"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 17/11/2017 09:36, tim... wrote:

3) The problem in 2 is exacerbated by the minimum wage being too high.
This idea that any/every job should pay a "family living wage" is
political nonsense. Employers must have the scope to pay people in
training what they are worth to the company.

They do have some of that - the minimum wage for those under 20 is £5.13

Oh is it under 20. I thought it was 18.

(that means the 19 YO on this program ought to have been "caught" but there
was no suggestion that he wasn't paid the standard 7.50 NMW.)

There are also apprenticeship schemes where you can pay lower wages
(~12K/year) in recognition that they are also receiving value from a
defined package of training.

apprenticeships schemes have to be registered in order to make sure that
they provide the necessary certificated training. Just training you how to
use a specialist piece of equipment doesn't count.

If anything the rules for this are too lax, don't make them easier than they
are, there's enough abuse already.

Not a perfect system by any means, but not quite as black and white as
some would paint it.

4) Why do employers waste so much money on agencies.

Because from their point of view, its not a waste. Recruitment is a slow
and expensive process - especially if you are a smaller firm and don't
have a HR department to offload the process onto.

Smaller firms just get the owner to do it

I know of many that do

It's easy to filter out the time wasters. - Invariably they just don't turn
up for the interview :-) (as we saw with the agency interview)

I don't believe that it's the chore that you make it out to be, if you start
with the expectations that you are hiring a permanent employee and not just
a different casual each week.

I have no idea
what margins for this type of casual work are, but most people with
recruitment "skills" wouldn't get out of bed for 50 grand (they'll just
go and work for an employer who pays them more). I understand that
genuine casual work (such as catering at an event) requires agency
staff, but if you have an ongoing requirement for a worker why the ****
are you paying the agency margin week after week. Take the guy(/girl)
on permanently and use the money saved to increase the guy's (girl's)
wage when they reach the required performance level.

Its about managing risk, and retaining the ability to react to changes in
the market. The employer may not be sure how long the position will last,
or if a particular venture will be successful. Doing it on a temporary
basis makes it possible to "try" when the risks to the employer would
otherwise be to high.

The jobs in question seemed to be week after week after week

You can sack some up to a year with no costs involved (other than a weeks
notice), so I don't buy that explanation

tim