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?

 

[mickfred]

I have the term engineer . It's used to such a wide range that it is meaningless. My boss describes me as it all the time ,when really am head of the maintenance department (the maintenance department is one person ME).
Employers would check competent not just ask because 90% of people will say "i think I'll be alright doing it" i know am guilty of that .As for training costs their has to be a middle ground between using someone's business to pay for you training and indentured servitude

 

[Pete999]

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?

If the training required is for the benefit of the company then the company should bear the costs.

 

[Zdb]

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.

The name of your company doesn't start with M and end in E does it?

 

[MerlinGremlin]

No it doesn't But I think it's across the board now that companies aren't willing to pay to keep there "Engineers" upto date with the current standards and skills, I can't wait for when the 18th Edition Regs come out and see who has to pay for it!

 

[Leader]

Agree with Pete, if the training will benefit the company they should pay for it. It's unrealistic to think staff will pay for it themselves. In my old company the had a sliding scale so if you left in the first few months you would have to pay it back 100% and the percentage would fall as time moved on. I think that's fair. As the conversation between two CEO's went: CEO 1 "what if we train all the staff and they leave?" CEO 2 "what if we don't train them and they stay?". I'll always believe training your staff is the correct thing to do. I do understand budget concerns but that's why the training should be justified, sometimes in a written statement produced by the employee.

 

[steamboatwilly]

Two core issues really? 1) Should a Company maintain competence? 2) Who should pay?

For 1) the answer is surely obvious. There's always a risk that trained people will go elsewhere (ask the BBC)...tough.

For 2) it's very clear isn't it? If you're a contractor or self-employed you'll need to keep up your knowledge and pay yourself. If you're PAYE/staff that cost belongs to the Company employing you.

 

[Leader]

^^like^^

 

[Midwest]

As RB said as responsible company would ensure the personal development of their employees. The cost of training and then retention of staff, is an issue, but something a said responsible company would see the two go hand in hand.

OP, presumably you were employed by this company to fulfil a certain role within the organisation, and have a written or verbal contract to that extent. If your role has change over the course of time, with the expectation for you to carry out different activities, which you are not competent to do, either through lack of training or experience, may subject the employer to litigation and possible prosecution by H&S, should anything go wrong. The H&S Act places a responsibility on all employers "to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work" of all their employees''.

If you have an annual appraisal, and you do not feel you are competent to carry out this new role, you should raise and document that then. Training doesn't have to be outsourced, and can take place in-house, and doesn't need to be formal to be effective.

If you do not have such a system, and you are concerned about doing this work without suitable training, then perhaps find a new employer.

You could seek some guidance from Contact the Health and Safety Executive - http://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/

 

[Deleted member 26818]

As far as I am aware, there is no legal requirement to possess any qualifications to conduct any of the tasks that have been mentioned in this thread.
There is not even a legal requirement to hold an electrical qualification to work as an electrician.
As such, unless a company requires that an employee possess a qualification to carry out their tasks, there is no reason for the company to pay for any courses or exams.

 

[Midwest]

Suppose it would depend on the contract agreed as per terms of employment. Employed as an electrician to do domestic installations, and then being asked to change the role, and being required to carry out brain surgery. If the employee has the qualifications, or can demonstrate competency in that field, the company would have no cause for concern.

As mentioned the company has a duty of care for it's employees, and for its customers it carries out work for. And as mentioned in the small print for my PL insurance, I must have the competency to carry out the work for which I'm insured.

 

[steamboatwilly]

Sure, contract terms will vary but if you're engaged by an "employer" as a self-employed contractor then you must provide your own tools, risk, insurance and training ... otherwise you'll fall foul of the IR35 rules (which are very likely to mark you as a PAYE employee and thus not entitled to claim certain expenses). IR35 is being beefed up shortly so just be careful!

 

[Midwest]

OP hasn't suggested he's self employed, contracted to company, or PAYE for that matter.

 

[Leader]

For the price of most exams or in-house training I would have thought they would be the ideal way to "prove" competence. Ok in the real world you may say you can pass an exam and not be any good but at least the company would have a good fall back position. Certainly this is how it works with data protection, money laundering etc. Legally the proof that employees have attended covers your arse.

 

[MerlinGremlin]

Well what's the point in having training courses and City & Guilds if non of them are required? To prove competence you have to have sufficient training/knowledge which is proved by achieving a grade/qualification. If you are not trained then how do you know you are doing something correct? How many people know how to carry out a PAT test correctly? How many on here know the BS regs for Emergency Lighting? How many on here know the BS regs for Fire Alarm maintenance? The PAT test qualification is a Level 3 C&G qualification, the same level as the 2391, 2394 & 2395 so if that's the case why doesn't it have the same respect ? If a company is advertising and telling it's clients that all there Engineers are fully qualified in all fields then the Engineers should be competent which is proved by training and certificates.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Hmm, visually inspect for damage, check for earth continuity, check polarity, test insulation resistance, fill out sticker/label.
Regs update is also a level 3 qualification.