Return-Path: <nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f5RAiKf13174; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 06:44:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 06:44:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <88.86d89f2.286b11f1@aol.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: DEBBYDAM@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-WORKPLACE:221] Re: xpost- Discussion on the NIFL-ESL list- X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 138 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Status: O Content-Length: 755 Lines: 11 I agree with the sentiments of this post. As the original questioner acknowledged, we all know that workplace classes are more successful if employees are paid as well. Although it may not be easy to convince employers to do this, experience has taught me that where they have to be cajoled into seeing the value of classes and don't make an investment, classes are likely to fail. Often, especially where shift workers are concerned, the class schedule, for example, won't be considered and employees will find it difficult to attend consistently as their schedule changes frequently without regard to times for instruction. If an employer can't value the classes enough at the outset, problems that domm the program are likely ahead. DD
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:28:14 EST