The researchers noted that there has been \u201ca downward trend in employer engagement with the national VET system\u201d over the last decade and a half or so. Their research was also quite strategic in that the employers selected for interview were from five industries with comparatively low engagement with the national VET system: agriculture, retail, transport, warehousing, and information media and telecommunications.<\/p>\n

One of the key messages is that:<\/p>\n

\u201cEmployers train their workforces to improve their businesses. They use both nationally and non-nationally recognised training and view these two forms of training as complementary.\u201d [They judge training] \u201cby its relevance to the skills needs of their workers; its flexibility in fitting in with their business cycles; the expertise of its provider; and its cost. These factors are more important to employers than its recognition status; that is, whether it is nationally recognised or non-nationally recognised training.\u201d<\/p>\n

In favour of nationally recognised training<\/h2>\n

It\u2019s good for initial training and also has a real value for \u201cupskilling in critical new technical skills,\u201d and especially for those \u201cthat need to be formally acknowledged or recorded for certification purposes.\u201d Where there are licensing and regulatory requirements, nationally recognised training is a necessity for employers and the workforce. But, unless there is that regulatory or legislative requirement, some employers are not concerned about their employees completing qualifications in whole or part.\u00a0 \u201cThe ability of nationally recognised training to recognise units and skill sets \u2026 adds flexibility and enables short forms of nationally recognised training to be provided.\u201d<\/p>\n

Nationally recognised training is often of most value to employees as they want to have what training they have done recognised in some formal way.<\/p>\n

Why employers might not use it<\/h2>\n

Employers may not use nationally recognised training because of \u201coutdated training packages; training not tailored to employer needs; a lack of continuity in public funding for training; the complexity of the nationally recognised training system; and no requirement for nationally recognised qualifications or parts of the training. Employers like non-nationally recognised training because of its ability to be more tailored and \u2018bespoke\u2019.<\/p>\n

Making things better<\/h2>\n

Paradoxically COVID 19 has shaken up VET\u2019s practices and promoted more flexibility, and this is seen as a good thing. Those interviewed favoured \u201cincreasing employer\u2014RTO partnerships for improved collaboration in adapting nationally recognised training products and their provision to better meet workforce needs.\u201d This might be done through better focused skill sets.<\/p>\n