A customer was complaining to me today that an employee was leaving after receiving training a few weeks previously. Apparently poached by a rival bakery who pays better money, but provides a lot less training. He asked me what happens where I work, apart from one driver contracted for two years (had class 1 training paid for), there are no payback clauses. Is this normal, considering the DCPC?
I’ll be honest and say I’d still jump ship if the right job came along.
I’ve not had it in either of my driving jobs, but in my company (sparkying), we insisted on the guys having both 17th edition and inspecting/testing quals. If they didn’t, we’d pay half, but if they left within s year we’d claim it back on a sliding scale.
I’ve been with my present firm just over a year and all training is done on a sliding scale payback clause, ie; leave within 12 months and you’re liable for 75% of the cost, within 18 months 50%, and so on. That’s fair enough in my opinion. Why should a company fork out only for the driver to walk?
Funnily enough, my previous employer in Hull didn’t operate the same. They paid for 14 hours dcpc, AND my Hiab course, which wasn’t cheap. I don’t feel guilty for leaving but I might have thought twice if I’d signed to say otherwise.