Training employees.. Fair and reasonable?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

One rule for everyone, either you pay all the costs and they do it in work time, or they pay all the expenses and do it in their time if it's something they want to do.

 

I would agree (technically) but kind of sympathise with the dilemma (personally.)

 

If the employer arranges, sends staff and pays for training, then they are on 'work time' for the duration and there would be EL insurance implications for all of the training, travel to / from and time whilst accommodated away. Any work related accident incurred during travel, training or accommodation would provide the statutory rights of sick pay, potential compensation etc etc.

 

I don't think it would be appropriate to ask them to take holiday because of the potential insurance implications - if you're on work time, you're on work time.

 

Either the employer takes the financial responsibility in the whole - or - the employee / individual takes it and then proposes a pay rise to reflect new skills / greater productivity.

 

I suspect I may be on the OP's 'ignore list' since my input to a previous thread didn't appear to go down very well... If that is the case, no worries, if it isn't, it's just my thoughts as a contribution to the thread.

[treequip]

I would agree (technically) but kind of sympathise with the dilemma (personally.)

 

If the employer arranges, sends staff and pays for training, then they are on 'work time' for the duration and there would be EL insurance implications for all of the training, travel to / from and time whilst accommodated away. Any work related accident incurred during travel, training or accommodation would provide the statutory rights of sick pay, potential compensation etc etc.

 

I don't think it would be appropriate to ask them to take holiday because of the potential insurance implications - if you're on work time, you're on work time.

 

Either the employer takes the financial responsibility in the whole - or - the employee / individual takes it and then proposes a pay rise to reflect new skills / greater productivity.

 

I suspect I may be on the OP's 'ignore list' since my input to a previous thread didn't appear to go down very well... If that is the case, no worries, if it isn't, it's just my thoughts as a contribution to the thread.

 

 

This

[Marc Lewis]

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?

 

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?

 

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

 

Sounds fair to me, though not legal.

[Stump squatter]

The way I've worked it with my lads is any training I put them thro I only give them half there wage it works for me it works for them

[rick k]

Not quite as simple as that. Firstly, you would need to be able to justify the redundancy as per The Employment Rights Act 1996. Given that you would be looking to replace them rather than just cut numbers due to a downturn in business, you would be on a hiding to nothing. As long as the new position is substantially (75%) the same as the old position then it still is the old position. This means that you could not replace them within 6 months without first having to offer them their old jobs back. Anybody selected using the reasoning above could argue convincing that are were unfairly selected for exercising their statutory rights and take you for unfair dismissal. All in all, even ignoring the bad feeling created by such actions (and the unpleasant reputation it would give) you would be creating your own personal shi'ite storm.

 

 

 

 

To a point that's correct but if the business needs have changed , the personnel don't have the relevant skills and it's not economically viable to train them, they are effectively redundant

That's life - small businesses won't survive any other way

People who argue otherwise should ask themselves why there are few full time jobs & this industry relies so heavily on subbies

As with any other contractor - the OP prob doesn't have a bottomless pit of money

 

Only the other day I was told employing someone is a bigger commitment than marriage , regardless of their commitment to you/the job

This thread backs up that theory

 

It should be a two way street where the numbers work for all concerned

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

To a point that's correct but if the business needs have changed , the personnel don't have the relevant skills and it's not economically viable to train them, they are effectively redundant

That's life - small businesses won't survive any other way

People who argue otherwise should ask themselves why there are few full time jobs & this industry relies so heavily on subbies

As with any other contractor - the OP prob doesn't have a bottomless pit of money

 

Only the other day I was told employing someone is a bigger commitment than marriage , regardless of their commitment to you/the job

This thread backs up that theory

 

It should be a two way street where the numbers work for all concerned

 

And the level of 'correctness' if it all goes pear shaped, is decided in the employment tribunal not on a discussion forum.

 

Perhaps 6/7 out of 10 times it might not get that far, but for the other 3 or 4 times that it might, I'd be more confident if I'd followed Felix's advice....

[rick k]

And the level of 'correctness' if it all goes pear shaped, is decided in the employment tribunal not on a discussion forum.

 

 

 

Perhaps 6/7 out of 10 times it might not get that far, but for the other 3 or 4 times that it might, I'd be more confident if I'd followed Felix's advice....

 

 

So , if the business needs have changed , the personnel don't have the skills and it's not economicly viable to train them :

a) what do they do all day to earn their wage ? The can't carry out work they not trained to do

b) how does the business go forward ?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

So , if the business needs have changed , the personnel don't have the skills and it's not economicly viable to train them :

a) what do they do all day to earn their wage ? The can't carry out work they not trained to do

b) how does the business go forward ?

 

You're dealing in hypothetical situations though.

 

Let's say it's (old speak) CS 40/41, or PTI for example. Both reasonably advanced tickets for employees. What would they cost? £600ish even if it was £1000, + travel and subsistence at another £1000 for a week. You're not going to convince anyone that 2k training cost is enough to make 1 employee redundant so as to take on another one. I just can't see it.

[Mesterh]

I would say no its not fair, is it really going to cost you that much more in the grand scheme of things?

 

And who doesnt have a drivers license in this day and age? Are you employing street urchins or something:001_smile:

 

People who say they would jump at the chance and they had to pay for everything etc, etc I guess you run your own show? A big difference compared to people who are happier being employed so its not fair to make comparisons imo.

[felixthelogchopper]

To a point that's correct but if the business needs have changed , the personnel don't have the relevant skills and it's not economically viable to train them, they are effectively redundant

That's life - small businesses won't survive any other way

People who argue otherwise should ask themselves why there are few full time jobs & this industry relies so heavily on subbies

As with any other contractor - the OP prob doesn't have a bottomless pit of money

 

Only the other day I was told employing someone is a bigger commitment than marriage , regardless of their commitment to you/the job

This thread backs up that theory

 

It should be a two way street where the numbers work for all concerned

 

That is the crux of the matter, and I would suggest to you that attempting to force somebody to do training that would benefit your business in their own time contrary to their holiday entitlement would be injurious to the spirit of that agenda. Indeed, it could be argued that you would be forcing the employee to work involuntary overtime as it would eat into their free time, in this case their 5.6 weeks paid holiday. As has been said, unless the OP is planning to give each trained member of staff a decent raise in recognition of their increased skill set, the only way it would benefit the receiver of the training would be if they left and took those skills to a competitor or set up in competition.