Coffeeholic:
I better go directly down the trumpet route next time.
Always best to go straight to the point and include the relevant reason when dealing with me - just like geebee’s post 
PS - geebee’s info has now been added to THE PERIODIC (ongoing) DRIVER CPC thread.
ROG:
Coffeeholic:
I better go directly down the trumpet route next time.Always best to go straight to the point and include the relevant reason when dealing with me - just like geebee’s post
Nah, it’s more fun this way. 
And to be fair how many times have I tried your suggestion in the past? It doesn’t work and usually leads to several pages of nonsense as you go further and further off track. 
The new way is less effort. 
Mike-C:
jdc:
I run a small removal company and have recently completed our first 7 hours of training. I like most on here, see this as just another expenditure, and whilst we picked up snippets of information, on the whole, the day was tedious to say the least.Whilst it is not our responsibility to arrange the training, I got the drivers together and explained the situation and that I was prepared to arrange and pay for the course, but couldn’t really afford to pay the guys as well. We all agreed that as a compromise, they would attend the course in their time. They were happy, I was happy.
I am the first to agree that in an ideal world, we would have covered the expenses completely, but we just are not in a position to do this. We have recently had to upgrade part of the fleet so we have had to pay out for digital tachographs for the drivers, software to download etc and we do not have an endless supply of money. We are in a fortunate position with a good bunch of guys (only 12 drivers) but I would not want to lose any of them.
For those people who say that the company’s should pay for everything and its not fair if they don’t, just take a minute to reflect on the realities of the economy at the moment. In my line of work, there is a reasonable amount about, but the prices are being slashed and the profit margin getting smaller, there is only so much small companies can take.
Its not me being tight or squeezing the drivers more, its reality and I am fortunate to have a bunch of lads that appreciate this and understand the difficulties we face.
Unfortunateley for you it is your job as an employer to provide employment based training. But to highlight the point, what would you do if everyone of them refused to attend an unpaid course and they wanted paying for attending one? Dismiss them because they have no work related training in five years time?
I don’t have any sympathy for any employer who is on a tight margin, when they had good margins they don’t profit share. Like anyone will tell you its a buisness you can either run it or you can’t. You’ve recently paid for digi cards and software? Did it catch you on the hop, unexpected like? Any employee who attends a course for free or pays for one when he’s in full time employment in my opinion is a mug.
Whilst I agree with part of what you are saying, for someone who knows nothing about me thats quite an aggresive resposnse. I was merely pointing out that it was not my resposibility to arrange or pay for the training. I could have quite easily left it up to the lads to sort and worried about the consequences in September 2014. I didn’t want that nor the worry of it.
My lads know me well and if they have a problem will bring it to my attention and none of them did. They know they can borrow any vehicle or if I can help them in any way all they have to do is ask.
You are also wrong regarding profit sharing. We run an employee profit sharing scheme so when we as a company do well, the employees get a share and benefit from it. Maybe I am not the best boss in the world but I value my employees and will not fleece them. They know that which is why they agreed to compromise. I am sorry if I do not fall into the stereotypical boss that I assume from your post you thought I was!
so you can do “evening” courses but you cant do the dCPC 
how does that work
Cruise Control:
so you can do “evening” courses but you cant do the dCPC
Do you mean some type of College course?
ROG:
Cruise Control:
so you can do “evening” courses but you cant do the dCPCDo you mean some type of College course?
yeah a course you attend in the evenings, how come they are exempt you pay for them yet the dcpc is not exempt. so if you went for an evening class and it was even remotely connected to LGV’s would it be be automatically classed as other work
Cruise Control:
yeah a course you attend in the evenings, how come they are exempt you pay for them yet the dcpc is not exempt. so if you went for an evening class and it was even remotely connected to LGV’s would it be be automatically classed as other work
Is that college course a LEGAL OBLIGATION
geebee45:
The dCPC is a legal obligation for drivers that wish to use their vocational licence commercially.
The words LEGAL OBLIGATION seem to be the deciding factor here from what I can accertain…
no but say you were doing a college course in…I dunno transport and logistics (as a generalisation) not a legal requirement but still quite connected to your work, I think that’s what CC is getting at ■■
garnerlives:
no but say you were doing a college course in…I dunno transport and logistics (as a generalisation) not a legal requirement but still quite connected to your work, I think that’s what CC is getting at ■■
yes mate, spot on
I dont think it would be as an example - if a driver was to do an advanced driving course in their own time at their own expense then that could be seen as work related but is not a LEGAL OBLIGATION
If a company TELLS a driver to do any course then that is different as the company have GIVEN AN INSTRUCTION to the driver.
The company are also required under employment law to PAY the driver whilst they are on that course.
That sort of course would be OTHER WORK
this country and it’s systems are a load of ■■■■■■■ ■■■■
I’ve read this post with great interest and I thank Geebee45 for his contribution.
Depending upon interpretation, this may become a discussion point…
Some drivers are sent on an ADR course by their bosses.
That’s clearly a reasonable instruction under the drivers’ contract of employment and is of benefit to the driver’s boss in that the driver needs the certificate in order to carry ADR regulated loads. So that’s to be regarded as ‘working’ time and seems pretty clear to me. There is a requirement in the ADR Manual of Practice for an ADR tutor to bring this to the candidates’ attention at the start of the course, so no problem there.
However, some other drivers attend an ADR course genuinely of their own volition.
Their boss often doesn’t have any idea that the driver has chosen to attend an ADR course of his/her own free will AND is attending for their own possible future benefit AND in their own time with NO connection whatsoever to their current employment.
If a driver attends an ADR course entirely ‘speculatively,’ eg. during a pre-booked holiday and with no connection to their current employment, I wonder whether this would this also have to count as “other work??”
ROG:
Cruise Control:
yeah a course you attend in the evenings, how come they are exempt you pay for them yet the dcpc is not exempt. so if you went for an evening class and it was even remotely connected to LGV’s would it be be automatically classed as other workIs that college course a LEGAL OBLIGATION
geebee45:
The dCPC is a legal obligation for drivers that wish to use their vocational licence commercially.The words LEGAL OBLIGATION seem to be the deciding factor here from what I can accertain…
The word you are looking for is compulsory.
There is no legal obligation for a driver to take a course in egg sucking and if a driver decides to take an evening course in transport related egg sucking at the local college that would be rest.
However, if Chicken Lickin’ Transport make it compulsory for all their drivers to take the egg sucking course that would be other work regardless of who paid for the course.
dieseldave:
I’ve read this post with great interest and I thank Geebee45 for his contribution.Depending upon interpretation, this may become a discussion point… /snip
However, some other drivers attend an ADR course genuinely of their own volition.
Their boss often doesn’t have any idea that the driver has chosen to attend an ADR course of his/her own free will AND is attending for their own possible future benefit AND in their own time with NO connection whatsoever to their current employment.If a driver attends an ADR course entirely ‘speculatively,’ eg. during a pre-booked holiday and with no connection to their current employment, I wonder whether this would this also have to count as “other work??”
As to the “freely dispose of his time” point . . . . . .
The guy dieseldave describes above - Would he be free to stand up, walk out, and go shopping, without any come back from his employer ■■?
If yes, then surely he is “free to dispose”
garnerlives:
this country and it’s systems are a load of [zb] [zb]
Hi Jon, I can understand some frustration at the ‘systems,’ but I’d point out that 561/2006 and everything that it contains comes from Europe and is directly binding in its entirity.
It even applies to ROG as you can see. 
dieseldave:
garnerlives:
this country and it’s systems are a load of [zb] [zb]Hi Jon, I can understand some frustration at the ‘systems,’ but I’d point out that 561/2006 and everything that it contains comes from Europe and is directly binding in its entirity.
Don’t forget he follows two sets of rules. He follows the EU tacho rules and some UK only tacho rules, that no one else has ever heard of.
dieseldave:
Hi Jon, I can understand some frustration at the ‘systems,’ but I’d point out that 561/2006 and everything that it contains comes from Europe and is directly binding in its entirity.
It wasn’t aimed squarely at the “other work or not” debate, just a generalisation of the whole ■■■■ place which I vented in this thread
You can tell that this is a ‘micky mouse’ regulation as H WINKLER AKA ‘The FONZE’ has done them 
Coffeeholic:
Don’t forget he follows two sets of rules. He follows the EU tacho rules and some UK only tacho rules, that no one else has ever heard of
I reckon I’ve got most sorted now thanks
ROG:
You can tell that this is a ‘micky mouse’ regulation as H WINKLER AKA ‘The FONZE’ has done themCoffeeholic:
Don’t forget he follows two sets of rules. He follows the EU tacho rules and some UK only tacho rules, that no one else has ever heard ofI reckon I’ve got most sorted now thanks
I find your final assertion rather difficult to believe 