From today's Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-2005352,00.html

Work dries up for City boys lured to plumbing
By Will Pavia

IT WAS one of the most curious episodes in British employment history:
City workers were abandoning high-flying jobs to retrain as plumbers.

Now, as trade associations give warning of a major oversupply of trainee
plumbers, the employee exodus from the Square Mile may be going into
reverse, with plumbers returning to the City.

The rush into the trade began four years ago with a report that there
was a desperate shortage of plumbers, who could earn £70,000 a year.

Now the shortfall is put at 1,500 plumbers for the next three years, but
there are 26,000 on NVQ2 courses, many more working for higher
qualifications and thousands on “fast-track courses”. Competition for
apprenticeships is fierce. Plumbing companies report turning away
hundreds of hopefuls. And starting salaries are low.

Richard Nissen, the head of the London plumbing company Staunch and
Flow, said: “Trainee plumbers are paid £10,000 a year. No one can afford
to pay them a living wage.” Workers from Eastern Europe are filling the
shortage on building sites; in the domestic trade favoured by former
City workers, plumbers cannot expect to earn more than £20,000 for
several years.

Jason McCafferty, 23, was part of the exodus into plumbing. The
Construction Industry Training Board had said that the UK faced a 25 per
cent shortage of plumbers by 2005, exacerbated by the retirement rate in
a profession where most workers were aged over 50.

“I was working in a City law firm,” Mr McCafferty, a geography graduate
from Exeter University, said. “I didn’t particularly enjoy working
there. Plumbing seemed an interesting vocation.” He took the NVQ2 course
and began casting around for employment.

“I would have been on £10,000 for two years, while living in London,” he
said. “I would have to have taken a second job five days a week.”

Now he has returned to the City working in credit risk management. “When
I was offered work with a bank, I took it,” he said. Ivor James, 38, a
former office worker for HSBC, also switched to plumbing. He has now
been unemployed for two months. “I have sent out 75 CVs,” he said.
“Fifteen companies replied. The only one that could take me on was
offering peanuts.”

Mark Embury, formerly a derivatives broker on the Stock Exchange, left
his £100,000-a-year job to run a plumbing business, part of the Drain
Doctor franchise. He hoped that the venture would generate a turnover of
£500,000. Last month he sold out.

The Association of Plumbing & Heating Contractors has expressed concern
about the proliferation of “rogue trainers” offering two-week courses.
“No one can become a skilled plumber in two weeks,” Clive Dickin, the
chief executive, said

Lobster wrote:

Now he has returned to the City working in credit risk management. “When
I was offered work with a bank, I took it,” he said. Ivor James, 38, a
former office worker for HSBC, also switched to plumbing. He has now
been unemployed for two months. “I have sent out 75 CVs,” he said.
“Fifteen companies replied. The only one that could take me on was
offering peanuts.”

It begs the question, why go to all that bother of training yourself
only to try to work for someone else again? I would have thought the
main benefit of the exercise was owning the business.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

It begs the question, why go to all that bother of training yourself
only to try to work for someone else again? I would have thought the
main benefit of the exercise was owning the business.

Yeah. I don't think that anyone earns much money working for someone else in
the plumbing field. The whole point is to work for yourself and keep the
profits.

Christian.

"Lobster" wrote in message
...
Richard Nissen, the head of the London plumbing company Staunch and Flow,
said: “Trainee plumbers are paid £10,000 a year. No one can afford to pay
them a living wage.” Workers from Eastern Europe are filling the shortage
on building sites; in the domestic trade favoured by former City workers,
plumbers cannot expect to earn more than £20,000 for several years.

So why does the average daily rate for anyone half competent work out at
~£300 + vat?

That's (300*5*4.2*12) £75,600 - even after tax etc that's a good high 40's

Ho hum.

Cheers
Dan.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:26:56 +0000, Christian McArdle wrote:

It begs the question, why go to all that bother of training yourself
only to try to work for someone else again? I would have thought the
main benefit of the exercise was owning the business.

Yeah. I don't think that anyone earns much money working for someone else in
the plumbing field. The whole point is to work for yourself and keep the
profits.

'cept that if you're self-employed you carry all your own overheads of
admin, purchasing and stock control, visiting potential clients, working
out quotes, training etc which cut into your actual earning time. Possibly
the ideal solution would be to work as part of a collective sharing these
burdens to minimise costs while still getting a good share of earnings,
but I suspect that working for a medium size company run reasonably
efficiently doesn't work out much worse than being s/e, especially if
you factor in the hours you actually put in to the latter.

John Rumm wrote:
Lobster wrote:

Now he has returned to the City working in credit risk management. "When
I was offered work with a bank, I took it," he said. Ivor James, 38, a
former office worker for HSBC, also switched to plumbing. He has now
been unemployed for two months. "I have sent out 75 CVs," he said.
"Fifteen companies replied. The only one that could take me on was
offering peanuts."

It begs the question, why go to all that bother of training yourself
only to try to work for someone else again? I would have thought the
main benefit of the exercise was owning the business.


Indeed. And note it's the head of a plumbing company that's quoted in
that article. He's hardly likely to want more plumbers coming on the
scene and destroying his riches.

Dan delaMare-Lyon wrote:
"Lobster" wrote in message
...
Richard Nissen, the head of the London plumbing company Staunch and Flow,
said: ?Trainee plumbers are paid ?10,000 a year. No one can afford to pay
them a living wage.? Workers from Eastern Europe are filling the shortage
on building sites; in the domestic trade favoured by former City workers,
plumbers cannot expect to earn more than ?20,000 for several years.

So why does the average daily rate for anyone half competent work out at
~?300 + vat?

That's (300*5*4.2*12) ?75,600 - even after tax etc that's a good high 40's

Because a daily rate implies self employed, thus:-

You won't be working every working day

There are expenses, tools, van, accountant, insurance, etc.

You haven't included any time off, in addition to days where you
haven't got any work you will hopefully go on holiday occasionally.

--
Chris Green

"Dan delaMare-Lyon" wrote in message
...
"Lobster" wrote in message
...
Richard Nissen, the head of the London plumbing company Staunch and Flow,
said: "Trainee plumbers are paid £10,000 a year. No one can afford to pay
them a living wage." Workers from Eastern Europe are filling the shortage
on building sites; in the domestic trade favoured by former City workers,
plumbers cannot expect to earn more than £20,000 for several years.

So why does the average daily rate for anyone half competent work out at
~£300 + vat?

That's (300*5*4.2*12) £75,600 - even after tax etc that's a good high 40's

Ho hum.

Cheers
Dan.

Because the numbers you quote are a bit optimistic:

One might accept the 300 a day (I bet it's less on large contracts) but:
(5*4.2*12) makes no account for holidays, being sick, admin, tax returns,
training, tendering, advertising, givng quoutes, watching the cicket, having
a life. Lets assume, optimistically, that all this can be done in 1 day a
week, you are now at £60,480. This gives a net after tax and NI of around
£40K. This assumes that you are such a good plumber that you always have
full day jobs lined up every day that you are available to work. No scope
for jobs being cancelled, postponed or for losing that tender that would
tide you over till xmas. Lets assume that these make up 2 days a month
(wildly optomistic?). Now we are at £53280, or £36 K after tax.

Now start deducting all your expenses - tools, van, premises, insurance,
registration, telephone advertising, Maybe £10K a year. So now we have
£26K. Of course you might want to put some money into a pension, or health
care insurance, because if your're not working your not earning. As an
employee these benefits might be provided.

Andy (on a salary and happy)

"Andy McKenzie" wrote in message
...

So why does the average daily rate for anyone half competent work out at
~£300 + vat?

That's (300*5*4.2*12) £75,600 - even after tax etc that's a good high
40's

Because the numbers you quote are a bit optimistic:

One might accept the 300 a day (I bet it's less on large contracts) but:
(5*4.2*12) makes no account for holidays, being sick, admin, tax returns,
training, tendering, advertising, givng quoutes, watching the cicket,
having a life. Lets assume, optimistically, that all this can be done in 1
day a week, you are now at £60,480. This gives a net after tax and NI of
around £40K. This assumes that you are such a good plumber that you always
have full day jobs lined up every day that you are available to work. No
scope for jobs being cancelled, postponed or for losing that tender that
would tide you over till xmas. Lets assume that these make up 2 days a
month (wildly optomistic?). Now we are at £53280, or £36 K after tax.

Now start deducting all your expenses - tools, van, premises, insurance,
registration, telephone advertising, Maybe £10K a year. So now we have
£26K. Of course you might want to put some money into a pension, or health
care insurance, because if your're not working your not earning. As an
employee these benefits might be provided.

Coat being fetched.......hadn't thought about it t that level of detail....

Dan.

John Stumbles wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:26:56 +0000, Christian McArdle wrote:

It begs the question, why go to all that bother of training yourself
only to try to work for someone else again? I would have thought the
main benefit of the exercise was owning the business.

Yeah. I don't think that anyone earns much money working for someone else in
the plumbing field. The whole point is to work for yourself and keep the
profits.

'cept that if you're self-employed you carry all your own overheads of
admin, purchasing and stock control, visiting potential clients, working
out quotes, training etc which cut into your actual earning time. Possibly
the ideal solution would be to work as part of a collective sharing these
burdens to minimise costs while still getting a good share of earnings,
but I suspect that working for a medium size company run reasonably
efficiently doesn't work out much worse than being s/e, especially if
you factor in the hours you actually put in to the latter.

Those costs are nothing. Only PAYE people actually pay the right amount
of tax.

Try running a retail shop - the rent and rates alone are a MAJOR
expense and then security, staff, heating, lighting etc. A man and van
operation from home is very cheap.

Andy McKenzie wrote:
"Dan delaMare-Lyon" wrote in message
...
"Lobster" wrote in message
...
Richard Nissen, the head of the London plumbing company Staunch and Flow,
said: "Trainee plumbers are paid £10,000 a year. No one can afford to pay
them a living wage." Workers from Eastern Europe are filling the shortage
on building sites; in the domestic trade favoured by former City workers,
plumbers cannot expect to earn more than £20,000 for several years.

So why does the average daily rate for anyone half competent work out at
~£300 + vat?

That's (300*5*4.2*12) £75,600 - even after tax etc that's a good high40's

Ho hum.

Cheers
Dan.

Because the numbers you quote are a bit optimistic:

One might accept the 300 a day (I bet it's less on large contracts) but:
(5*4.2*12) makes no account for holidays, being sick, admin, tax returns,
training, tendering, advertising, givng quoutes, watching the cicket, having
a life. Lets assume, optimistically, that all this can be done in 1 day a
week, you are now at £60,480. This gives a net after tax and NI of around
£40K. This assumes that you are such a good plumber that you always have
full day jobs lined up every day that you are available to work. No scope
for jobs being cancelled, postponed or for losing that tender that would
tide you over till xmas. Lets assume that these make up 2 days a month
(wildly optomistic?). Now we are at £53280, or £36 K after tax.

Now start deducting all your expenses - tools, van, premises, insurance,
registration, telephone advertising, Maybe £10K a year. So now we have
£26K. Of course you might want to put some money into a pension, or health
care insurance, because if your're not working your not earning. As an
employee these benefits might be provided.


Premises? - don't know one self employed plumber that has premises and
even the firms either work from home or from some shed.

Andy McKenzie wrote:
"Dan delaMare-Lyon" wrote in message
...
"Lobster" wrote in message
...
Richard Nissen, the head of the London plumbing company Staunch and Flow,
said: "Trainee plumbers are paid £10,000 a year. No one can afford to pay
them a living wage." Workers from Eastern Europe are filling the shortage
on building sites; in the domestic trade favoured by former City workers,
plumbers cannot expect to earn more than £20,000 for several years.

So why does the average daily rate for anyone half competent work out at
~£300 + vat?

That's (300*5*4.2*12) £75,600 - even after tax etc that's a good high40's

Ho hum.

Cheers
Dan.

Because the numbers you quote are a bit optimistic:

One might accept the 300 a day (I bet it's less on large contracts) but:
(5*4.2*12) makes no account for holidays, being sick, admin, tax returns,
training, tendering, advertising, givng quoutes, watching the cicket, having
a life. Lets assume, optimistically, that all this can be done in 1 day a
week, you are now at £60,480.

Half (at least) of which is never declared, cash in hand. The other
half worked against all expenses (inflated).

This gives a net after tax and NI of around
£40K.

On 23 Jan 2006 05:30:27 -0800, wrote:

Half (at least) of which is never declared, cash in hand. The other
half worked against all expenses (inflated).

Not forgetting NI contributions of only £110 per year!

sponix

Tony Williams wrote:
In article ,
After a year or so of being self-employed (electronic
design) I realised that I actually only plied my trade
(ie, doing direct money-earning stuff) for about 2-3
days a week, and only for about 40 weeks/year, if lucky.

And in a large organisation you may do even less real work; having
factored out the time spent in pointless meetings, form filling, working
round idiot specifications etc.


--
David Clark

$message_body_include ="PLES RING IF AN RNSR IS REQIRD"

Lobster wrote:
From today's Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-2005352,00.html

Work dries up for City boys lured to plumbing
By Will Pavia

Who is this Will Pavia, and why his penchant for blow-torch weilding
"City boys" in overalls?

In article ,
DJC wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
In article ,
After a year or so of being self-employed (electronic
design) I realised that I actually only plied my trade
(ie, doing direct money-earning stuff) for about 2-3
days a week, and only for about 40 weeks/year, if lucky.

And in a large organisation you may do even less real work;
having factored out the time spent in pointless meetings, form
filling, working round idiot specifications etc.

Absolutely true, especially with the trained? managers these
days. But in a large organisation (especially one feeding
off the taxpayers) it doesn't matter so much ..... you
still get paid every month, get to eat, and get your index
linked pension guaranteed by the taxpayer.

When self employed, if you don't work at things that get
the money in regularly, then you don't eat. BTDTGTTS.

--
Tony Williams.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:38:36 +0000, Owain
wrote:

wrote:
It begs the question, why go to all that bother of training yourself
only to try to work for someone else again? I would have thought the
main benefit of the exercise was owning the business.
Indeed. And note it's the head of a plumbing company that's quoted in
that article. He's hardly likely to want more plumbers coming on the
scene and destroying his riches.

OTOH an increase in the qualified labour pool may reduce the wages a
qualified employee can command.

Owain

Yes. Perhaps we should apply the same principle to the so called
professions who think they are above such nastiness.

We could do with more lawyers, estate agents, managers etc etc as they
charge/are paid far too much.





Remove antispam and add 670 after bra to email

Make free phone calls

http://houseoflove.co.uk

Tried,tested,approved !