A number of employers argued for more modularized
training in specific jurisdictions or trades (BCCA, 1997; CSLS, 2001; Even et al, 2002). In some sectors and occupations, the absence of such a competency-based apprenticeship program was cited as a barrier (
). One government representative
also pointed to a lack of accreditation on a “modular or partial basis” as a barrier for many employers, and suggested that competency-based accreditation is a system to move towards (). In one study, more modularized training was found to provide individuals and employers greater flexibility in training schedules, something that can be helpful in slow times or during layoffs (CSLS, 2001).
However, labour representatives, in many cases, expressed concerns about modularization, noting that this approach could weaken the skills-certification process to the detriment of apprentices and employees but to the benefit of employers. Labour concerns revolved around a potential “devaluing” of training, which could leave trainees with a limited number of skill sets and reduced portability of these skills. Many labour respondents believe recent regulatory changes in some jurisdictions had reinforced this tendency, weakening rather than strengthening regulated trades.
At the same time, a widespread concern is evident among employers and labour representatives that, in many trades, apprentices receive limited exposure to a wide range of tasks, which reduces their skill breadth. This factor was often associated with sectors in which there were a large number of small, specialized employers, each of whom could provide apprentices with only a portion of the wider experience required for full qualification in the trades. These types of employers included those in machine trades, construction and automotive service (Kunin and Associates, 2002; Fayek et al, 2002; O’Grady, 1997; Prism Economics, 2000; CARS, 1999). For many respondents, arrangements for task and employer rotation were needed to provide broad experience. On this point, some labour respondents expressed concern that some employers might deliberately restrict the activities that apprentices are allowed to perform, keeping them at relatively low wage rates.
Employer respondents from the residential and renovation sector noted a tendency for contractors and subcontractors in the sector to specialize in certain aspects of construction, which meant that employer rotation was necessary for apprentices to receive full exposure to a trade. These respondents pointed out that this circumstance could be difficult for a group of small employers to arrange and manage. If a suitable arrangement does not occur, apprentices have no certificate to show for their time.
In the strong view of spokespersons for residential
and renovation industry employers, workers should be able to receive formal recognition (certification) for the experience and training they receive in part of a trade working with one employer. This recognition would attract more workers and employers into apprenticeship and the trades, and encourage apprentices to stay in their trade. It would also enable apprentices to specialize in a specific aspect of a trade, if they wished, taking even further training in that aspect of the trade rather than having to move around among employers to round out their training (
). A strong view was evident within the sector that the “all-or-nothing” aspect of trades certification does not reflect the way work is organized and performed in that sector (Gunderson, 2001; ). This absence of progressive credentials was also commented on in other jurisdictions ().