Should employees be expected to pay for there own training courses?

[MerlinGremlin]

Just wondering what everyone else thinks about more and more companies making employees pay for training course required to carry out there jobs properly. Or the other instance is companies making employees carry out tasks that they haven't had sufficient training in and not complying with the current standards?

 

[westward10]

Why do you ask.

 

[MerlinGremlin]

Where I currently work we do a lot of Emergency Lighting testing, Fire Alarm Servicing and PAT testing but none of us have the sufficient and upto date training, when we brought this to the attention of the company they've turned round and said we don't need any training and if we feel we do then we would have to pay for it ourselves. I believe if we are carrying out the work then we should be fully trained and this should be provided by the employer.

 

[westward10]

So you have no competence in the fields you have been employed to do or have your job roles changed.

 

[Richard Burns]

The employer has duty of care to ensure that their employees have sufficient training to carry out a task assigned to them safely.
Unfortunately until a court case proves otherwise your company is stating that you do have sufficient training to do the job.
So long as you have a fully up to date training manual detailing the courses that you have taken and the training covered then your surviving relatives will be able to prove them wrong.
If the company took the long term view they would provide training, what they are doing at the moment is encouraging a high staff turnover, dissatisfaction and risking prosecution.

 

[westward10]

Not sure we know all the details of this. "Surviving relatives"??

 

[MerlinGremlin]

We can all do Emergency Lighting Tests and Fire Alarm aswell as PAT testing but none of us have been fully trained, for example none of us have the C&G PAT testing cert, or none of us are aware of the BS for Emergency Lighting, or none of us have been trained in Fire Alarm maintenance. It's just frustrating as years ago when I worked for a different company they would be putting us on all sorts of courses.

 

[westward10]

This is very difficult to gauge because someone with no "qualifications" maybe more conversant with a discipline than another who has some kind of certification or "Attendance Certificate". The bottom line as always comes down to competence so am still not sure why you are asking the question.

 

[Andy-1960]

I don't believe they should be asked to pay, but training is very expensive and what I think should happen is the employee receives the training free, but if they leave within say 2 years they should have to pay 50% of the cost back. The company I work for has forked out to train people who have left a few months later and walked off with the qualification(s) paid for by the firm which is not very fair either

 

[Richard Burns]

Not sure we know all the details of this. "Surviving relatives"??

A tounge in cheek reference that if the employee is exposed to life threatening danger and they succumb to this someone may be able to prove the company is in the wrong but it will not help the person who has died.

This is very difficult to gauge because someone with no "qualifications" maybe more conversant with a discipline than another who has some kind of certification or "Attendance Certificate". The bottom line as always comes down to competence so am still not sure why you are asking the question.

I would believe MerlinGremlin is asking the question because he believes that the company is asking them to undertake tasks for which he feels they are not sufficiently trained to be able to do and that the company is wrong in stating that they do not need further training.
In asking the question he is seeking clarification if his belief is correct.

As you say the question cannot be answered readily without a detailed knowledge of the on the job training provided, the procedures in place and the level of the tasks assigned.

 

[westward10]

Thanks RB, still a bit confused. OP are you saying you are being tasked with something you don't feel competent to do without further training for which the company is asking you to fund.

 

[MerlinGremlin]

For example you wouldn't ask someone to carry out an EICR if they didn't have there 2391 or 2394/5, but as Electricians we can all test circuits! What I'm saying is that we are carrying out the work and signing certificates to say everything is okay and compliant but we don't know if it is because we've had no training. So if a company is advertising and saying that all there Engineers are fully qualified and upto date with current regs and British Standards then surely we should all have said training and qualifications?

 

[Octopus]

Why do you think so many companies want "off the shelf trained and competent people"?

To save on their training budget.... That's assuming they have one!

 

[MerlinGremlin]

Very true Murdoch, companies are quick enough to give there managers big bonuses and flash cars but never think about putting there Engineers on courses to better the company and Engineers. If companies paid better for the more qualifications you had then great, but they don't!! They want everything and want to pay the least for it.

 

[westward10]

For example you wouldn't ask someone to carry out an EICR if they didn't have there 2391 or 2394/5, but as Electricians we can all test circuits! What I'm saying is that we are carrying out the work and signing certificates to say everything is okay and compliant but we don't know if it is because we've had no training. So if a company is advertising and saying that all there Engineers are fully qualified and upto date with current regs and British Standards then surely we should all have said training and qualifications?

I rarely see someone who has a 239 or whatever they call it these days to be competent to carry out an EICR on a commercial installation. I suspect this company should not be claiming any of their employees to be engineers although many do.