Is there a loss of skill transmission in workforces, because of the impacts of the way in which industry groups manage work requiring low skill workforces? Am I alone in thinking that as certain tasks are outsourced from the need to maintain competitive advantage or in an effort to reduce risk, the transmission of workforce expertise and corporate history loses out? There's been plenty of research on the loss of corporate history when organisations outsource and downsize their workforces, but what is the impact on the transmission of workplace skill, when the traditional roles of master and apprentice are reduced within those organisation's workforces?

Has the movement of low skill tasks, taken away from those who traditionally practice these tasks, the first and second year apprentice and moved to a contract workforce, resulted in the loss of skill transmission from master to apprentice?

Consider a contract workforce managing work which falls outside the scope of traditional training and of union regulation of training. When that workforce is hired, there may be little requirement for applicants to have any form of qualifications. Once in the job, there is no `master' tradesperson, and the supervisor may be there mainly to see the paperwork is done. Who shows the new worker how to use their tools in the most appropriate manner for the work being undertaken, or is able to demonstrate `best practice' on the job? When the need for training is recognised, how is an `on the job' training program implemented with no skilled `master' tradespersons in the workforce to demonstrate best practice?

How do we design on the job training programs for adults who bring with them diverse work skills and cultures, and who have no `master' to follow, and who are not impressionable teenagers learning their first work skills?