Who pays the training man…?
What happens to your demolition qualifications if you find yourself unemployed…?
Demolition News has today received a message from one of its readers who (like far too many others) finds himself in the unfortunate position of currently being unemployed and unable to afford to pay to maintain his demolition qualification card. Which set us thinking – Is this really fair?
The man in question – and he is NOT alone – has spent 40 years working in the demolition industry. He has worked his way up through the ranks, committed to the required training route, and has achieved Top Man status thanks in part to the backing of his employer and the grant funding available to them, but also thanks to his own hard graft and commitment over the years.
And now, through no fault of his own, he finds his beloved industry in recession and himself prematurely on the scrapheap. From a personal point of view, the man in question is now having to consider alternative forms of employment because the cost of the card renewal is beyond his current means.
But what of the cost to the industry?
This is a man with four decades of hands-on experience in an industry where experience is everything.
Can we REALLY afford to allow a man like this (and the hundreds of others like him) to take their knowledge to another or worse, to abandon it altogether?
We’d love to hear your comments on this matter. In addition, if you find yourself in this unfortunate position, don’t forget to register at www.demolition-jobs.co.uk.
Posted: August 17th, 2009 under Audio, General.
Tags: demolition, grant, News, training
Comments
Comment from John Woodward
Time August 17, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Unfortunately this is common. Part of the problem is that after 40 years in the industry his employers, whoever they may be, should have made sure that he had achieved Supervisor status, not Topman and then the cost to him would have been only a refresher every 5 years. Because his employer thought, wrongly, that Topman was good enough to run jobs he is now faced with having to do the Supervisor course, at a cost of £700 or so to improve his job chances, so his employer is partly to blame for the situation but, he could have pushed himself to do the supervisor so he isn’t blameless here.
With regard to funding there are funds available through local initiatives to pay for additional training to get a job and he should ask at the Jobcentre about this. In Wolverhampton for instance Shaw Trust recently gave a grant of £900 to Terry (Yan) Atkins who is registered on http://www.demolitionjobs.com to improve his level of training and to get a job and he has started a new job today, so there is hope. Funding is there but the key is knowing where to look. Also he needs to register on http://www.demolitionjobs.com
Comment from admin
Time August 17, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Thanks for that John, particularly your clarification of the costs involved – £700 does not seem like much for 40 years worth of knowledge, does it!? Just like to point out that it’s http://www.demolition-jobs.co.uk however.
Comment from Heather Northey
Time August 17, 2009 at 5:53 pm
This is one of the consequences of the training industry levy. The value of training is diminished within organisations because the buyer of training only buys it if it is funded from the levy. The accountant pays into the levy so this separation occurs.
When people leave organisations little consideration is given to maintaining thier competences because no-one is invested in the value of training.
The competences trained for should be valid during periods of unemployment with a nominal cost for refresher/re-registration should the period be longer than one year.
Comment from admin
Time August 17, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Heather, they say the best ideas are the simplest and yours is a corker. One quick change to the rules (which would cost no-one a bean, and which could be accomplished overnight) and the problem’s solved!
Comment from admin
Time August 18, 2009 at 9:18 am
Can someone please clarify the costs involved in renewing a Top Man card – So far, I have heard figures ranging from less than £100 to over £700!!
Comment from Martin
Time August 18, 2009 at 9:39 pm
A view on this issue across the construction industry in general:
There exist numerous funded training opportunities across the country, but the problem is to be eligible for these, you have to be in employment. A great oversight and misguided approach by many.
One solution adopted by a regen body I have supported is to make a small charge to those in employment, or their employers, which in turn allows a number of out of work people to attend FOC or at minimal cost.
A small condition in this approach is for the out of work person to be registered for work on the regeneration job agency.
A win – win? Of course it all makes sense in a regeneration context of maintaining the skill base locally.
Comment from Su Butcher
Time August 18, 2009 at 9:47 pm
How frustrating that even outside the ‘professions’ there are systems of training which do not support the value of experience.
When I was studying architectural education I took a look at how professions developed historically as exclusive bodies. The fees for membership of the body are part of what makes them exclusive. Often experience is not considered a substitute for the piece of paper.
We need to find ways to value people’s experience, life skills, talents and learning for what they are in reality. Not what is written on a piece of paper.
Comment from admin
Time August 18, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Another great bunch of comments, so many thanks to all of you. It sounds a bit naff but I agree with just about all of these; it just goes to show that there is a strength of feeling on this subject at present.
I am hoping that, between Demolition News and those very nice people at C&D Consultancy, we may have funded a solution for the guy that prompted this post. But someone needs to address the wider picture, and I thank you all again for giving this the exposure and thought that it requires.
Comment from Oliver James
Time August 17, 2009 at 3:53 pm
This seems to be a gap in the training pavement, one that probably doesn’t matter too much when times are good but when through which potentially excellent employees can fall when times get tougher.
Is there not some kind of traiining emergency fund available to help these guys?