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?
- Thread starter MerlinGremlin
- Start date
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.
So you have no competence in the fields you have been employed to do or have your job roles changed.
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.
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.
Not sure we know all the details of this. "Surviving relatives"??
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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
Last edited:
If the training required is for the benefit of the company then the company should bear the costs.
Zdb
-
The name of your company doesn't start with M and end in E does it?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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/
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/
D
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
P
porterelec
Its a little of a sticky situation. If the company are Just Incompetent Bast**ds then yes they should provide funding or training to keep you up to date and also to allow career progression within reason. If they arent JIB then its really down to the individual company. There is of course a competency issue and various provision under EAW, H&S 1974, CDM 2015 and what ever requirements an organization they are a member of and their specific rules. If you feel you are not competent to carry out your work duties due to regulation changes since you began your employment then you should raise the issue with the management in a record-able and audit able format
when it comes to testing i believe it should be carried out by independant body not the contractor too many times i have seen the contractor saking the testers on site becouse they did not like the readings or comments made and yes all trainning should be made and payed by the contracters
I use to work for a company that never really put anyone through training unfortunately. As someone mentioned it was more cost effective for them to ask for someone who posses the qualifications they were looking for rather then train their staff.
But I believe of you are a employee PAYE etc it should be your employers responsibility to keep you up to date such as when the 18th regs take over, however if they provide you with training it's not unreasonable for them to ask you to remain loyal with them for a set length of time as they have invested in you.
But I believe of you are a employee PAYE etc it should be your employers responsibility to keep you up to date such as when the 18th regs take over, however if they provide you with training it's not unreasonable for them to ask you to remain loyal with them for a set length of time as they have invested in you.
Regs, IPAF, H&S passports, compex ect ect.....I would say AFTER you have completed an apprenticeship (Or equivalent training) then employers should be paying for the above courses for any directly employed worker. Unfortunately the way of the world is now that lots of people "think" they are self employed (There really not) and therefor also fall into the line of well i must pay for my own courses ect. We now have a generation of workers who look at you as if you are mad if you dare suggest that an employer may be somehow responsible for his/her employee.
Similar threads
- Question
OFFICIAL SPONSORS
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
Advert
Thread starter
Thread Information
Advert
Thread statistics
Advert
TrueNAS JBOD Storage Server
-
-
-
Understanding TrueNAS JBOD Servers: A Comprehensive Guide
- Started by Dan
- Replies: 8