|
|
|
Going It Alone
How to assemble a higher-skilled workforce in a tight labor market? Many Connecticut manufacturers doing it in-house
|
Business New Haven
1/10/2000
By: Susan Banfield
|
It has seldom been easy in recent times for manufacturers to find the skilled employees they need to keep their production lines moving. In today's tight labor market, however, assembling a skilled workforce has become more difficult than ever.
"Hiring anybody in this economy has become incredibly difficult," says Ed Diamond, co-owner of Lance International, a Hamden-based provider of cables, harnesses and electro-mechanical contract assembly services. What many companies are turning to as a solution is in-house training.
Ideally, the technical high schools should be graduating batches of skilled workers every year. In reality, manufacturers seldom find that new graduates possess the level of skills they need.
Anthony Castaldi, who was an instructor at Eli Whitney Vocational-Technical School for ten years, explains why.
"There is no reason at all a student spending three or four years in a technical school cannot come out and take a job in industry, provided the student can learn and the teacher can teach," Castaldi says. "But some students coming through high school aren't prepared for high school.
"Some kids coming through high school can't read a ruler," says Castaldi. "And my personal opinion - we talk about holistic training in the schools, but are we doing it? A lot of times people need to be shown."
In-house training is an environment in which people who weren't able to pick skills up in high school are finally able to "get it."
"You move the student back and forth between the classroom and the floor until he understands," explains Castaldi, who now provides in-house training for area manufacturers through his newly-formed company, Creative Edge Learning System. Also, he points out, there is no gap in the transfer from school to real-life hardware: Students learn on exactly the equipment they will be responsible for operating.
In-house training also reaches employees in an environment in which they are comfortable, and thus able to learn better. "Some employees get very intimidated by outside trainers," notes Jim Petruzzello, in-house trainer at Microboard Processing Inc. (MPI) in Seymour.
In addition to its effectiveness, there are numerous other benefits which manufacturers have reaped from in-house training, including both hard- and soft-dollar savings.
Linda Janaskie of MPI's human-resources department points out that providing training in house is significantly more cost-effective than outsourcing it. Up until six months ago, when it hired Petruzzello, Microboard outsourced its training.
"The costs of some of these programs is exorbitant," says Janaskie. "The in-house training is more cost-effective - big time."
Some companies report a measurable increase in the quality of their output. Paul Russo, senior vice president of human resources for Bic Corp. in Milford, has noticed that employees who have been through his company's training programs are more likely to catch a mistake before it happens.
MPI's Janaskie says her company has seen "marked improvement in manufacturing [and] fewer defective products" since the advent of in-house training. In fact, MPI actually set up its training program so that it would dovetail with the quality control department, she reports.
Related to the improvement in product quality has been the greater accountability on the part of in-house, as opposed to outside, trainers. "The accountability piece is greater when it's in-house," observes Nick Lavorato, training and education manager for Advanced Engineering Products (AEP) of New Haven.
Janaskie echoes his findings: "The accountability is good when teachers and others all know each other."
In-house training can also be tailored to the precise needs of a particular company and manufacturing process. "In-house training makes it personal to the company and its culture," says Lavorato.
Still another significant benefit to in-house training is the improved retention rate among employees. Advanced Products of North Haven has dramatically stepped up the extent of its in-house training program in the past year. One of the main reasons it did so, reports human resources manager Joyce Goduto, is that, "Because the job market is so tight, we wanted to be sure we could retain our employees. It's a wonderful way to build a strong workforce.
"This [improved retention rate] is attributable to [the employees'] impression that the company is willing to invest in them as people and as employees," says Janaskie, whose company offers ongoing training programs in both life and technical skills.
"Workers realize the commitment the company has to their personal and professional growth. Workers appreciate the effort," says Lavorato, who cites a strong rate of retention during the five years he has been with AEP. Lavorato adds that most of what he's read supports a correlation between in-house training and higher retention rates. "It's very different from training programs organized by outsiders," he says.
Finally, in-house training seems to correlate directly with improved self-esteem and job satisfaction among employees. "People are very excited about learning. They come to me and ask, 'When is the next training?'" says Janaskie. "That can't be a bad thing."
There are a number of different ways in which in-house training can be organized. In some companies, workers take their training on company time, but off the line. This was the case at U.S. Repeating Arms Co. (USRAC) of New Haven, where Castaldi was retained to do basic technical training.
"The whole department would shut down for an afternoon," he recalls. Castaldi notes that while many employers are reluctant to give up time on the line for training, it inevitably pays off.
At other firms, training is done on the employees' own time. At Bic, for example, a wide variety of courses and programs are available free to workers, from language arts to blueprint reading, but most must be taken on the workers' own time. Still, Russo reports that about 80 percent of factory-based employees have taken advantage of the training offered.
Another approach is to provide the training on the job and on the line. This is the way it is handled at Lance. The company typically hires men and women out of welfare-to-work programs and community action programs, and then spends three months rotating them through the company's various job functions and training them in each as they work.
There are also a number of options when it comes to selecting the person who will conduct the training, each with its pros and cons. An outside person can be brought in, with the advantage that he or she frequently can offer a new perspective and fresh ideas.
"When you've been at a company a while you get myopic," notes Lavorato. On the flip side, it can sometimes take an outside agency two months just to acquire an understanding of a company and how it works, Lavorato points out.
Andrew DeLaura, whose business, DeLaura Learning Systems, provides area companies with training, points out that when a business decides to bring an outsider in to do training, it should select that person or agency with great care. "You need someone with decent experience teaching others, as well as with technical experience," he cautions.
For certain kinds of training, an inside person can be the best resource. "When you have a supervisor who's been doing a specific process for five years, who better to teach that process?" says Lavorato.
Advanced Products is one company that has recognized the advantages to having people from within the company provide training. This past year, Goduto has overseen a program of sending employees out to be trained to be trainers.
Finally, it must be recognized that in-house training, no matter who provides it, is not a panacea. "Some of it has to be done through the community colleges and technical schools," says Russo, who notes that Bic relies on Gateway Community-Technical College in New Haven for the training of its more highly skilled employees - with good results.
"The community colleges have some outstanding programs," says DeLaura. "I absolutely support the community college system."
However, DeLaura points out that companies which send employees out to such programs must take pains to ensure proper integration of the newly trained employees upon her or his return. "You've got to look at training as a process. It starts with a community college, say, but it doesn't end there."
He notes that a common failing of many companies that send their workers out for training is failure to allow the employees to put their new knowledge to work upon their completion of the course.
"You get people trained, get them excited about what they've learned - and they're not allowed to use it because management doesn't fully know or trust what they've learned," he says. A closer cooperation between management and the schools is required here.
For manufacturers interested in setting up an in-house training program, government assistance is available. At the state level, the Department of Economic & Community Development and the Connecticut Development Authority both offer support in the form of cash assistance, low-cost loans, and grants.
Advanced Products, for example, used state grant money to set up its in-house program to train employees to become trainers, as well as company-wide training in lean manufacturing.
At present, there is little federal money for such programs. That may change, however, when the Workforce Investment Act takes effect in July. And still more government assistance for in-house training at all levels may become available as officials see the distinct benefits it offers manufacturers struggling to put together a qualified workforce in today's economy.
|
Go FirstGo PreviousGo
NextGo LastGo
to Index
|
|
