1. Identify the issue and explain how it relates to the training and development program. 2. Provide recommendations on creating an effective training and learning program.

There is only one payroll training tax in North America. The Quebec government program that forces employers to spend 1 percent of payroll on training may not have the intended consequences of increasing training investments in employees. Using data from a Statistics Canada survey, Alan Saks of the University of Toronto and Robert Haccoun of the Université de Montréal matched Quebec employers with Ontario employers and found that there were no differences in amounts spent on training. The paperwork is so cumbersome that many employers prefer to pay the 1 percent tax rather than go through the thick guidebooks necessary to report the training.

There are many other mandatory training programs across Canada. In addition to legal requirements in posting information on employment standards, occupational health and safety, accessibility, pay equity plans, workplace violence policies, among others, legislation require organizations to have formal training programs in place. This includes training in Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS); the training program must include an explanation of the purpose and contents of supplier and workplace labels, the storage and handling of hazardous products, and safety procedures. Health and Safety legislation requires employers to ensure that they have a basic awareness program in place. And workplace and sexual harassment legislation requires adequate instruction and training on the policies and programs in pace.

If little effect is gained by forcing employers to provide training, are there benefits by forcing employees to attend training? The answer is not clear: some studies report some slight benefits in outcomes (such as improved job performance) when employees voluntarily attend courses; other studies see no differences.

There may be more serious problems than performance results created by forcing employees to attend courses. Half of the 24 employees of SaskTel who participated in a training program on process reengineering required psychological counselling, stress leave, or both in its aftermath. Trainees said they were subjected to a greenhouse environment: windows were papered over, employees were not allowed to communicate with one another, and all were subjected to verbal abuse from the training consultants. As the president of the Ontario Society for Training and Development commented, “That’s not training, that’s assault.”

Seagulls Pewter and Silversmiths of Pugwash, Nova Scotia, sent its employees to seminars based on the controversial Erhard Seminars Training (EST) therapy. Employees complained to their union that the seminars, in which participants were encouraged to delve into painful emotions, often drove participants to breakdowns. In another example, a large insurance company hired a consultant to conduct management training for hundreds of supervisors and managers. The company did not realize that the consultant was a member of L. Ron Hubbard’s Church of Scientology and was teaching management principles developed by scientologists. Critics contend that scientology is a cult, not a religion. Employees resented being subjected to psychological concepts based on “tones” that catalogue emotions, to the ruthless devotion to ferreting out and firing problem employees, and to “religious scriptures.”

The employees in these organizations were required to participate in programs that caused them undue stress and sometimes violated their moral or religious beliefs. Those who organized the programs believed that employees with the “right” attitudes would be more effective.

Questions: 

1. Identify the issue and explain how it relates to the training and development program.

2. Provide recommendations on creating an effective training and learning program.