Paying for training?

[aes69]

I heard last week that a security company was deducting from handlers wages a % called "training costs".

Am I seriously that out of kilter or deluded to think that the company should bear these costs and not the employees?

 

[SCT]

I would have thought that if it is the handler's own dog and there was an opt out then it's reasonable

 

[Xplo479]

Surely if a company wants their handlers and dogs to maintain a level of training and the handlers are 'employed', as opposed to self-employed, then that cost should be bourne by the company. Most handler wages are appalling as it is, without deducting more.

The majority of handlers I know train during their own time and therefore don't get paid for it. They do it in order to improve their effectiveness and ability.

I understand the need for a company to pay a trainer in order to conduct training days etc, but can't see why this cost should be passed to 'employees'. As a self employed handler, I would expect to cover my own costs.


Are we talking about employed handlers here, or am I woofing up the wrong lamp post!?

 

[Starlight]

Yep, depends on whether they're employees or self employed. If they're self employed then it's perfectly reasonable for them to bare the cost of their own training......

 

[silent]

I have been paying to be independently assessed annually to UK standards despite not even working in the UK!! Personal development should be the norm for all security bods in my own humble opinion.
Going back to the thread though I agree with the above posts, if the handler is employed it should be down to the company to foot the bill after all its the company that are selling the service based on the ongoing training and standards of their operators. Self employed handlers should be supplying evidence of training when selling themselves to the companies.

 

[benji]

it seems to me that all the threads lately are all commonly linked and all started by aes69 for reasons i think he has already explained.there is a firm by me that takes money off of the SE workers before there wages even hit there account,no choice for the handlers its either this way or no work(i no longer cover shifts for them for this reason)the head trainer is nobody has no background(apart from a 2 week course with no recognized quals)and dosent even own a dog.until there is a set security dog standard ruled by people that have no loyalty to any firm things will always be up in the air.too many firms have the luxury of keeping all there handlers in the SE bracket but treating them as employee's.

 

[ed]

that can be said about all sections profit over employees or short term more than long term its all about the bucks and stuff the workers

would be nice to know if any companys out there look after the lads SE or PAYE

ed

 

[Starlight]

If any of you think dog squad bods have got it bad, you should try being a medic.

'Barking' mad if you ask me..............

 

[aes69]

it seems to me that all the threads lately are all commonly linked and all started by aes69 for reasons i think he has already explained

I deal with security companies everyday, some are employed on my sites. I know I pay more than most, I also know I don't expect handlers, self employed or not to be abused. I deal with the MD's and have often pushed their pay rates above those quoted.

 

[specialistk9]

AES 69...........................your my hero....................... i work for a london/kent based company........ im self employed i do my own training (BITE CUSHIONS/Obedience).......... and i dont get paid or pay for training.................. surely wether handlers are employed or self employed they should do continuation/site based training for their own safety and security, get to know your site.............where things are......... what if scenarios.