Training employees.. Fair and reasonable?

[felixthelogchopper]

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 ?

 

How would you envisage the basic needs of a tree firm to change? Assuming, for example, that the staff members to be trained are groundies, once they are trained will their duties be so radically changed as to be no longer recognisable as their previous ones? Surely they will still be clearing, chipping, tending ropes, filling saws etc? Unless you are talking about a great change, their job would still exist and so any dismissal through redundancy would be automatically unfair.

[Will Heal]

How's this, pay for them to do the course, pay them their wages while the are doing the course, once they have done the course then the should have a pay rise because they are worth more money, but don't give them a pay rise until you have earnt the money back maybe One or two years later. My old boss put me through my hgv class 1 which cost him thousands but I didn't have a pay rise in the 4 years that I worked for him.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

How's this, pay for them to do the course, pay them their wages while the are doing the course, once they have done the course then the should have a pay rise because they are worth more money, but don't give them a pay rise until you have earnt the money back maybe One or two years later. My old boss put me through my hgv class 1 which cost him thousands but I didn't have a pay rise in the 4 years that I worked for him.

 

That sounds like a reasonable, and probably legal, compromise.

[Ian Flatters]

Just off the top of my head but doesn't puwer state that staff should be adequately trained.

[SteveA]

I think the real issue here is the high cost of actually doing courses in the first place.... be it for the independent chainsaw operative or for the employer.

 

I'd do loads more courses if I could afford to do so; equally I wouldn't expect an employer to pay for my own courses.

 

Cheers, steve

[Stoatally]

Another choice could be you pay for the course, they pay for the assessment at later date. You get trained staff which covers a lot of PUWER type H&S stuff, but they don't become more employable because they don't have the CSxx cert or whatever

 

I paid for my own 30/31 and didn't even know for sure arb was what I wanted to do. I'm saving for 38 and maybe 39 to make myself more emploayble, but if someone offered me a job as a groundie and then offered me training then I'd expect them to pay

Edited March 19, 2016 by Stoatally

[Kev Stephenson]

Another choice could be you pay for the course, they pay for the assessment at later date. You get trained staff which covers a lot of PUWER type H&S stuff, but they don't become more employable because they don't have the CSxx cert or whatever

 

 

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

[swinny]

Doesnt make the look of taking someone on full time very appealing

[White Noise]

Interesting to hear others views..

When I was new to the industry I would have jumped at the chance.. But then I paid for all my own training.. In all my own time..

 

I did give them the option of doing it locally and they would not have had to take holiday..

 

Imo.... I think your a top employer for even offering the option of training / certification locally or travel ? Heck that's a massive bonus . Kids these days really do expect to much . That is me speaking from experience .

[Kev Stephenson]

Doesnt make the look of taking someone on full time very appealing

 

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)