Should employees be expected to pay for there own training courses?

[steamboatwilly]

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.

 

[Leader]

^^like^^

 

[Midwest]

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/

 

[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.

 

[Midwest]

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.

 

[steamboatwilly]

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!

 

[Midwest]

OP hasn't suggested he's self employed, contracted to company, or PAYE for that matter.

 

[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.

 

[MerlinGremlin]

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.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Hmm, visually inspect for damage, check for earth continuity, check polarity, test insulation resistance, fill out sticker/label.
Regs update is also a level 3 qualification.

 

[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

 

[desperado]

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?

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

 

[ryan1988]

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.

 

[Diddy]

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.