The last few posts have covered a few of the problems quite well. There is an issue with the staff turnover and keeping the more experienced crew in the industry. A sliding pay scale is one that could help keep these guys (girls) around. The trick is not to "retire" them to the office or management positions but to use them as mentors and trainers. I have known Rob C and Tubalubs for years and as much as it would be tempting for them to dissapear into the office they need to continue to teach the new crew the things that they just dont teach you at Tafe/Uni. When I was an apprentice mechanic it was the most experienced mechanic/foreman/bosses job to teach you some of the finer points of the trade, sure you did 3 years of trade school, but it never did teach you how to fine tune that dodgy carby or how to make your Torana run that little bit harder. Same as when I started raft guiding, I knew how to run a river but it took someone who had been raft guiding for 10 years to teach me how to do it with half the effort.
Sometimes it's the little things that make a big difference.
Anyway, a lot of these posts have been constructed in an incredibly positive maner so maybe the time is near for a bit of a semi-organised meeting. Maybe a few reps from the Employers, Employees and customers/schools can get together and see what we can come up with.

To find out rates of pay, conditions etc. try a Google search for terms like companyname eba or agreement or "enterprise bargaining agreement" or "rate of pay" or salary or... It might turn up a link to the Industrial Relations agreements that govern conditions (if the company has them, and if the agreement itself is on the wwweb).

I dug up the RnR agreement this way which list salaries, employment conditions, holidays etc etc etc.

Good points budgewana,

I have to disagree with you about 'selling of' outdoor ed though.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen on a school mag (that is attracting new students) the following pics:
1. A kid abseiling of the edge of a cliff.
2. A kid with a muddy face.
3. The classic hiking shot of a group of kids on a single goat track.
4. The classic shot of a kid on a massive foam surf board looking like they just learnt how to stand up.
5. Kids skiing with packs on.
6. Bum shot of a kid top roping.

You can't tell me this is not an attempt by the school to sell their Outdoor Ed programme? In fact as a kid it was a major factor in the school I wanted to go to!

Also, I can count on my hands the amount of schools that have similar programmes to GGS, what I'm saying is they are an exception not the norm. To further that some of the best OE programmes I've heard of like the Kozy to Coast 30 days in the bush etc. is run by OEG not the school, I would not call that average, or the school not giving a poo about OE.

I'm not having a crack at you mate just don't agree with some of your points. Plus I have an EZG so what I say goes 

Ben

There are at least two employers I know of who have posted on here eor and rob c. They have both added postive and insightful views from an employers point of view.

I think there were a couple more but it would be nice to hear about strategies that these businesses use to regulate and reward staff and their future vision for the continuing growth and culture shifting journey to increase the positive views of outdoor ed in the community and the percieved monetary value of what we do in the community.

Having worked as a client manager and been in meetings about the marketability of outdoor ed schools do see it as a strong part of their marketing campaigns especially in the highly sought after SE melbourne/suburbs area. On its own it's not a strong seller but as part of a whole package, promoting value for money and a well rounded educational experience it fills the hole in the "social/developmental/alternative" area that isn't filled by academic, sciences, arts, and sports.

Quote:


No it won't. Bullying them won't either (bloody EZG paddlers). Unless we hold some employers hostage until we get answers. But it also won't go away by idle chat on an internet forum either.  

At this stage I wold like to thank all those who have participated in the dicussion in a friendly and postive manner. In light of recent events I feel that this thread really represents the depth of experience and passion for the industry that lies within this membership, and the professional manner that we have gone about in this discussion. Those who only watch and don't post we would love to hear your views whether you are a first year tafe student or the old school guru. Everyone can make a difference.



On another note, someone recently questioned me on the issue of whether we are getting through to people or not through this website. I just happened to look at the views for this topic and it is around 2500 views on this topic alone. I was amazed when I saw that stat. All of the other topics have 3 figure view stats. Obviously this issue is one of interest to a lot of people!

I’m surprised no one has mentioned the controversial topic of regulation in this discussion. I know it’s all out of favour in days of modern free market worship, but I often think it is the only way to ensure standards and achieve outcomes.  Markets tend to be stingy bastards. They are out their trying to get the most bang for their buck. Free markets haven’t done much to cut greenhouse gases or stop using plastic bags.  People are cheap and lazy in general and not many people are prepared to put their money where their values are.  Getting the market to value outdoor professionals and pay them appropriately seems like a slow and long winded way of dealing with a very concrete problem. And that concrete problem is really around safe practice.  Yes, I would like to be paid more. Yes, it takes time and money to gain the skills and experience to work in this field and it is a high responsibility job that is not really reflected in its pay rates. If I wasn’t so fond of the casual lifestyle offered by my work and if I was trying to pay a mortgage or raise a family, I’d be really keen on permanent employment and all those associated work conditions that are rather rare in the field.  But what I find most concerning is that people who are not safe to operate in the field are operating in the field. We have some industry approved standards, but I’m not aware of any that are legally enforced. Reputable companies usually employ people with industry approved standards, but even they sometimes resort to less capable people because of a shortage of competent people.  Less reputable companies and those trying to cut costs used to be notorious for employing underskilled people, which really left those people and their clients in a terrible position should anything outside of their scope of experience happen. I’m not in an area that does that so much now fortuneately but I figure it still happens.

My point is that market forces and areas of high competition lead to poor wages, conditions and standards.  You cannot be a doctor without a certain level of qualification. You can’t be a social worker or a teacher or a mechanic or a plumber. Regulation can set standards that ensure safe practice and work conditions.  I suspect that the outdoor industry doesn’t have these things because it is a relatively young industry that developed after the heyday of unions and workers’ rights. But pay and conditions appropriate to our skill level can surely only come after we establish legal baseline for the skill level required in the job.

Then there is the sticky problem of teaching those standards.  The varying courses around have all produced a range of quality of graduates.  But largely I think their problem arises from they are generalist courses with no entry requirements. You cannot go from no experience to competence after a few weeks in each activity spread out over 2 years no matter how good the course is.  It is an industry that requires a lot of dedication to the activity to develop and practice skills.  Those graduates who are outstanding are so because they have put in this time – and it takes years. I think there is another issue of graduates feeling they are capable of more than they actually are. These courses really need to be emphasised as a very basic level in each field and people directed to specialist courses in their area of interest. On which note, I think these very specialist courses are the only standard of competence we have at the moment that are worth valuing.  Not to diss TAFE or uni courses, just to note that by their nature, they cannot by themselves produce specialist outdoor guides.

wendysarah wrote on Mar 4^th, 2009 at 3:03pm:


I think this is a VERY valid point. I was uni educated and I don't value any piece of paper they gave me that related to hard skills qualification as the testing procedures were flawed and outrageously under-supervised by people suitably qualified to judge a persons competence in certain activities. I was lucky I had a lecturer who said to me, "to become a valuable and emplyable person, you must complete specialist courses in mulitple disciplines and practice and practice your craft so that you become competent." Very wise words.

So those of you who think a piece of paper from a Uni of Tafe qualifies you as a "professional" in that area of competence, get off your butt and go do a specialist course. Employers will take you more seriously then. 

Being closely linked to the industry in the punter, practical and administration area and uni-qualified I want to add that when considering a person for an outdoor position either for myself or in other roles I look closely at experience, industry specific qualifications and then tafe/uni quals.
In my opinion, Tafe is an excellent means of gaining a 'snapshot' view of the different fields you can specialise in. It would be great to see Tafe’s working closely with industry to see that their course work leads students part way to an industry qual, I know of at least one tafe that has set this up and it needs to happen more. (Value-added education!)
Uni’s offer a great way to meld the practical with the theory, except that universities pride themselves on being strong in the academic choosing, for whatever reasons, to leave the practical side out of outdoor ed in its courses to the students, and the uni’s, own educational detriment.
Industry qualifications assessed and awarded by those who have a lifetimes experience in their chosen field have the most value in the outdoor education industry. Who better to learn from than those in our community who have dedicated their lives to developing their field of expertise to such a level that they have become icons in the same. These people have intimate knowledge of their local area, where the people they train will be working in, and often an international level of experience in their craft. Usually having travelled the world whilst perfecting their craft in their earlier years, often still doing so, well into what those with office jobs would consider retirement age! You don't get to that kind of level and live to into your 50’s + and be able to  teach it without gaining all and more of the necessary skills your humble outdoor education professional needs to take students and clients out into the same environment and safely bring them home again.
Industry regulation would ideally link together each of these separate entities in the one net enabling national and international recognition for the qualifications these organisations offer without compromising the individuality of each of these organisations. Leaving them as individual entities, this is their strength, being self-regulated by their members.
I don't know how many times I have heard of the big companies in this industry failing to recognise industry quals insisting on industry-qualified and experienced but new-to-the-big-company staff attending mind-numbingly boring training days where un-qualified young staff impart their big-company-specific wisdom (gained after working for one year with said company and having risen in that time to managerial level due to their seniority (after two seasons of work) as they avoided being burnt out due to over working in the peak periods) teaching the "insert big company name here" way of doing something, The scariest bit about this is that the company specific way of doing something is often the wrong way or worse an unsafe setup according to industry standards.
I know of a 'big company expert’ with minimal experience studying an instruction book in the tent the night before instructing the newly learnt technique to trainees the next day as ‘big company’ certified training! The day of training the instruction was given incorrectly and one of the trainees was put in the direct line of danger, VERY REAL DANGER!
Industry regulation would ensure that this kind of ‘half-a**ed’ training was deemed invalid. ACIA Single + Multi Pitch, SWR1+2, Wilderness First Aid, Sea Kayak Guide, Sea Kayak Instructor, Canoe Board Qualifications, Life Saving Vic (although their bronze quals are really slipping at the moment!). Many of these entities are not recognised by some big companies, the SES included! Yet the works of these entities are ratified by the experience and skills of their instructors. I know that if I was to head out onto the rock I would want to know that my guide was ACIA qualified having passed rigorous training and testing and I know that the ACIA will fail those who don’t meet the grade. SWR would be a basic must for a river guide if I was to head onto the water and so on...
I would have little confidence in heading into any outdoor experience if I know that my instructor on the day has only 2 years tafe experience, or worse – 4 years uni study and some big company one day crash course in how ‘said big company’ does things. I would choose someone with an industry qualification over tafe or uni training ANY DAY!!!
All that said, if the entities that train and qualify guides do not continue to uphold rigorous assessment levels and ongoing training and proof of practice requirements then their qualifications would quickly have no value in the industry and where would we be?
If clients and participants in the outdoor adventure and education industry were to put more value on industry quals there may very well be a reduction in the need for risk management (read big company ‘this is how WE do it’ training days) as adherence to the strict requirements of industry quals would see a better quality guide out there in the field.
Or maybe Tafe’s and Uni’s need to more selective in their student choices and at the end of the program be prepared to fail those who don’t make the grade in the practical as well as the theoretical.
It comes back to the days of the young learning from the old!
Enough said.
Remember to always think for yourself, no one else will!

freethort wrote on Mar 14^th, 2009 at 9:04pm:



We don't actually grade students on the practical as a University because we are not a competency based training organisation.  As such students do not come out with any competencies from a degree.  What they come out with is certificates in Victoria, issued by the VOEA acknowledging that they have completed X days of activity participation and peer leadership under supervision.  So they are ready to go through some company assessment so the employer can deem whether they are ready to lead or need further development.

Universities are not set up to fail people because they are bad leaders, in the university system this is even seen as a form of discrimination.  Even other degrees this job is left to external organisations.  For example you can get a degree in Medicine but that does not automatically qualify you to practice medicine.  That is done by the government, same for psychologists, nurses and anyone else involved in healthcare.  

In our degree most outdoor experiences are hurdles, ie there is no grading however attendance and suitable participation is required to pass the subject. This goes along with the philosophy of university education in that the idea is to set people up as lifelong learners not spoon feed information.  That means that they will adapt.

I get the feeling that alot of the Uni vs TAFE debate is ill informed and based on limited experience.  There are useless people in universities but I know there are some bad TAFE instructors out there as well.  Plus as the person hiring the instructors for our Outdoor programs I know that about 50% of our leaders teach the uni students one week and then teach the same stuff to the TAFE students the next week.

Al