Well after reading a report on RHDTC website
2 main problems with driver training is
1 Poaching!
While one Transport company pays for driver training the other just poaches the fully trained driver!
2.cost
Another problem is the cost to a person who wants/has no choice to pay their own way!
Who do you think should pay for driver training?
as regards to poaching the big companys will put you thorugh trainingbut make you sign a contract that says if you leave before x amount of time you will have to pay for that training.
but i do think the company should pay
jon
jonboy:
as regards to poaching the big companys will put you thorugh trainingbut make you sign a contract that says if you leave before x amount of time you will have to pay for that training.but i do think the company should pay
jon
While it is true some companys do make trainees sign a contract but according to the RHDTC some if not most dont take training costs from drivers who move on, most stating the reason was because of possible damage caused by said drivers to their trucks/premises!
Also it said most Logistics companies work on a 3% margin so was unable to pay for training 
Most of the UK work force is trained either by the state through uni’s or Young persons training. Transport have just started this but only 0.4% of drivers will learn this way 
may be the state should pay for new drivers or at least give all new trainee’s a interest free loan!
Now I didn’t so much mind paying for my training. In fact I didn’t want to be tied to the company for two years and be given all the duff jobs so I paid for it out of my wages/redundancy money (I could see it comming). I looked at it as an investment into my future, much like a college/university degree and the money I spent has allmost been recouped in the past 18months. So I think it was a good investment 
.
TheBigOne:
Now I didn’t so much mind paying for my training. In fact I didn’t want to be tied to the company for two years and be given all the duff jobs so I paid for it out of my wages/redundancy money (I could see it comming). I looked at it as an investment into my future, much like a college/university degree and the money I spent has allmost been recouped in the past 18months. So I think it was a good investment
I agree 100% but unlike you 20,000 people who the Transport industry need don’t have the £2,500 thats needed to train up to Class 1 from scratch!
This industry need young blood 25 to 35 year olds and not many have that kind of dosh hid under the pillow!
I agree with The big one, i paid for my own class 2 and then straight into class 1 training, as i wanted a career change, and the money is an investment for my future, its the best thing i ever did and its easily paying for itself, i think the goverment should offer a grant for those that cant afford it, and the money can be claimed back through there tax code.
Firms who only make a 3% margin and can’t afford to train workers should give up. What sort of business plan only gives a 3% return on capital? They’d be better off with a building society account.
In Europe training is seen as an investment, not a coys, without it the industry will remain trapped in a self-perpetuating low skills low rates spiral.
Firms who only make a 3% margin and can’t afford to train workers should give up. What sort of business plan only gives a 3% return on capital? They’d be better off with a building society account.
In Europe training is seen as an investment, not a coys, without it the industry will remain trapped in a self-perpetuating low skills low rates spiral.
Interesting!!!
Just out of curiousity I looked up the annual returns of a well known haulier, operating nationally with a number of depots, employing over 280 people.
This haulier had a turnover in 2002 of
£17,852,937
and profit for the year after taxation of
£160,465
Anyone better at maths than me able to work out the profit margin■■? 
Not worth it is it
That looks like less than 1% to me!They’re all so busy undercutting one another and “synergising” I.e. running the lorry 24/7
Trying to pull the thread back on topic it seems to me that “who pays the cost” is not the complete question. add an “up front” and it makes a bit more sense.
Firms poaching is likely to happen whatever and so I think it’s largely down to individuals to find the best way to pay. That could be company sponsered, self financing or state training scheme. I don’t see how any of these are better or worse than another. Some will be better suited to a particular set of circumstances, others will suit a different criteria.
In my own case I paid my own fees up front and have never been beholden to a company because of that. That was what I wanted at the time. Keep all the options and if possible increase them.
it’s 0.88% to be precise.
Pitiful isn’t it?
Trying to pull the thread back on topic
I think that the fact that so many companies work to such tiny margins is relevant to this thread.
If this company had a turn over of 50 drivers a year… and needed to train 50% of new recruits up to class one… that would be @ £25,000
a large chunk out of a profit of £160,000
Large enough I would say to make it financialy irresponsible for that particular company to pay for training
In 1980 aged 18 I was put through the Young Drivers Training Scheme by my then employer. The scheme was run by the Road Transport Industry Training board (R.T.I.T.B) The thinking behind it was to encourage young drivers to enter the road transport industry early without haveing to wait until they were 21 to get a licence. By that age, many young people would have served an apprenticeship, got involved in another career or just changed their minds and lost interest in the idea!
The deal was that my employer paid for me to do the course (6 weeks residential in Devizes, ALL aspects of the transport industry covered) then if you passed the course then you were entitled to take a Class 3 licence at a minimum age of 18. I could then drive for my employer only, until I was 21. Then the licence was mine and I could drive else where.
He got a driver for 3 years and I recieved some good quality training and a Class 3 licence (and valuable driving experience) without haveing to wait until I was 21!!
Dont know if the scheme is still in operation now but ,if there is a driver shortage,then surely it would be a good idea to re-start it and encourage young people into the Industry early.
Bullitt.
Training is a huge problem in the industry, When kids leave School they decide what their want to do in life based on what they can do at the time!
If they are interested in Transport and driving they will have to wait 5 or so years because of the age limit on holding a C or C+E licence!,
by the time they have waited they have done other training and decided to stay in the job they are trained for, so Transport becomes a thing of the past for them!
If they do still want to be a professional driver they will have to find a huge amount of dosh for training at a age when they can lease afford it
Transport companies cant afford it because of the margins they operate on!
The answer either lower the age for C + C+E licences to the same as car drivers or Govenment pay for training as they do for most other kind of education in this Country lets not kid ourselves Tell a profession where the expert has paid for all of his training! only Transport comes to mind for me!
TruckNet UK:
…snip…If this company had a turn over of 50 drivers a year… and needed to train 50% of new recruits up to class one… that would be @ £25,000a large chunk out of a profit of £160,000
Large enough I would say to make it financialy irresponsible for that particular company to pay for training
I see your point but the more damning issue would seem to be the staff turnover. 50 out of 280 might not be unusual but the better companies staff turnover is lower than this. Added into the equation the appeal to a high percentage of potential employees would, on the face of it, seem to be simply to get the upgraded license. With the best will in the world that does not strike me as a particularly well run, attractive to work for, company.
And now I’ve digressed from the main theme of the thread. 
Wiretwister:
TruckNet UK:
…snip…If this company had a turn over of 50 drivers a year… and needed to train 50% of new recruits up to class one… that would be @ £25,000a large chunk out of a profit of £160,000
Large enough I would say to make it financialy irresponsible for that particular company to pay for training
I see your point but the more damning issue would seem to be the staff turnover. 50 out of 280 might not be unusual but the better companies staff turnover is lower than this. Added into the equation the appeal to a high percentage of potential employees would, on the face of it, seem to be simply to get the upgraded license. With the best will in the world that does not strike me as a particularly well run, attractive to work for, company.
And now I’ve digressed from the main theme of the thread.
With a 3% operating profit the companies have a stark choice with their 3% either invest in the future by training new drivers or keep the driver they have by paying more via wages /new trucks!
Te problem is that the few that do invest in training when the new drivers have passed the test they are then poached by the companies who have decided to pay more instead of providing training!
A bit of a unfair way of going about business but hell does it supprise you after all in the Transport industry its every man/woman and boy for
themselves isnt it?
Thecritic:
With a 3% operating profit the companies have a stark choice with their 3% either invest in the future by training new drivers or keep the driver they have by paying more via wages /new trucks!Te problem is that the few that do invest in training when the new drivers have passed the test they are then poached by the companies who have decided to pay more instead of providing training!
A bit of a unfair way of going about business but hell does it supprise you after all in the Transport industry its every man/woman and boy for
themselves isnt it?
So those companies don’t protect the investment made. Re-inforces the point about badly run. Can’t imagine any company would let £20,000 pounds worth of truck go down the road, to a competitor, with no reimbursment, without doing something so why should £20,000 of training be any different?
The way the bus companies (who also have this trouble) do this varies, but the one I was with (First Badgerline in Weston Super Mare) did it this way:
You join, and sign an agreement.
You are paid a basic wage while you train, all costs, medical and licence upgrade costs were covered. These costs were averaged, and became a £1,00 training bond.
When you pass, you go onto a slightly lower rate than the other drivers, which improved after a year.
Every 3 months, the training bond was reduced by a set amount, and at the end of the 2 years, it was gone.
If you quit at any point, then the training bond was recovered from the trainee.
It worked pretty well, and they DID chase up people who defaulted on paying it back.