Lack of Apprenticeships due to Labour changes

[Heroto4]

Has anyone seen this?

My niece is a hairdresser and she runs two very successful saloons in SW London with a very well known franchise. Yesterday I went to get my hair done and we chatted about how her apprenticeship recruitment is going. She always recruits between 8/10 school leavers every year. She's got none this year and the wider company is no longer considering any new apprenticeships. Probably close th
ier academy as well. Due to the fact from 1st April apprentices will be paid the same as qualified stylists. And they can't afford this. I then saw my neighbour who's a plumber and he said the same thing. None of the trades he knows are recruiting now as they can't afford apprentices.

I'm so shocked this will create a real skills deficit.

My daughter is currently applying for Apprenticeships, they are NMW - nobody should be expected to work for less than that.

Good luck to your daughter. I hope she secures an apprenticeship. X

So a fully-qualified stylist is only on NMW, and previously, all 'apprentices' aka trainees were exploited paid an absolute pittance?

Insanity.

Apprentices for a genuine skilled trade spend at least a third of their time not actually doing anything useful, just watching and learning as more highly-skilled people do the work. They spend another third of their time making cack-handed attempts to do something they don't yet have the skills for - important to do yes because you don't get the skills without first trying and failing, but it's very expensive for the employers in wasted materials and extra work for the skilled staff to make good on the cack-handed attempts, and they might spend the other 3rd doing basic unskilled labour. A wage less than minimum wage was reasonable for that because they were achieving nothing or actively being detrimental to the employer for a lot of the time, and for that time although they might be working they are no more deserving of wages for most of that work than an undergraduate student deserves wages for the work they put into their degree.

The scandal is that employers of unskilled work were allowed to exploit the terms of apprenticeship arrangements and employ "apprentices" to do work where no genuine skills were being taught, they were just demoting their lowest ranks of staff to an "apprentice" grade when it should rightfully be just a minimum wage job all along.

What they should do is keep the low apprenticeship wages but restrict the shemes to jobs where there's a clear path with good availability of opportunities for those who complete the apprenticeship to then qualify for jobs that will be paid with at least 120% of nmw for newly completed former apprenticeships with up to 2 years post-apprentceship experience and progression to at least 150% of nmw for 2-5yrs experience and 200% for 5yrs+. Any job where the employer can't guarantee that at least 70% of successfully-completed apprentices can follow a career progression like that should not be allowed to set up an apprenticeship scheme but should just have entry-level unskilled posts at NMW.

Well of course they should be paid NMW

Won’t someone please let us exploit the young wrings hands

Just to be clear I went through an apprenticeship scheme to get where I am now. I was paid very low and then when I started I was on NMW. A long time ago mind!

I was in college 2 days a week and on the job 3 days a week. My employer paid my college expenses & course fees. I suppose what my niece is saying is that a stylist starts in NMW but doesn't stay long on that as they make a lot of money on commission & progress up the pay scale pretty quickly.

My husband is also a trades person and he went the same route. He started earning very good money within a year of working. So I can see both arguments.

4 days working, 1 day college release. And if no college then have to go into work. My dc can't work independently yet, but they definitely are earning their wage. Well done Labour on not letting young kids be exploited

There is no change in the pay structure of apprentices this year compared.to previous years.
The earn the same as under 18s for their 1st year, the go on the nmw for thier age after that.

I'm not commenting on if I think the wage is good enough or not, just pointing out that there in no chang from 1st April this year, so not sure what this tread is based on?

I started as an apprentice and got less than NMW and my travel paid. However I thought (maybe misguidedly) that an apprenticeship was an alternative to uni in that the main purpose was learning a skill, rather than working or being a profitable member of staff. But the advantage was you learnt a skill, would likely have a job at the end and didnt have 50k of debt. My first year (or 2) was spent practising skills

The problem is that qualified stylists are on NMW.

My ds is looking for an apprenticeship which is a shit wage but when he qualifies, he will earn over 50% more than the apprentice wage.

They're not progressing up any payscale if they're still being paid NMW, are they?

What she means is that the company has realised that they can tell the stylists to clean their own chair.

Literally this, it shouldn't be a race to the bottom.

From April 1st, 2025, the minimum wage for apprentices will increase to £7.55 per hour, a 18% rise from the previous rate of £6.40.

Apprenticeships are for far more than traditional trades these days. Care workers for example have to have, or be working towards, an NVQ which is usually via an apprenticeship. When they start they won’t be administering medication or other tasks that qualified Seniors would do, but they’ll still be working their arses off and their employers will definitely be getting their money’s worth out of them.

Apprentice nurses will still be doing HCA tasks while learning. Trainee accountants will still effectively be doing a finance assistant job while studying. An apprentice builder will be doing the same work as a jobber while learning the ropes.

They’re all doing an unskilled job four days a week, and doing off-the-job training for 20% of the time. They deserve at least NMW for those hours.

I don’t think that it’s exploitation for a young adult living with their parents to be low paid, if they are learning on the job. It is squashing opportunity because companies cannot afford to pay young adults who are just learning more than they are actually worth. My own DS sent lots of letters out wanting to work for free over the summer - one replied saying no, all others no response. He is living with us, extra housing costs with him here are £0 and food is not huge for one extra mouth. I really do not see the problem with some positions being on low pay for school leavers/students. But companies are presumably terrified of being labelled as exploitative so they stay out of it and we all lose.

If an 18yo is doing a job to the same standard as a 30yo who’s been in the job for a few years, then yes it would be exploitation to pay them little/nothing. But if they are learning, botching stuff and taking up the time of an experienced employee, then yes it’s very unreasonable to expect companies to shoulder high employment costs for that. And clearly they aren’t - they are just stopping the schemes.

I have a 19yo prepared to work for little/nothing over the summer. He’s housed with us so it’s no problem. It’s not exploitation for him to gain unpaid experience.

Maybe they should pay for the training elements then, and not be paid the college hours? The time spent mentoring, on college release, paying for exams in some trades adds up.

They are t paying for their training. The time the they are at college etc. of course companies can’t afford or won’t pay for that. Uni students aren’t paid. Why would anyone think this is a good idea. It slows work down having a kid on apprentice scheme as they have to be taught.

You’re alright then, Jack (or rather your DC is). What about those who have no family support like care leavers, or those whose parents can’t afford to keep them post 18 once benefits are stopped? Do they just get left behind?

Is that going to be his main source of income? No, no it is not. So a bit of an irrelevant comment. Work experience is different to an apprenticeship.

It’s also because they stopped kids leaving school at 16. All of those that would have left at 16 (or a high percentage) naturally want to do apprenticeships but there are not enough tour there. They are also bloody tough to get. My boy had to go to an assessment the other day for a joinery apprenticeship at a well known builders. There not meant to assess them as at 16 they have no real skills.

Apprenticeship are not paid at nmw or even close. £7.55/hr is not min wage. I am in the industry. I know exactly which company you're speaking of OP. Check out that company's profit on Company's house. And then tell me they can't afford apprentices.

Franchises and independent owners are the ones who will most likely feel the pinch with the increased min wage. The margins are so stretched to make any profit when you don't have the buying power of the big chains. Some/most franchises will have discounts available. Costs across the board are sky rocketing. Unfortunately, if salons want to stay in business they cannot feasibly pass off the full cost to the client. There will be salons closing up shop due to this.

Hairdressing has always been pay based around min wage, with commission plus bonuses depending on the site. The increase in min wage has meant pretty much all salons have had to increase their targets before stylists can be paid commission. This will effect the commission and over all pay of hairdressers. Sometimes an increase in min wage doesn't actually pay as well as one might think. The impact on the industry will be huge. Coupled with the increased NI Especially for those chains. Smaller independents may come out better due to small business tax breakers in place.

I know several stylists who are making higher tax contribution wages with commission and owners who are still making money but to the extent they were previously.

Apprentices often are the most valuable part of a salon team. The business cannot run at capacity without them. They are often also overworked and exploited. They should be paid nmw as a standard. Not an apprenticeship wage. Businesses can claim back part of their training expenses. The problem is that these business are often not equipped to pay nmw and keep the margins profitable.

It's an ugly situation. The industry is in turmoil. Let's not even mention the unrealistic expectations of clients thrown in and having to be public facing.

I've tried to post a balanced view point, but then again I am biased and working without Apprentices is a major business killer.

Apprentices often are the most valuable part of a salon team

Lmao