The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[Obelix 11]

That sounds like an easy fix legislatively.

 

it's already in place it doesn't need fixing.

 

Requiring training as condition of employment isn't a problem. When used to require someone to take on a contract that they wouldn't normally do though makes it coercion and such contracts are simply null and void.

[unbeliever 10]

it's already in place it doesn't need fixing.

 

Requiring training as condition of employment isn't a problem. When used to require someone to take on a contract that they wouldn't normally do though makes it coercion and such contracts are simply null and void.

 

So if I understand you right, the employer can't require a minimum term of employment post-training to ensure they get their moneys worth?

[L00b 441]

If it's required for employment there then I doubt you could enforce such a contract.

We have contrary advice and suitably-contingencie'd contract wording.

 

That is not beyond the reach of any reasonable/'normal' employer, and certainly not beyond the reach of a large and HR-heavy / in-house HR-resourced employer like a Council (referenced by tfh), I'd have thought (we're only small...but, as legal firm, unsurprisingly big on legals)

 

It's not a new thing either. Though I'll admit that it may be so in many walks of professional life beyond those (legal, medical) in which they are 'traditional'.

 

As others have pointed out in-thread before, training isn't cheap. And ever less so in this day and age.

 

The name of the game isn't to make it impossible for trained employees to walk (that's perceived as coercion and breeds resentment and disgruntlement), but to make it more difficult than "here's my notice, see ya" whilst also remaining (perceivably-) reasonable.

 

In a nutshell: "we pay to train you for however many years it takes you to get the badge, you stay after getting the badge for X years, if you leave before X is up you pay the training fees back (pro-rata)".

[unbeliever 10]

We have contrary advice and suitably-contingencie'd contract wording.

 

That is not beyond the reach of any reasonable/'normal' employer, and certainly not beyond the reach of a large and HR-heavy / in-house HR-resourced employer like a Council (referenced by tfh), I'd have thought (we're only small...but, as legal firm, unsurprisingly big on legals)

 

It's not a new thing either. Though I'll admit that it may be so in many walks of professional life beyond those (legal, medical) in which they are 'traditional'.

 

As others have pointed out in-thread before, training isn't cheap. And ever less so in this day and age.

 

The name of the game isn't to make it impossible for trained employees to walk (that's perceived as coercion and breeds resentment and disgruntlement), but to make it more difficult than "here's my notice, see ya" whilst also remaining (perceivably-) reasonable.

 

In a nutshell: "we pay to train you for however many years it takes you to get the badge, you stay after getting the badge for X years, if you leave before X is up you pay the training fees back (pro-rata)".

 

 

That's all that's needed I would have thought. If the law is not clear on this then clarification would surely encourage training.

[Obelix 11]

We have contrary advice and suitably-contingencie'd contract wording.

 

That is not beyond the reach of any reasonable/'normal' employer, and certainly not beyond the reach of a large and HR-heavy / in-house HR-resourced employer like a Council (referenced by tfh), I'd have thought (we're only small...but, as legal firm, unsurprisingly big on legals)

 

It's not a new thing either. Though I'll admit that it may be so in many walks of professional life beyond those (legal, medical) in which they are 'traditional'.

 

As others have pointed out in-thread before, training isn't cheap. And ever less so in this day and age.

 

The name of the game isn't to make it impossible for trained employees to walk (that's perceived as coercion and breeds resentment and disgruntlement), but to make it more difficult than "here's my notice, see ya" whilst also remaining (perceivably-) reasonable.

 

In a nutshell: "we pay to train you for however many years it takes you to get the badge, you stay after getting the badge for X years, if you leave before X is up you pay the training fees back (pro-rata)".

 

I don't think the advice is contrary...

 

If someone wants to do extra training to get a leg up/improve promotion prospects etc, then what you say is perfectly reasonable and quite common.

 

However if the employer presents it as - "do training or here's your P45" and then slaps on the financial penalty at the end if you walk - that's coercion as far as I understand.

[unbeliever 10]

However if the employer presents it as - "do training or here's your P45" and then slaps on the financial penalty at the end if you walk - that's coercion as far as I understand.

 

I think that probably needs to be allowed. Surely it's easy to work around anyway:

 

1. Here's your P45. Bye.

2. "Vacancy for trainee doohickey ka-jigger. Must be willing to undertake training."

3. Oh it's you! Are you interested? Excellent you're hired, sign here.

[L00b 441]

I don't think the advice is contrary...

 

If someone wants to do extra training to get a leg up/improve promotion prospects etc, then what you say is perfectly reasonable and quite common.

 

However if the employer presents it as - "do training or here's your P45" and then slaps on the financial penalty at the end if you walk - that's coercion as far as I understand.

Well, I very much doubt any employer would ever be daft enough to present it as "do training or here's your P45".

 

For us, it's "the job role involves formal training, and sitting and passing exams": training and passing exams is presented as an inherent part and parcel of the position/job for which people apply of their own volition, and the clear subtext is, if you don't want to train and pass exams, this job ain't for you.

 

But I'm confident that any employer who (chooses to-) trains professionals as part and parcel of their job in their early years (and that's by opposition to: repurposes the training budget into wage premium for poaching freshly-trained professionals from the competition) has -or will have before long, just like we eventually did not long ago- a training contract model of the sort I mentioned above.

 

It's certainly the historical and factual accuracy of the matter for our profession, within which most large firms have also long had a "if you don't pass your UK and EU exams on your 2nd go, door's that way" policy. Without any issue.

Edited October 4, 2016 by L00b

[Vaati 11]

Back on topic with Labour discussion please.

[alchresearch 214]

So it seems "keep your friends close, enemies even closer" isn't in Corbyn's mantra.

 

If this was the Tories, there'd be shouts of "cronyism"

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37579687

[Beechwood_S6 101]

So it seems "keep your friends close, enemies even closer" isn't in Corbyn's mantra.

 

If this was the Tories, there'd be shouts of "cronyism"

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37579687

 

I have to say that has pretty much killed off any chance of me, voting labour at the next election, its 100 times more farcical than the Tories Boris appointment to beat that is something of an achievement.

[alchresearch 214]

What on earth is happening with opposition UK politics? UKIP hitting each other, Labour in perpetual in-fighting, and the Lib Dems hiding under a rock.

 

Prior to the 2010 and 1997 elections both opposition parties were unstoppable.

[Obelix 11]

So.... UKIP has turned into Fight Club. Not that they were the first - I recall John Slugger Two Jags Prescott smacking voters he objected to...

 

Liberal who? Oh those people who follow Tim wozzizname whomever they are....

 

And then we have Corbyn "trust me" Unity whos unstoppable Momentum of yes men mean that he's even now filing a name change so he can be leader f the Communist Party of Great Britain.