Only 15% of Plumbing Apprentices get work placements and it's employers to blame!

[maxine]

Amazing.

My local radio bbc cambridgeshire were talking about plumbing apprentices this morning and that only 15% of plumbing apprentices are able to get work placements.

One apprentice on the show was saying "I have wasted 2 years of my life".

I think that is so sad! Imagine if it was your son or daughter.

The guests on the show from the college were appealing to employers and trying to allay fears about paperwork and taking on an apprentice for the first time and talking about the benefits of having an apprentice.

The colleges don't seem to recognise that it's not all the employers fault.

You can hear my call into the show at 2:11:39 and I rambled a bit but managed to say that I didnt think it was about changing perceptions of apprentices but there were improvements that I felt colleges could make to support employers.

I didn't have long so I just mentioned that the recent recommendation by the national apprenticeship organisation of 30 hours a week has been taken literally by some colleges which means that for small businesses like ours who take on apprentices on part time hours of 16 hours a week can no longer take on a plumbing apprentice at our local college.

I probably could/should have said more ie; employees and employers both dislike the huge emphasis on "key skills" (maths and english) and the day to day disorganisation.

I also wrote a blog about plumbing apprenticeships and challenges for employers as sparked off by this show and would be interested if anyone else thinks that it's not just down to us as employers? or perhaps it is?

 

[MASSEY]

Part of me feels sorry but the other leaves me astounded.

I lose track of the cvs I receive but i get quite a few. One lad even included a newspaper cutting where he had got coverage because he had sent off hundreds of cvs.

It should become apparent to these people that we are in a tough economic climate and you take what you can get. I blame the air head parents personally.

 

[maxine]

why blame the air head parents? I'm a bit confused by that

We have had parents contacting us offering to pay for any college fees as they don't want employers to discriminate between those that are 19 or over and who dont get full funding and those that do.

I've had parents phoning on their childs behalf

And the stupid thing for us is that we COULD offer a placement if the college would support it but unfortunately they are sticking to the 30-hours-a-week rule.

 

[MASSEY]

why blame the air head parents? I'm a bit confused by that

They should be sitting their kids down and telling them to take what's available and earn a bit of cash. They will get better social skills that way which will benefit them in the long run.

We have had parents contacting us offering to pay for any college fees as they don't want employers to discriminate between those that are 19 or over and who dont get full funding and those that do.

I've had parents phoning on their childs behalf

That's fair enough if they are willing to pay rather than sit back and expect a company to be willing to just take their kids on.

And the stupid thing for us is that we COULD offer a placement if the college would support it but unfortunately they are sticking to the 30-hours-a-week rule.

Thing is in my opinion 16 hours is a bit short really for knowledge intake in a week, 30 hours will see the apprentice learning quicker and more likely to retain information better i would of thought.

 

[CKG]

The bottom line is it's too expensive to employ an apprentice for the majority of self employed plumbers.

Say you earn £50K this year - which is probably good going for an average one man band, you'll probably only see £35K of that after tax (rough guess).

Apprentice on min wage will cost you about £13-14k ish

All of a sudden your earnings don't look so good.

Back when I was a sprog (before the NMW) you had to be productive to your employer before you were paid a five figure salary.

 

[Curious]

One of my best mates trained as a plumber recently. Received Apprentice of the Year from his college for his two years of plumbing, then did the gas course year.

He hasn't been able to find 5 days work a week charging £60 to local plumbers + builders where he lived because he didn't have the site experience and no one wanted to employ. He's moving now to where he's been offered a proper wage and constant work, but it's taken him 2-3 years of really crappy money to find decent work.

He 'never' said he'd felt like he'd wasted 3 years of his life. He'd received good training and had a skill. He carried on doing crappy jobs for crappy money because he new in the end all his hard work would pay off; and it's just starting to now.

Why should people coming out of training 'expect' to receive a job straight away and on really good money? The industry is still faltering as a whole and there just isn't the work around currently to fuel a constant stream of new apprentices.

Blaming the employers is ludicrous.

Any idea of how many of the 85% of people who don't place are really determined to find some kind of industry work, compared to the 15% who do?

 

[maxine]

Thing is in my opinion 16 hours is a bit short really for knowledge intake in a week, 30 hours will see the apprentice learning quicker and more likely to retain information better i would of thought.

Well, I can only speak for us in that we like to offer part time contracts and offer extra hours where we have suitable work for them. That's because we don't just do plumbing so we have them go to just our plumbing jobs. I just think that there are lots of different trades such as handyman, property maintenance, builders, etc that are in the same boat where they don't do plumbing all the time but could offer a workplacement which would at least help an apprentice complete their course.

16 hours is fine as we've proved that it provides enough exposure as a workplacement which at least allows them to complete their course. Otherwise without it they cannot complete at all.

 

[maxine]

The bottom line is it's too expensive to employ an apprentice for the majority of self employed plumbers.

Say you earn £50K this year - which is probably good going for an average one man band, you'll probably only see £35K of that after tax (rough guess).

Apprentice on min wage will cost you about £13-14k ish

All of a sudden your earnings don't look so good.

Back when I was a sprog (before the NMW) you had to be productive to your employer before you were paid a five figure salary.

Apprentice rate at the moment is £97 a week so thats £5k a year and shouldn't be too expensive but there are other costs such as insurance and the employers contribution which I think can vary from £100-£500 depending on the provider.

Would you still consider that too expensive CKG? I'm interested as I don't think that cost is a barrier

 

[maxine]

One of my best mates trained as a plumber recently. Received Apprentice of the Year from his college for his two years of plumbing, then did the gas course year.

He hasn't been able to find 5 days work a week charging £60 to local plumbers + builders where he lived because he didn't have the site experience and no one wanted to employ. He's moving now to where he's been offered a proper wage and constant work, but it's taken him 2-3 years of really crappy money to find decent work.

He 'never' said he'd felt like he'd wasted 3 years of his life. He'd received good training and had a skill. He carried on doing crappy jobs for crappy money because he new in the end all his hard work would pay off; and it's just starting to now.

Why should people coming out of training 'expect' to receive a job straight away and on really good money? The industry is still faltering as a whole and there just isn't the work around currently to fuel a constant stream of new apprentices.

Blaming the employers is ludicrous.

Any idea of how many of the 85% of people who don't place are really determined to find some kind of industry work, compared to the 15% who do?

That's quite sad really that all that effort studying still puts you in a "crappy" situation.

Would he not have gone domestic if he didn't have site experience?

But good luck to him now, and let's hope he makes up for a slow start

I've no idea about the other 85%... they are probably floating around with a part qualification that they can't do much with. Must be soul destroying for them.

 

[Billmccallum]

The big issue here is not the employers (although numbers may have dropped during the current climate, some are still taking on people), the bigger problem is the colleges and the government....

The government are paying colleges to deliver courses, the colleges need to get numbers through the door, but they don't look at what the market needs, they only look at what they need to generate income.

The high number of graduates and low number of placements/job vacancies should send a message that they are oversupplying the market, but I suspect that they don't really care.

 

[Curious]

That's quite sad really that all that effort studying still puts you in a "crappy" situation.

Would he not have gone domestic if he didn't have site experience?

But good luck to him now, and let's hope he makes up for a slow start

I've no idea about the other 85%... they are probably floating around with a part qualification that they can't do much with. Must be soul destroying for them.

It is sad; but it'll work out in the long run for him hopefully.

It's the same with domestic though - he was taught about installations and basic maintenance he said but not how to actually repair anything. Can fit a boiler and service it no probs, but needs the experience even in the domestic situation to learn about how to diagnose the problem with a boiler for example so he can fix it.

It was a pretty crappy catch-22 really, needed the experience to progress his career but couldn't get that without more experience - if that makes sense?

The government are paying colleges to deliver courses, the colleges need to get numbers through the door, but they don't look at what the market needs, they only look at what they need to generate income.

The high number of graduates and low number of placements/job vacancies should send a message that they are oversupplying the market, but I suspect that they don't really care.

Absolutely spot on. Especially at the moment there is only so much work to go around and in all honesty the need to bring in and train new guys for businesses just isn't as great as it was before the arse fell out of the world.

 

[papverpoppies]

Amazing.

My local radio bbc cambridgeshire were talking about plumbing apprentices this morning and that only 15% of plumbing apprentices are able to get work placements.

One apprentice on the show was saying "I have wasted 2 years of my life".

I think that is so sad! Imagine if it was your son or daughter.

The guests on the show from the college were appealing to employers and trying to allay fears about paperwork and taking on an apprentice for the first time and talking about the benefits of having an apprentice.

The colleges don't seem to recognise that it's not all the employers fault.

You can hear my call into the show at 2:11:39 and I rambled a bit but managed to say that I didnt think it was about changing perceptions of apprentices but there were improvements that I felt colleges could make to support employers.

I didn't have long so I just mentioned that the recent recommendation by the national apprenticeship organisation of 30 hours a week has been taken literally by some colleges which means that for small businesses like ours who take on apprentices on part time hours of 16 hours a week can no longer take on a plumbing apprentice at our local college.

I probably could/should have said more ie; employees and employers both dislike the huge emphasis on "key skills" (maths and english) and the day to day disorganisation.

I also wrote a blog about plumbing apprenticeships and challenges for employers as sparked off by this show and would be interested if anyone else thinks that it's not just down to us as employers? or perhaps it is?

Resurrected but interesting views from various members.

Pops ~xx~

 

[Matt1959]

Interesting topic - Max, sorry to be dense whats the problem with the hours thing? is it that the colleges dictate that the student has to do 30 hours a week in the workplace to qualify for a course?

 

[maxine]

Hiya

Yes, It's the colleges that say that the apprentice has to have a 30 hour a week contract in the workplace as they presumably think that it means they get more exposure to doing the work. As far as I'm aware they get exactly the same funding whether someone is part time or full time so financially it shouldn't make a difference (though I'm not sure about that)

I don't buy the explanation that it's because they are more likely to pass the course as people are chomping at the bit to get qualified so will make sure they make the most of their placements.

Last year we had around 60 applicants for one part time apprenticeship with us so the trainees are really keen to get anything that gets them through their course.

Private training providers have no problem at all with apprentices doing 16 hours in an apprentice role. (I've taken on others that way). The ofsted reports are all comparable and public information.

It just gets my goat that the government, job centres, connexions, at the apprenticeship organisation are pulling in one direction by heavily promoting apprenticeships for the benefit of learners and employers yet the colleges are pulling in completely the other direction and undoing all this good work with unnecessary restrictions.... then have the cheek to blame lack of apprenticeship uptakes on employers!

I wonder how many small/micro businesses would consider an apprentice as 16 hrs a week for £40 but wouldn't consider an apprentice full time £97 a week for a variety of reasons (not enough of that type of work, don't want someone with them full time, what they can afford etc).

Sorry but I do have a bee in my bonnet about this

 

[Matt1959]

its a tricky one. First thing that comes to mind is if they are spending 30 hrs a week at work how many hours a week college do they do or do they do a kind of block release?

Seems in making it 30hrs, the colleges are shoving the majority of emphasis onto the employer.

Looking at the earnings - imo £40 a week is a no brainer as its inconceivable that the apprentice cant earn the employer that back and more and actually I didnt know the rates were this low. With £97 a week, I still don't see that as insurmountable eg if your hourly rate is say £25 then the apprentice only has to work 4 hours per week doing things you would be doing (unloading / loading van, fetching and carrying and sweeping up etc for you to break even in general terms and that is surely possible?

From a personal point of view. I could make having an apprentice pay but I think my average week would be spent scratching round for things for him to do (you can only sweep up so many times!) and if this is what his apprenticeship becomes like then he will become demotivated, become less use etc etc - perhaps this is the point being made???

I think perhaps with trades, we're now all too busy trying to earn a living as opposed to years ago when things were more relaxed. I notice that Redrow are taking on 30 building apprentices currently so thats good news. Apprenticeships within a big organisation must be much easier than for a small tradesman - certainly the £97pw must be irrelevant to the likes of Redrow.

To summarise, I don't see the 30hrs/ £97 a week thing as a big problem - whats more valuable to the apprentice? work experience or study? be good to know the study hours per week relative to the 30hrs at work proposal...

 

[maxine]

Hiya

I should have said that its one day a week at college PLUS 15 hours in the work place.

Sweeping, loading up the van, watching you, picking things up, getting the chance to do things with you is all part of the experience.

We usually start with things such as how to read a tape measure lol

 

[Billmccallum]

Hiya

Yes, It's the colleges that say that the apprentice has to have a 30 hour a week contract in the workplace as they presumably think that it means they get more exposure to doing the work. As far as I'm aware they get exactly the same funding whether someone is part time or full time so financially it shouldn't make a difference (though I'm not sure about that)

I don't buy the explanation that it's because they are more likely to pass the course as people are chomping at the bit to get qualified so will make sure they make the most of their placements.

Last year we had around 60 applicants for one part time apprenticeship with us so the trainees are really keen to get anything that gets them through their course.

Private training providers have no problem at all with apprentices doing 16 hours in an apprentice role. (I've taken on others that way). The ofsted reports are all comparable and public information.

It just gets my goat that the government, job centres, connexions, at the apprenticeship organisation are pulling in one direction by heavily promoting apprenticeships for the benefit of learners and employers yet the colleges are pulling in completely the other direction and undoing all this good work with unnecessary restrictions.... then have the cheek to blame lack of apprenticeship uptakes on employers!

I wonder how many small/micro businesses would consider an apprentice as 16 hrs a week for £40 but wouldn't consider an apprentice full time £97 a week for a variety of reasons (not enough of that type of work, don't want someone with them full time, what they can afford etc).

Sorry but I do have a bee in my bonnet about this

One of the problems that smaller employers face is that they can't leave an apprentice alone on a job, so if it's a "one-man-band" operation, they have to drag the rugrat all over when they have other things to do, which can be a real hassle.

Qualified trades usually have to spend time updating their certification, but they can't take an apprentice with them, meaning paid time off and another cash burden on the business.

 

[maxine]

Yeah you're right about not being left alone. Costs us more in bacon butties than paid time off though hehe

 

[CKG]

Apprentice rate at the moment is £97 a week so thats £5k a year and shouldn't be too expensive but there are other costs such as insurance and the employers contribution which I think can vary from £100-£500 depending on the provider.

Would you still consider that too expensive CKG? I'm interested as I don't think that cost is a barrier

Over 4 years its going to have cost you over £40K to have trained someone - odds on they wont stick around for you to make that back.

I've put quite a few young lads through the 4 year course - none are with me now, a couple of them now deliver parcels for a living, some left for money and terms that I couldn't possibly give them and one started his own business - he subs for me now and again.

Looking back i'd rather an extra £100K in my bank account

Are we running a social enterprise or a business? Training youngsters should maybe attract some kind of tax relief.

 

[MASSEY]

Why are you looking to make it back CKG??. They will be working 30 hours a week, the 10k puts them on better than NMW but even good labourers can cost you 10k a year for 30 hours a week. So the reality is what are you looking to get back?

 

[Matt1959]

CKG even though I have a good apprentice taker type business, I wouldnt take one on unless I could gaurantee I could pay what it takes for an employee with a reasonable attitude to want to stay with me. When I read about apprentices upping and leaving etc etc I do wonder how attractive the job is being made for them. If they are consistently leaving, whats the true reason?

Also, I dont see how these 40K over 5yrs cost figures stack up. As I said in a previous post, if you are charging out at £25 - £40 ph or more and paying someone £3ph in the first year perhaps rising to saying £10ph by the 4th year how is it not possible to make it viable? I know insurances and employer contributions and employer time teaching and showing comes into it as well but theres still a huge margin with these figures.

I've always been tempted to go down the apprentice route myself even with the £90pw criteria but my trade is a bit specialised with work hard to come by and I cannot gaurentee ongoing employment for the person as the years go by and the wage goes up. It would be easy to take someone on for the £90pw and me make a profit on them probably but I dont think this is fair to them...

 

[InPrintImaging]

The big issue here is not the employers (although numbers may have dropped during the current climate, some are still taking on people), the bigger problem is the colleges and the government....

The government are paying colleges to deliver courses, the colleges need to get numbers through the door, but they don't look at what the market needs, they only look at what they need to generate income.

The high number of graduates and low number of placements/job vacancies should send a message that they are oversupplying the market, but I suspect that they don't really care.

I agree with you wholehartedly on that. The graduate system is resulting in a "top heavy" labour market, with too many people trained to do "glamourous" jobs, or jobs that are percieved as highly paid (often wrongly I might add). Disturbingly, the training often isn't that good. I've spoken to people as wide ranging as accountants and news editors who have said that graduates don't have the basic level of skills necessary when starting out in the job.

The education system has been driven by the education system and has evolved around its own needs rather than the needs of the end user, namely business. Too many apprentices and not enough jobs. Maybe the government should take a look at the state of industry at the moment. Only train enough people to satisfy the demand for workers when the economy is healthy, and then get on with getting the economy in such a state that the work actually exists for them to do. Where there is oversupply in one sector, limit the number of places for training in that sector, and where there is undersupply, increase the number of places for that.

 

[Billmccallum]

I've spoken to people as wide ranging as accountants and news editors who have said that graduates don't have the basic level of skills necessary when starting out in the job.
quote]

I studied Business Management as a mature student (when I was 35, so quite a few years ago), I did it to make sure that the stuff I had picked up over the years was relevant and up to date.

I spent a great deal of time correcting tutors who gave incorrect information and got ripped off on my final scores because I had upset them during my time as student rep for the course (they "missed" an assignment off my score and said I hadn't turned it in), but I still got second highest score for the course.

With that experience at university, I never take it for granted that a graduate can do a job, I want to see experience or they work for a couple of months as an intern first.