LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Dear Women's Education des femmes:

I am writing regarding your recent article entitled "The Privatization of Training, Women Pay the Cost" [vol.6, no.1].

The authors of the article imply that government directed purchase of training courses would pursue equity goals more persistently, and give more women the opportunity to learn the skills necessary for a well-paid job, than would a system where employers make the training decisions.

The question is which method holds greater promise of success: the one where the government makes the training decisions hoping that the private sector will hire those that have been trained, that is, hire more women because more women have been trained; or, the Canadian Jobs Strategy (CJS) approach where the employer is encouraged, with the help of government funding, to train people, and train them for jobs to which they may already be linked through work experience on the job. Government funding in this case works as an incentive to produce job linkages for women; government is able to pursue equity goals much closer to real employment than is possible by the other route. In fact, the Employment and Immigration Canada (EIC) direct purchase route has been showing employment success rates that have put in doubt that non-traditional training in this form works well for women, as long as employers display the attitudes you describe. Whereas through the direct purchase route, 64.4% of participants were employed or in further training three months after completion, that rate stands at 70.3% for Job Development, 91.2% for Skill Investment's small business option and 89.8% for Skill Shortages' work-based element.

It is true that there has been a realignment of training resources. By the end of 1988-89, an amount equivalent to 40% (not 50% stated in the article) of the 1985-86 training budget will have been made available for indirect purchases. This reduction has been phased in gradually, over several years, to provide stability to public institutions while they adjust to the change. By adapting their curricula to employer training needs, many colleges have been able to gain access to the indirect purchase funding.

I am the first to agree, however, that the Strategy is not perfect and that we encountered certain difficulties at the start. Ms. Dance and Ms. Witter are correct in stating that a substantial lapse occurred at the end of the first six months of operation, but this was to be expected, given that we were introducing a substantially different approach from past programs.

Our data with respect to women training in non-traditional occupations is as follows: for 1986-87, 20% through Job Development, 13% for Job Entry, 39% under Skill Shortages and 22% for Skill Investment. I agree that efforts in this area must continue, but that they be directed to the occupations in demand. It makes no sense to train women for jobs that are not there, simply because they are non-traditional. This is why we cannot disregard the training of women in areas of demand even though they are traditional to women.

Only a slight rise in women's participation has occurred under Skill Shortages since its introduction. We therefore undertook to help women enter the program in demand occupations traditionally held by men. The proportion of women in apprenticeship is still unacceptably low. We have shared this concern with the provinces and are hopeful that corrective efforts will lead to improvements. In addition to this, CCLOW is one of the groups that answered our call for innovative bridging projects for women with a project called "Women Interested in Successful Employment" [in Newfoundland]. The Canadian Construction Association, is developing an employment equity plan through Innovations Program funding. The Equal Opportunity Division of Toronto's Management Services Department is working on a program to help women enter non-traditional fields with CJS funding.

I agree there is still much to be done. We all must continue seeking change to entrenched attitudes and to end women's occupational segregation, whether we be government, employers, advocacy groups, educators or labour. I can only hope that collective effort will bring about real improvements in terms of equality for women in the labour market.

Peter Hicks
Executive Director
Canadian Jobs Strategy

[This letter has been edited for length.]