Skills-Universe

Sector Education and Training (Seta) responsibilities are clearly set out in the Skills Development Act: chapter 3 on Seta responsibilities and chapter 4 on Learnerships details the requirements for learnership contracts.

Skills-universe has been provided with a copy (see below) of the letter sent to a training service provider requesting that they "hold off" on submitting further applications as no Learnerships applications have been accepted by the Services Seta since November 2012.

The response from the training service provider (also copied below) lists the concerns about this state of play, amongst others: on the implications for employment and learners, and company B-BBEE scorecard ratings, PIVOTAL grants, and the extreme urgency for clarification. 

While skills development practitioners will be aware that the Services Seta has been under administration and that there is a major initiative to ensure financial probity of the Seta, it appears that the Services Seta is also refusing to accept unfunded learnerships.  That is, the company is meeting the full cost of the learnership and the requirement from the Seta is the administrative management of the Learnership agreement and ensuring the quality assurance requirements are met to ensure certification.

Given that in terms of the NQF Act, the QCTO is now responsible for quality assurance, if the Services Seta is unable to fulfill their legally delegated responsibility for quality assurance, does this responsibility now revert back to the QCTO?

Communication from Services Seta by the KZN Provincial Manager

"Dear Stakeholder

The Services SETA  is in the process of reviewing the current unfunded learnership procedure and is therefore requesting all employers to hold off on submitting an unfunded application to the Services SETA Regional office.

We are not processing any learnership applications received from November 2012.

If you need clarity on your submission, please call through to the office and speak to Raymond Mpisane.

The new process will be released early in the New Year."

Response

"Dear Services SETA Provincial Manager

Thank you for meeting briefly with me today to confirm that the SSETA has put unfunded learnership applications on hold.   I feel that I must express our, and your stakeholders’  dismay at this decision and appeal to you to forward this objection to the individuals who have made this decision without consultation with the stakeholders.

  • Your stakeholders pay levies and therefore are entitled to implement programmes of their choice.  Surely? They are not asking for the SSETA to fund the learning but obviously expecting the SSETA to QALA the process. As levy payers, they are entitled to this.
  • Your stakeholders have decided to fund this learning at their expense – they are not applying for SSETA grants, but are prepared to fund the interventions themselves.
  • This shows commitment to capacitating their employers or unemployed learners at their expense.  Why punish them for good intent?
  • Employers are mindful of spending their training budgets in a meaningful way: they also have a time limit in which to ensure that their training budgets are spent within financial years – be it the end of February, March or whenever.  This has an impact on their BBBEE scorecards and ratings. Albeit an incentive to do what they need to do.
  • Employers who are denied this training spend will express their lack of support for the system, and several have already said that they will take this decision to the Media.
  • SSETA cannot afford further negative publicity.
  • Some of the employers have mentioned that they have applied for funded learnerships, and have been unsuccessful in their applications.  They question why non-levy payers receive grants to implement funded learning when they, themselves have been denied funding.
  • Several clients have already confirmed groups (SSETA and other SETAS) who have requested and already have learnership agreements in place (perhaps with other SETAs)  to commence the learning in the next few months. They are wondering why the MOAs are being compromised in this instance.  Where does this leave the other SETAs and their targets?
  • As a provider, we already have SLAs signed and we have accordingly customised packs, and have contracted facilitators and assessors for these clients.  This has a financial implication for all.
  • I am sensing a swell of discontentment with the announcement that they cannot implement SSETA learnerships and many are threatening legal action.
  • The unexpected mandatory grant of 20% is already a bitter pill to swallow (given that they were anticipating a 40%grant.)   the legislation has pulled the rug from beneath them.
  • Stakeholders are already feeling that the ones who have a learning culture in place are being short changed. They are disgruntled and, if I may say, furious at this decision.

May I suggest that this decision is repealed, and that a window period is allowed (6 months or so) to allow your stakeholders to plan accordingly.  Failing which, I fear that the SSETA will suffer a further setback and skills development and support will suffer and set the process of building necessary scarce and critical skills back.

The country does not need this.

I look forward to the SETA’s response."

Tags: B-BBEE, NQF, PIVOTAL, QALA, QCTO, Services, Seta, assurance, grants, hold, More…learnership, procedure, provider, quality, services, training, unfunded

Views: 768

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Our company had received confirmation from the Services SETA for 120 Learnership allocations. We planned and developed our project around this commitment. The contracts are with their legal department for the past 3 months.

After 8 months, numerous meetings and endless emails, our client decided that they cannot wait any longer and withdrew their commitment to this project....the result...120 NEW JOBS LOST!

What more can I say...

Thanks for your response Hennau - did the meetings cast any light on exactly what the reason for the delay is?

Hi Sylvia,

The only logical reason given is that the contracts are stuck @ legal and it is an issue of vetting the service providers. I know that they have huge internal issues with many resignations and dismissals...

 

We had a meeting with them on Friday last week. The person that we had to meet rocked-up 45 minutes late...while sitting @ reception we could see people sleeping at their desks. We were promised feedback by Monday luchtime....it is now Thursday...and she is not taking our calls.

Vetting the training service providers seems a reasonable and necessary basic requirement - but how long should that take I wonder? What are they vetting them for?

People sleeping at their desks doesn't sound very professional.  I'm assuming it wasn't lunch time, but even then in sight of reception visitors doesn't look good.  I suggest that the next time you see that you take a photo with your cell phone and send it to the Minister of Higher Education and Training - and post it on skills-universe.

Dear Hennau

Do what I did when our certificates were delayed for years - and our clients were beginning to look at us sideways. Present yourself at their offices, demand in a very loud voice to see the top mangement, blow smoke out of your nose, throw blood on the walls and REFUSE to leave until you get what you came for.  Stop being Mr Nice Guy - it does not always pay - remember, we are their customers.

PS Since then, I must admit that the service has improved. But they have still got a looooong way to go before their reputation improves.  

Very good advice Irene, thank you.

As a matter of fact, I think I need to shout louder next time as the people were sleeping at their desks and obviously could not hear me ;-)

RSS

© 2014   Created by Alan Hammond.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service