acvc
-
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2008
- Messages
- 435
- Reaction score
- 26
1. This License propsal is based on the assumtion that:
"The present system has had quite a few years and is showing its utter failure to achieve any of its aims", as stated by Des.
Where's the evidience for this? To make such a change as this you need clear cut numbers of dangerous jobs in proportion to non dangerous jobs done. All that you have to go on is anecdote and hearsay and few examples you've come across yourselves Lec et al. Show me some figures and I would be more sympathetic to the proposal.
2. The propsoal would have the effect of reinforcing the old chestnut of "can't get any experience because you don't have any experience to start with", i.e. closed shop and jobs for the boys. and really hard to get a start anywhere. This raises the question of what exactly is the motivation behind this proposal: driving down the pay for less experienced people/driving up the pay for more experienced people, or safety? If it's safety, then we already have established organisations and safety could/should be more rigourously enforced within this existing framework.
3. We now live in an era where a job for life doesn't exist any more. We're constantly being told to be flexible, to be prepared to retrain, to move about for work. But the economy/society doesn't make it easy to retrain if you're over twenty-five or so, or are well-off enough to take three or four years out of work to go to college - and hardly anyone can afford that. So there is a reason for the short courses. I do fully accept that this is not an argument about safety but about training and affordability, but it's got some relevance here.
No need for this.
"The present system has had quite a few years and is showing its utter failure to achieve any of its aims", as stated by Des.
Where's the evidience for this? To make such a change as this you need clear cut numbers of dangerous jobs in proportion to non dangerous jobs done. All that you have to go on is anecdote and hearsay and few examples you've come across yourselves Lec et al. Show me some figures and I would be more sympathetic to the proposal.
2. The propsoal would have the effect of reinforcing the old chestnut of "can't get any experience because you don't have any experience to start with", i.e. closed shop and jobs for the boys. and really hard to get a start anywhere. This raises the question of what exactly is the motivation behind this proposal: driving down the pay for less experienced people/driving up the pay for more experienced people, or safety? If it's safety, then we already have established organisations and safety could/should be more rigourously enforced within this existing framework.
3. We now live in an era where a job for life doesn't exist any more. We're constantly being told to be flexible, to be prepared to retrain, to move about for work. But the economy/society doesn't make it easy to retrain if you're over twenty-five or so, or are well-off enough to take three or four years out of work to go to college - and hardly anyone can afford that. So there is a reason for the short courses. I do fully accept that this is not an argument about safety but about training and affordability, but it's got some relevance here.
No need for this.
Last edited: