Hi Holly,
I beleive that we think on the same lines; and comparing our experiences rightly so. Regrettably, as we agree people do not drop neatly in to templates, and employers to have to recognise that some training is required, particularly as far as computing suites are concerned. In the latter case there are so many versions, and bespoke models that there is no possible way you can know all.
There is an increase in the number of companies or businesses which neither have a staff department/manager nor in-house training, which in the long term is short-sighted since continous training means that staff remain interested, look forward to progressions and less likely to leave. In turn that means that a loyal staff and therefore low turnover, in turn reducing the costs of constant resourcing of new staff. Employment Agencies do not come cheap, with the average cost being 25% of starting Salary + VAT; if you are talking senior staff, it can be double that rate. This brings us back to mangerial and business short-sightenedness.
Like yourself, I was told that if I studied and secured certain qualifications that would make my "employablility" stronger: in fact, nothing coudl be further from the truth. I have lost count of the number of times I havev been told I am over qualified, and frankly it has reached a stage whether my professional status be left off my CV. This seems to defeat the object of securing qualifications and the pride that should go with that success.
You also raise a very valid point about apprenticeships. These were ideal for people who were not good at taking exams, but could learn by being with a more experienced person in parallel with reading the subject at Technical College and taking the relevant exams. Of course, cutting corners raises its head again, in so far as companies and business are not prepared to invest in their staff.
If you factor in those who are preapred to do extra-curricular studying, i.e. evening classes at college or a full college course, to ge told that they have to pay for their education is an insult. If the average Degree, even HNC Student is going to do a three year course with the threat of a £7000 + debt over their head, those people are going to be discouraged from studying. As I have said elsewhere, the old grant scheme worked. Basicallyyou got your grant on a term basis. If you fooled around and spent it on things over and above living and the cost of books etc. and you failed to attend lectures, you were before the Bursar. If you did it again, it was good bye.
Ok you did not have to pay back the grant, but since it was issued on a term to term basis, the most the local authority or Government lost out was 13 weeks. In the case of your mother, how can anyone possibly deal with the cost of getting better qualifications if she is only receiving a nominal State Income, and you are having to provide for both of you. You cannot afford to study to get a better salary as you need the income from your present job and cannot take a year out to take the relevant qualification.. Employers seem to forget that it is cheaper to train in-house, than buy from the open market someone who has taken their exams, and therefore expect a better starting salarly. Ironically, we now come to a contradiction since we move in to the realms of "over-qulaified". Comapnies should know the going rate for a certain set of skills, and know very well that if they do not keep up with that rate, then they shall not get the higher calibre staff. Qualitifaction is not just bits of paper, but experience too.
In my game, this baffles me, since whilst the work I may be doing is basic telephone collections; asking people why they have not paid the debt and putting things right, there are other issues too. I am able to draft my own Particulars of Claim and Summons; and have rights of audience in County Court to Trial Level. At the risk of being big headed, I would have thought that a company would welcome someone with such a back ground, since I can track a matter from inception to default and ultimately litigaion, including Post Judgement Enforcement. I am prepared to offer those facitilites as an add on to the job being advertised. Whilst I accept that on a permanent basis the salary I would seek a greater rate than that on a temporary assignment, until recently the reverse was true.
I used to deal with companies in severe distress to the point where they were about to call in the Receievers, or Foreclosure by the bank, but they had the sense to call someone in like me to deal with the situaion. Employers and business seem to be very reactive these days; wait for the problem to happen, no matter how obvious, and then do some thing about it. I have actually been assigned to companies where the Sales Ledger was such a mess, I slapped a 30% reserve on the book debt, and raised questions with the Auditors as to how they found the accounts fit to sign off !
That was one example where, along with three others, I actually managed to keep the creditors away for six months while we got things re-organised and dragged the company back in to business, and at the risk of being big headed, saved 50 jobs in the process. The fact that I was able to put in to place new procedures to avoid bad debt, such as risk analysis, as well as collect out the debt, negotiate settlement; in some cases a £100 Credit Note resulted in the release of a few Thousand Pounds. At least with a Credit Note, you can reclaim the VAT back! Writing a bad debt off against turnover is not so tax efficient. not withstanding the additional accountancy involved.
Board members seem to be so short sighted to day; and the same can be said for the banks, who are lending to the wrong business, but at the same time squashing those which given some help will survive. The same is true whether you are dealing with commercial or private debt.
In one cases referred to me, a 19 year old girl, who had a mental age of 12 years, was let loose with a £1000 overdraft ! It was clearly she was not competent, and the fact she had been on State Benefits since leaving school should have flashed warnings up to the bank. In reality she should not have been allowed anything more than a deposit account. With that case I succeeded in getting the contract voided. The Bank concerned tried, try to intimidate the girl by sending her some very dodgy documentation, which in fact impersonated Court Documents. At that point, having secured the girls consent in wiritng, I intervened, and following some very heated exchanges in both writing and orally,
It was of note that the Bank concerned backed down when I drew to their attention that their Consumer Credit Licence was at risk had the pursued further; first and foremost becuase the girl was legally incompetent of contract.
The thing that worries me is that too much of this is going on, the Government and supposed "Watchdogs" who are supposed to be monitoring these lenders, and particularly the increasing number of sharks like WONGA and PAYDAY Loans, are quite clearly not doing their job. The Consumer Credit Act, and Unfair Contract Terms Act are hopelessly out of date and need review immediately, and it does raise questions about the Statutel Review procedures which were supposed to be put in to place in the early 1990s. They may well be there on paper, but nothing has been advertised and not have any actions been seen in the legal press.
Sorry to be paranoid but it does raise the question whether the Government , the FSA and Ombudsman, far from being independent of the Banks are actually in close collusion.
