Training contracts - has anyone ever tried recouping costs from training a staff member that has left?

[Clutchy]

The fact that there are qualifications available and are readily used in the industry it will be argued in court that they should have one. 

 

I put staff through chainsaw tickets before they pick one up and climbing tickets before they get up a tree. 

 

Have fun fighting the court battle of why you let an untrained 18 year old up a tree even under your supervision fall and die when there are readily available courses out there. You also have no proof that you taught them best practice etc etc 

 

The qualifications don't mean anything- other than once they've got them it's then really time for us to start the real training. But it protects you from being sued. 

[Mick Dempsey]

Nobody is talking about sending untrained, unqualified inexperienced people up a tree. 
That’s a different ball game to teaching someone how to use a saw and a chipper. 

[GarethM]

54 minutes ago, Mick Dempsey said:

Nobody is talking about sending untrained, unqualified inexperienced people up a tree. 
That’s a different ball game to teaching someone how to use a saw and a chipper. 

Exactly, if they can't safely use a bow saw, chipper and small snedding saws maybe it's not the right line of work.

 

We all had to start somewhere, you can't just use oh I've a certain/ticket or qualification as a yard stick.

 

You're their boss/mentor etc, you should be confident with being able to teach them and gauge abilities or as a society we are fkd.

 

How do you learn to drive ?, straight with the instructor or with your parents?.

Edited 1 hour ago by GarethM

[AHPP]

Quote

The fact that there are qualifications available and are readily used in the industry it will be argued in court that they should have one. 

Which would be argued against by pointing out they aren't worth a wank and the whole industry knows they aren't worth a wank. Particular paper qualifications are there for contractual obligations to insurers and clients who want those particular paper qualifications. Beyond that, they're not proof of competence. Which you know:

Quote

The qualifications don't mean anything- other than once they've got them it's then really time for us to start the real training.

 

 

Quote

But it protects you from being sued. 

Nothing protects you from being sued. It might help make a lower value claim go away but something juicy will warrant lawyers delving deeper. And they won't have to look for long. I'll repeat it becasue it's worth repeating. The whole industry knows NPTC and LANTRA qualifications are a joke. (EDIT: Actually they're not a joke. They're basically fraud). People who don't meet the standards, pass the courses. Anyone who says otherwise is unqualified to tie their own shoelaces and walk on a pavement, let alone run the operations side of a tree business, where you have to ongoingly assess whether your guys are doing the job well enough.

 

 

Quote

Have fun fighting the court battle of why you let an untrained 18 year old up a tree even under your supervision fall and die when there are readily available courses out there. You also have no proof that you taught them best practice etc etc 

They're not untrained though. They're trained by you. You train them and write records of how you trained them.

 

22nd January 2025. Had a slow afternoon so let the youth have a go climbing for the first time on a 10m ash. I set three climbing systems up for him, a VT + rope wrench on SRT, a zigzag on DRT and a DRT three knot system. I demonstrated each one and then let him weight them at ground level and then ascend and descend up to 2m with and without the aid of a short set of steps. He did it all fine and rightly pointed out that SRT is basically impossible without a foot ascender and/or spikes. Then we talked about spikes, including the dangers of stabbing his own legs and the climbing ropes with them. Then I let him put spikes on and let him flipline up and down 4m of trunk stem, protecting progress and retreat with the main climbing systems. He did it fine. I asked him some questions about which climbing systems he preferred and why. I told him some pros and cons of each and asked questions to check that he understood. He answered them competently and seemed to understand. Total time 90 minutes.

 

23rd January 2025. Driving between jobs at 11:00. Chatted in the van with the youth who had his first go at climbing yesterday. He could remember the name of the friction hitches and climbing devices and could explain the difference between SRT and DRT. He said he'd been on youtube to look at different types of mechanical friction device since he'd found the zigzag most enjoyable to use yesterday. We discussed the pros and cons of mechanical devices vs hitch based systems for 25 minutes.

 

29th January 2025. Had a morning job cancel so did more training with youth x at the afternoon job, a 10m oak to be dismantled. Talked about previous learning. He showed recall and understanding. Set the same gear up as before. He did the same things as before, competently. I showed him how to set the three climbing systems up.... and so on and so on and so on.

 

<more>

 

28th March 2025. On a wet afternoon with high winds, we chose not to go out. Youth x sat a written exam about his climbing learning so far. Document appended.

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by AHPP

[JLA1990]

Having gone through this; you can write what you want in a contract doesn’t mean a solicitor/judge won’t wipe his arse with it. Bottom line is you’re paying someone to perform a task, if they need training to perform said task that is the burden of the employer to provide training (at the companies cost). Unfortunately it’s a risk/cost of doing business, if you don’t want this problem employ someone who already has the quals that is the only “risk” free way however you would be liable for the refresher courses 🤣

[GarethM]

 

 

[Mick Dempsey]

58 minutes ago, AHPP said:

Which would be argued against by pointing out they aren't worth a wank and the whole industry knows they aren't worth a wank. Particular paper qualifications are there for contractual obligations to insurers and clients who want those particular paper qualifications. Beyond that, they're not proof of competence. Which you know:

 

 

Nothing protects you from being sued. It might help make a lower value claim go away but something juicy will warrant lawyers delving deeper. And they won't have to look for long. I'll repeat it becasue it's worth repeating. The whole industry knows NPTC and LANTRA qualifications are a joke. (EDIT: Actually they're not a joke. They're basically fraud). People who don't meet the standards, pass the courses. Anyone who says otherwise is unqualified to tie their own shoelaces and walk on a pavement, let alone run the operations side of a tree business, where you have to ongoingly assess whether your guys are doing the job well enough.

 

 

They're not untrained though. They're trained by you. You train them and write records of how you trained them.

 

22nd January 2025. Had a slow afternoon so let the youth have a go climbing for the first time on a 10m ash. I set three climbing systems up for him, a VT + rope wrench on SRT, a zigzag on DRT and a DRT three knot system. I demonstrated each one and then let him weight them at ground level and then ascend and descend up to 2m with and without the aid of a short set of steps. He did it all fine and rightly pointed out that SRT is basically impossible without a foot ascender and/or spikes. Then we talked about spikes, including the dangers of stabbing his own legs and the climbing ropes with them. Then I let him put spikes on and let him flipline up and down 4m of trunk stem, protecting progress and retreat with the main climbing systems. He did it fine. I asked him some questions about which climbing systems he preferred and why. I told him some pros and cons of each and asked questions to check that he understood. He answered them competently and seemed to understand. Total time 90 minutes.

 

23rd January 2025. Driving between jobs at 11:00. Chatted in the van with the youth who had his first go at climbing yesterday. He could remember the name of the friction hitches and climbing devices and could explain the difference between SRT and DRT. He said he'd been on youtube to look at different types of mechanical friction device since he'd found the zigzag most enjoyable to use yesterday. We discussed the pros and cons of mechanical devices vs hitch based systems for 25 minutes.

 

29th January 2025. Had a morning job cancel so did more training with youth x at the afternoon job, a 10m oak to be dismantled. Talked about previous learning. He showed recall and understanding. Set the same gear up as before. He did the same things as before, competently. I showed him how to set the three climbing systems up.... and so on and so on and so on.

 

<more>

 

28th March 2025. On a wet afternoon with high winds, we chose not to go out. Youth x sat a written exam about his climbing learning so far. Document appended.

 

 

Although it’s too tiresome to argue on all points.

Just so you know you don’t speak for the whole industry when you say NPTC and Lantra are a joke and fraud.

Thats your opinion, which of course you’re entitled to.

[AHPP]

9 minutes ago, Mick Dempsey said:

Although it’s too tiresome to argue on all points.

Just so you know you don’t speak for the whole industry when you say NPTC and Lantra are a joke and fraud.

Thats your opinion, which of course you’re entitled to.

 

OK.

 

Anyone who thinks NPTC and LANTRA qualifications have sufficient integrity, step forward.

[Mick Dempsey]

4 minutes ago, AHPP said:

 

OK.

 

Anyone who thinks NPTC and LANTRA qualifications have sufficient integrity, step forward.

You see that’s your old false dichotomy.

It doesn’t HAVE to be something with sufficient integrity OR a joke and fraud.

There are other options.

[AHPP]

Go on. Such as?