions to be asked? Therefore again, is the cart not certainly placed before the horse here?
Even when some companies do undertake and pay for training, there is no guarantee that the training will be utilised. So then, what if the companies identified say 'yes' to this or that type of training as a need, especially if they are not shouldering the cost, irrespective of the duration of the training, but say at the end, that they are not quite ready to hire?
This last factor depends on the business climate, domestically and the buyers of our domestic output around the world. It is also very sensitive to the global economic picture and to our own sectorial demands for labour.
Where we are too, in terms of our own business cycle (in or out or emerging from a recession) will also determine this, and not just the development of skills and training courses for which there is no corresponding labour demand.
If we are thinking seriously about private sector training involvement, we must be very careful to address their members' needs and the important matter of return on investment.
Post a Comment