7th Mar 2022 at 1:11 pm #85354
There is a lot to think about! If it is learnerships, then the Employer is involved and will open the workplace, as it is part of the contract in order to exit the learners at the end.
The reality of many providers today, is to open up learning for learners that are not part of a learnership, this could be private learners without the support of an employer. So, in this instance, if the provider is unable to get a workplace for the learner, the second best option would be to create a simulated environment, so that the learner can complete the qualification. Some learners fund themselves and others might be sponsored (whether it is a NGO, a family member, a friend).
For example: I completed my Paralegal Qualification. This was not sponsored and it was not part of a learnership. I had to pay for this myself. As a learner, I had to find an Employer (Law Firm), that would allow me to obtain workplace experience. No payments were received or made to the Employer. I had to ensure that I get the exposure, complete the compulsory hours within the workplace (with evidence, logbook hours, tasks completed). I definitely think that a simulated workplace would have been ideal and much easier. Many learners that attended the program was employed by Law Firms (whereby it was easy to complete the workplace logbook, hours and tasks), and a number of us were either unemployed or self-employed with no legal background nor access to such Employers. Those that did not have immediate access, made a plan or was guided to which organisations they could approach for the workplace experience.
In my case, there were no stipends, no UIF, PAYE, travel allowance, or any fund contributions to my learning.
There is a huge difference between learnerships with contracts (funded or non-funded) and learners that are “private” and want to obtain qualifications.
Yes, there are many unemployed people out there. Unfortunately, a lot of them are over the 35 age mark, and cannot get the opportunity to enter into a learnership, as they are too old.
The simulated workplace opens up more access for private learners to the Providers, especially when the providers are unable to get any funded/un-funded learnerships with support from Employers.
Interesting discussion!7th Mar 2022 at 1:55 pm #85357Christopher MoropaParticipant
Lynn, I think you may contribute more to SMME, and CBOs as far as legal ways of engaging the hundreds of aspirant learners who are dying to have Learnership opportunities. Private or public, this is deeply required7th Mar 2022 at 2:00 pm #85358
Thank you Christopher, your comment is noted. Regards, Lynel.7th Mar 2022 at 5:45 pm #85366Sylvia F. HammondKeymaster
Thank you Lynel – an interesting answer, and an excellent example.
I will pick up one paragraph that relates to my current research :-
” … there are many unemployed people out there. Unfortunately, a lot of them are over the 35 age mark, and cannot get the opportunity to enter into a learnership, as they are too old.”
If they are over 35, then they were born before 1994 – in the apartheid years.
Christopher, thank you for following the discussion and commenting. Yes, I do agree with you.
I am in the last phase of my research, (I keep saying that, but this time could be the real time), and the topic does include SMMEs & skills development.
I will follow up again at a later stage.
In the meantime, I have more items of OQSF to complete as well.
7th Mar 2022 at 7:10 pm #85369
- This reply was modified 8 months, 3 weeks ago by Sylvia F. Hammond.
You have now sparked a debate, which is so important. I did not look at the 1994 era at all. I tried to pick up from which year the stipulation/rule started with the 18-35, but I am not able to pick it up. I have looked at a number of gazetted going back to 1998-2003. No luck thus far.
I will keep looking for when the age (youth) was implemented. Very interesting question!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.