One way track to training

As debate continues around the skills crisis in the UK economy, and more recently the success or as some may argue, failure of the much anticipated Lord Leitch's report, the announcement of the governments' intention to make training a legal right of every employee is certainly welcome news.

The draft legislative programme giving employees the legal right to request time to train from their employers may be good news for staff who have played loyal to companies only to be lost in the woodwork and have stagnated in their careers largely due to a lack of training opportunities in their current jobs. However, the vast majority of UK employers, who according to John McGurk from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development spend £33bn on training, might not be blamed for apprehensively watching from the sidelines, wondering what the new legislation will mean to them in terms of costs and legal implications.

This coupled with the fact that the government is repeatedly focusing on skills deficiency, while the heart of the problem lies with the lack of management training for higher level employees.

With the retail distribution review interim report in the back of one's mind and the FSA's stipulation that better qualifications and skills will be an issue pushed under the overhaul of the UK's retail distribution landscape, one has to wonder what this type of legislation will mean for advisers, currently caught in a 'catch 22' situation in that they wish to continue practising as advisers, but are daunted by the prospect of immense qualifications requirements which they may have to undertake in order to do so.

As the possibility of a single qualification standard quivers on the horizon, one has to wonder how and whether the draft legislation programme to make training needs a right of every employee, will affect advisers? Could those advisers who are part of larger advisory firms now be legally enabled to request 'training time' from their employers in order to bump up their qualifications and skills to the standards required? What will the implications be for the advisory firm, if half of its advisers take off time to get their qualifications on par?

While the government has given the assurance that they will consult on how workers can legally request time to undertake training that will benefit them and their employer, when the authorities at start making the rules one always wonders how much thought they have put into the practical implications.

Employers will not be obliged to meet the salary or training costs and have the right to refuse requests for training when there is a good business reason to do so, which makes one wonder what the true purpose of this legislation is? Is this not the way most businesses operate their training? We should hope so. However, if such legislation will empower the employee to take action against slack employers who expect employees to deliver, but never plough back into their staff, then certainly the proposal could make a difference. But if this is nothing more than an expensive and elaborate way for the government to make a noise about how it is trying to alleviate the skills shortage, then I think we could all do without the bells and whistles.