Employment requiring a training course
Discussion
Ok so just a little advice...
Looking to start a new job and i'm in two minds.
before starting the job they want me to go on a training course for the job - the course is ran by a "third party" company. the cost for the course is around £1300.
The training is required to do the job.
the reason for the speech marks on the third party is that they are a separate firm who's employees work for the company i'm joining too.
The training cost is zero unless you leave in the first year and after that it goes down month by month.
Surely if i need training to do a job then that should be provided without all this going through 3rd parties etc?
Looking to start a new job and i'm in two minds.
before starting the job they want me to go on a training course for the job - the course is ran by a "third party" company. the cost for the course is around £1300.
The training is required to do the job.
the reason for the speech marks on the third party is that they are a separate firm who's employees work for the company i'm joining too.
The training cost is zero unless you leave in the first year and after that it goes down month by month.
Surely if i need training to do a job then that should be provided without all this going through 3rd parties etc?
Not sure the claw back if you leave within a year is that unusual..or unreasonable. Perhaps the sector you work in has a high turnover rate and the company don't want to spend £1000's training you only for you to disappear before they have had their worth out of that training from you.
Dromedary66 said:
So you don't have to pay for the course upfront, but only if you leave within the first year they try to claw that off you/dock salary?
Either way that is highly unusual, have you done searches on the company to make sure there aren't horror stories of people getting stung by this?
So you get docked the full amount if you leave in the first year and in the second the amount is decreased incrementally per month. Either way that is highly unusual, have you done searches on the company to make sure there aren't horror stories of people getting stung by this?
the searches come up with working conditions at the place no one really talks of the costs.
A key question would be- does the training course lead to some sort of qualification/certification that is transferable to another job or another company?
e.g. (extreme example) you get sent on an MBA course, paid for by the company, but gives you an additional qualification that would make you more attractive to the companies/more employable elsewhere.
If this is not the case, and the training only really equips you to do the job you are being employed for, is a little rich- given that it seem like the course is effectively an internal training course. It would seem that this is trying to ensure talent retention - they won't want you to leave, and the financial burden might put you off doing so. But it's a bit heavy handed and I wouldn't be surprised if a decent employment lawyer could make it unenforceable (in a similar way to over-protective non-compete clauses)
This sort of approach would not make me (personally) too enthusiastic about the way they may wish to develop you and your career; and also suggests that they have a problem with staff retention, hence the heavy handed approach.
Kind of reminds me of the classic:
"What if we develop them, and then they leave?"
"What if we don't, and they stay?"
e.g. (extreme example) you get sent on an MBA course, paid for by the company, but gives you an additional qualification that would make you more attractive to the companies/more employable elsewhere.
If this is not the case, and the training only really equips you to do the job you are being employed for, is a little rich- given that it seem like the course is effectively an internal training course. It would seem that this is trying to ensure talent retention - they won't want you to leave, and the financial burden might put you off doing so. But it's a bit heavy handed and I wouldn't be surprised if a decent employment lawyer could make it unenforceable (in a similar way to over-protective non-compete clauses)
This sort of approach would not make me (personally) too enthusiastic about the way they may wish to develop you and your career; and also suggests that they have a problem with staff retention, hence the heavy handed approach.
Kind of reminds me of the classic:
"What if we develop them, and then they leave?"
"What if we don't, and they stay?"
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff