right or wrong
- Thread starter nelly58
- Start date
S
southernpoofter
Guest
No m8 just some gaffers dont like avin the urine extracted by kids
---------- Post added at 09:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 PM ----------
Well as his superior teach the lad not only to turn a spanner but not to burn the bridges today that he may want to cross 2moro -
---------- Post added at 09:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 PM ----------
Well as his superior teach the lad not only to turn a spanner but not to burn the bridges today that he may want to cross 2moro -
scaffy 1980
Well-known member
The scaffolding industry is too small to be burning bridges, names soon get thrown around if you keep ducking and diving. Yeah we all want to earn the lucrative pound, but there's a right and wrong way in doing things.
Flying Officer
Active member
From a legal point of view, look at your contract. The employer is entitled to recover part of the cost, if not all. But it depends on what you've signed.
As the other guys say, there's a moral side to it too, nothing to do with kissing a**e.
And yup, this is a small industry. And s**t sticks........ burning bridges never a good idea for anybody. Unless you won the lottery....
As the other guys say, there's a moral side to it too, nothing to do with kissing a**e.
And yup, this is a small industry. And s**t sticks........ burning bridges never a good idea for anybody. Unless you won the lottery....
BetterTAX
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2010
- Messages
- 1,901
- Reaction score
- 0
This is a massive concern and argument we are about to embark on with HMRC actually.
HSE say that employers should pay for the training of their PAYE staff. As an employer, if you pay for training their is tax relief available. There are also grants within CITB (by paying levies). As an NASC member, you are obliged to pay for training.
There is also something called salary sacrifice, whereby the employer pays for the course, gets the tax relief but deducts the cost of what is actually paid (course - tax benefits) from employee's pay. This is because PAYE workers cannot claim for training costs - which we find outrageous!!
Now I am thinking that if said employee pays for his own course, that HSE say his employer should pay for, and so reports said employer to HSE - I doubt he'd be in his job for long... So you just pay anyway.
However, by the very nature of the construction industry and the way many of you have to work, often moving around and not being with an employer for that long, it then does become a massive investment for the employer to put you through training if you are then going to up and leave... even within a couple of years.
A smart employer would definitely have a contract with that sort of clause in it... why should they pay for your training? However, if the government made the system fairer and recognised that so much training within construction is mandatory these days, that training is not about "betterment" but much emphasis on H&S and so pass on the tax relief to all workers whatever employment status, at least it would help your pockets out a little.
So, in short, I think the employer should be able to claim back some of that expense if you leave very soon after training (bearing in mind part 1 takes at least 6 months?)
HSE say that employers should pay for the training of their PAYE staff. As an employer, if you pay for training their is tax relief available. There are also grants within CITB (by paying levies). As an NASC member, you are obliged to pay for training.
There is also something called salary sacrifice, whereby the employer pays for the course, gets the tax relief but deducts the cost of what is actually paid (course - tax benefits) from employee's pay. This is because PAYE workers cannot claim for training costs - which we find outrageous!!
Now I am thinking that if said employee pays for his own course, that HSE say his employer should pay for, and so reports said employer to HSE - I doubt he'd be in his job for long... So you just pay anyway.
However, by the very nature of the construction industry and the way many of you have to work, often moving around and not being with an employer for that long, it then does become a massive investment for the employer to put you through training if you are then going to up and leave... even within a couple of years.
A smart employer would definitely have a contract with that sort of clause in it... why should they pay for your training? However, if the government made the system fairer and recognised that so much training within construction is mandatory these days, that training is not about "betterment" but much emphasis on H&S and so pass on the tax relief to all workers whatever employment status, at least it would help your pockets out a little.
So, in short, I think the employer should be able to claim back some of that expense if you leave very soon after training (bearing in mind part 1 takes at least 6 months?)
celticbhoy
Moderator
the lad wont need pay a penny even if hes signed a scrap of paper saying other wise as thats what the papers worth in a court of law good post better tax.
I don't agree. We are supposed to be encouraging all employers to invest in training and if guy's want to move on so be it, we're not talking about premiership footballers here. If more people who employed scaffolders actually trained scaffolders we maybe wouldn't have the usual merry go round. Encouraging individuals to pay for training should be discouraged as to do it right you need the right site experience.
S
southernpoofter
Guest
Wot a strange way of looking at it lmk....how can u encourage an employer to spend money on training?.....when the money that u invest is lost to allow anther employer to benifit from.....footballers wages no i agree but if i pay to train up 10 guys in a year thats gonna cost excss of 20k thats not pocket money thats hard cash - wheres that gonna come from then, as most trainees/labourers dont cover the cost of their wages for several years let alone make profit enough to invest back in them so quickly- the ticket system as it stands is a joke -zero 2 hero in 2yrs yeh loads of experiance in that.
If the nasc/hse/cirsrs expected everone to be ticketed so quickly then let them pay fully funded courses for all not just the young ens @least that way the eitb boys wouldnt have been made scapegoats with most leaving the industry altogether.
If the nasc/hse/cirsrs expected everone to be ticketed so quickly then let them pay fully funded courses for all not just the young ens @least that way the eitb boys wouldnt have been made scapegoats with most leaving the industry altogether.
celticbhoy
Moderator
every EICTB scaff a know or knew has re-trained to varying levels of citb card mate dont know one who left our trade due to the card being recinded(terrible decision that it was)
steelcitycowboy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2013
- Messages
- 1,274
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi bettertax in relation for tax relief I can without a shadow of doubt tell you as a former employer that the tax relief for employers is very little of their year end and basically employers receive very little in tax returns for shelling out thousands in training employees and also companies have a statutory right in their terms and conditions they enforce with people they employ and in doing so are not breaking the law but in relation for you to raise this matter for the men in question and fight for their corner is much appreciated and hope this is a victory for the construction industry and hope you don't have to go through the full rounds of an up hill struggle with inland revenue in relation for tax relief lets hope they may be light at the end of the tunnel to stop what I deem an unfair system on the trained person.