Training employees.. Fair and reasonable?

[bolthole]

No point doing the training without the assessment as if an injury occurred how would you prove competence? Thats like saying you can drive because you had 10 lessons and you will sit the test at a later date.

 

The only way you could dismiss someone in favour of someone else who holds a relevant qualification is if you had made an attempt to train person A and they failed to make the grade. I have a clause in employees contracts which states you are required to hold specific qualifications and licenses to meet the needs of the company and failure to hold these could jepodise your employment with the company. I laid a lad off last year whos main role was driver. He lost his license through drink driving and hence lost his job.

 

I also state that should the needs of the company change you will be offered training. I will pay for full training, assessment and one resit should it be needed. Any further resits are at the cost of the employee. Failure to attain a necessary qualification could again jepodise your position within the company. I have recently bought a tracked chipper which needs B+E driving entitlement. If neither members of my tree team could tow it then what should I do? I need the tracked machine due to the number of site clearances we do. My lead climber passed 2nd time, second climber is training over then next couple of weeks.

 

For example your company landed a massive railway contract and moved totally away from domestic. All staff would need PTS. If you sent all staff on the course but one failed then failed the resit you have done all reasonably practicable (financially and otherwise) to train the person. If that person refuses to then pay for their own resit they cannot work on the contract, you have no other work for them and they are therefore redundant. You can take on a suitably qualified PTS worker.

 

Another example would be a groundie with vertigo. If you had moved from a 3 man team to a 2 man team due to your lead groundie and designated rescue climber leaving you now need to train the remaining groundie in CS38. If he refuses due to vertigo (general can't be arsedness or something else) and the finances show a 3 man team is no longer viable you can make that person redundant as they fail to meet the companies needs.

 

Kev

 

This

 

The problem here is that there's not enough money in the industry. We're too cheap.... but that's a whole other discussion.

 

I'd bet my bottom dollar a lot of us would feel a bit different if we could afford more easily to invest in our staff.

 

If we train our staff the industry becomes better skilled.

 

I work most of my time as an employee and yes... you bet your life they pay me while I train and I'd be seeing my union rep if they insisted or expected me to do it in my holidays. Of course, where this all falls down is that they've barely trained me in any way over the last few years. I and my colleagues have undertaken our own training to a greater or lesser degree because it makes us more employable elsewhere. I think we're all (probably rightly) of the opinion that we're only going to advance by moving elsewhere.

 

If you're going to do it, do it right. If you're not gonna do it, then don't. It depends on your own philosophy of business... some invest in their people and claim that their staff love them and are loyal (see Branson - he's all over that!) and some wring the last drop of blood out of their staff and more.

 

You'll always get some lads who will take your training and move on, and why wouldn't they - most folks want some sort of career advancement. Some staff will stay with you forever if they're happy. In my experience, if you treat your staff fairly/well, you'll get a lot more out of them. There are always problem children but they tend to weed themselves out eventually one way or another, even if you have to get shot of them.

 

Anyway, pay them their basic, pay their course fees, pay them their accommodation. It all goes against tax. Get them a hire car between them and the drivers drive and the non-drivers ride. Next time you come to recruit staff, make sure they're the best-skilled according to your business needs and a lot of these problems go away.

[devon TWiG]

I just hope after YOU have paid for the Training costs AND their time they do not then insist on a pay rise because they are now qualified !! as others have said it is no wonder people are reluctant to employ staff , but in many ways it is a catch 22 .. if you employ people , and comply with all the rules and regs , training , holiday , sick pay , kit etc etc then your "man day " rate becomes high to the point of making you un-competitive which just seems wrong really and I do not think anyone has the answer , but most just get on with things the best they can !!

[Cheesy pete]

This

 

The problem here is that there's not enough money in the industry. We're too cheap.....

 

this

 

I have come from a grounds maintenance back ground self employed i would and still can earn far more than a freelance climber doing this !!!!! this should not be the case why? i'm self taught and just work hard do a good job and get paid well !

 

tree surgery is or can be dangerous! you top climbers (of which i'm not one ) should be earning more than me pushing a mower around !!!!!

 

when i climb i want to be paid well but i know i'm not good enough to earn £150 with any tree team (not enough experience ,fast enough ,just not good enough ) but i get paid over this amount on a regular basis for the tree work that i do ! what does that say about the industry? or more importantly the employers value of yourself !!!! it tells me 2 things tree jobs are either undervalued or employers undervalue their employees / subbies

end of rant

[Mark Bolam]

I think one of the problems is that life at the sharp end of the industry has a pretty limited life span.

Any 65 year-old employed climbers out there?

[rick k]

If everyone operated properly using employed staff instead of avoiding paying tax by using full time subbies and prices for tree work were where they should be instead of some companies undercutting others (possible by tax avoidance) then there would be more money available for training and the above wouldn't be an issue. It would also help if every man and his dog didn't want to run his own one man band fresh out of college as they see employers turning over a load of money and thinking it all gets stuffed under the bed. (RANT OVER)

 

 

Completely agree

But it's not and never will be like that

We have to work in the industry the way it is and adapt accordingly

[R Mac]

Just after feedback as to if I am being a fair and reasonable employer..

 

I need to put some guys through CS training. A number of them can't drive so getting them to CS courses that are always of the way is always difficult...

 

I have offered to put them on a residential course and pay for the training and accommodation, is it fair to ask for them to take the time off as holiday?

 

In a word, No. You need to put them through CS training, that implies they didn't come to you seeking additional training. You want them trained, you pay, they don't use their holiday entitlement to facilitate your needs. You knew what their qualifications were when you employed them, if your business needs have changed then it's hardly your employees fault.

 

I paid for all my own training and would have jumped at the opportunity but my guys don't all seem to be that keen?

 

I suspect you weren't an employee when you done your training so the training was almost entirely for your own benefit.

 

They don't have kids to look after at home..

 

Completely irrevelant.

 

 

IMO.