Balpin Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 If there are jobs available why not employ people rather than wasting time trying to train people? How do you get on apprenticeship anyway, surely selection is STILL restrictive, you don't want any old Herbert? When qualified what will they do, surely an employer will just get more apprentices because they get paid for having them? What will happen when the market is saturated? Look at Plumbers, electricians, gas workers and IT people for example, they are all over subscribed. I hardly think 136 apprentices will make a difference to the UK economy. I dont know if you can remember the days of old when we were a sucessful productive country, pre the destruction of Thatcher. We had massive manufacturing industries. Engineering, Steelworking, Shipbuilding, Textiles, Chemicals. She destroyed all these and the jobs that went with them. To be a capable and good worker in those industries, you need to learn how to do the job. That is, you were apprenticed to a skilled man. As the skilled men retired the younger men took their place. That is how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fodder Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 I started an apprenticeship in the sixties and all i did for the first two years was run errands and mash tea for the tradesmen I must be the best teamaker in sheffield now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balpin Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 I started an apprenticeship in the sixties and all i did for the first two years was run errands and mash tea for the tradesmen I must be the best teamaker in sheffield now It must have been a poor firm. My first year was spent in the trade centre, learning all the machine tools, under the watchful eye of Jack Skelsey. then the next three years learning how to to be an engineer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercurian Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 The apprentice system was an excellent system which produced properly skilled people. It has been regretfully debased and replaced (probably irreversibly)over the years by a government who did not understand the worth of it and now many skilled jobs go to already qualified eastern Europeans. The Thatcher government did indeed start the rot. Our system was replaced by the N.V.Q.................................Not Very Qualified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 I had this conversation with someone last week, when I was starting on the work ladder it was a YTS which paid £27 per week. This is no different to apprenticeships, it may not be right but it’s how a lot of us started Spot-on, you've got to start somewhere, if training is too expensive, empoyers won't do it, they'll ust poach other firms staff. Also helps young people to appreciate the value of money and give them something to aspire to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Cheap labour If there are jobs available why not employ people rather than wasting time trying to train people? I know what you're getting at, but you would argue if it was the other way round too. You are a perpetual negativity spreader. I hardly think 136 apprentices will make a difference to the UK economy. It'll make a difference to those people in the town. What do you want the company to do, take on 1.3million apprentices? Spot-on, you've got to start somewhere, if training is too expensive, empoyers won't do it, they'll ust poach other firms staff. Also helps young people to appreciate the value of money and give them something to aspire to. Has your account been hacked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 What's the point of taking on an apprentice if, 2 years later, he is going to leave and set up in competition? If your name is Rolls-Royce and you take on a few apprentices, then when they are fully trained, they will probably want you to give them a well-paid job. Setting up your own jet-engine manufacturing company is a bit expensive and few people will leave you to go into direct competition. If your name is 'Joe the Plumber' and somebody says to you: "You've got more work than you can handle, why don't tou take on an apprentice?" The conversation may well go something like this: "Bugger off, Rupert - I've got enough problems without taking on an apprentice. If I was daft enough to take on an apprentice, here's what would happen: 1. I would have to pay employer's contribution NIC. 2. I would have to use my own time - time I could use to earn money - to teach him. 3. I would have to pay somebody to do the paperwork associated with employing him. 4. I would get less work done on any given day, until he became fairly competent and even then, I'd have to spend some of my time keeping an eye on him. The real killer is: 5. After a couple of years, when he was beginning to become competent, he would probably just quit and set up on his own. If he was any good, I would've trained my own competition - at my own expense. If he was no good, do you think people would say "That Sid Snot who used to work for Joe the plumber should've stayed where he was and learned his trade properly"? - Or would they say: "Joe the plumber can't be very good! - That guy he trained is bloody useless!" Me take on an apprentice? - Get real!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.