Feeling forced into unfair practices at work

[Quackaduck]

I work in financial planning, my team is made up of 7 people, one person who over sees the team and has clients of his own, 3 “senior planners” myself and one other, a “junior planner” who has some clients of his own but not many and also helps the senior clients, one assistant and one degree apprentice who functions in the same way as the assistant more or less. Neither the assistant or the apprentice are qualified to give financial advice but the assistant is working towards her exams. She has been with us for 2.5 years, the apprentice has just entered her 2nd year.

Yesterday at work it was requested I start getting the apprentice more involved with clients. So far she has done more admin based activities such as arranging meetings, typing up meeting notes (basically minutes), preparing the correct documents and putting together pre-meeting packs, this is also a lot of what the assistant does. Her client interactions have so far been minimal, she answers calls and will answer simple questions like when is my meeting or I didn’t get the last email can you resend it. She’s sat in on meetings with bigger clients but only observing really and this has been when we have had a team of advisors.
It has now been requested that she accompany us on client lunches, they think this will be beneficial for her development. However the assistant has only been doing this for about 6 months, there is no real benefit to them being at the meeting but as she is now preparing for exams it felt like the right choice. I personally don’t want to take her to client meetings. I think this shows preference to her over the assistant who had to wait much longer and work much harder to get this privilege. She also already has a degree and other experience.

I personally think this is favouritism, the girl is dating a member of another team who happens to be close friends with the other 2 senior planners (he’s 6 years older than her and a senior to her at work so I think the relationship it’s self is off putting but that’s an opinion and not professionally relevant). I’m also aware that she comes from a very well off family and her family are actually now on our target client list. She is at least 3 years away from being in a position to have any clients of her own (2 more of apprenticeship then she will still have to sit an exam to be able to give financial advice), I’d say probably more than that as the handing over of clients tends to be very gradual.
I know the other senior planners will jump at taking her on meetings but I don’t want to, any time where I feel having an assistant present would be beneficial I’d rather take the assistant who is more qualified and more experienced.
WIBU on this basis to not take her to any client meetings/lunches/dinners?

It sounds like the assistant and the apprentice are on different development paths. Does the assistant even have a formal track to follow?

From my experience as an adviser, being able to observe another adviser during a proper client meeting is a really good way to learn soft skills - role plays are just not the same as being out in the field for real. Perhaps you are considered as someone worth learning from? It's also fascinating to see how different advisers have different approaches to the same conversation.

Have you suggested taking the assistant out with you to boost their development?

If I was the apprentice I would be finding this role too slow in terms of development. After 2 years she's only doing very basic tasks, sounds like a particularly bad apprenticeship. I think the additional information regarding her relationship with a member of another team seems to be an issue for you and the target client connection.
I don't think holding her back because the assistant took 2.5 years to be allowed to attend client lunches is a valid reason to stall her development either.

Leave it to the others in terms of her development either. You sound like you are threatened by her.

Say no that you’re taking the apprentices who are more experienced first.

Just to clarify, the assistant does now attend meetings relatively often and the apprentice is only 1 year in, she’s just started her 2nd.

So how do you expect her to learn? One day she’s going to go from admin tasks to being qualified without any actual experience. If I was her I’d be pissed off at the clear lack of development opportunities and be seeking another place to finish my apprenticeship

The apprentice is meant to be learning. After 6 months of course you should be getting her more involved

YABU. Doesn’t sound a great apprenticeship.

Beyond attending meetings in the future there is a ceiling on how much she can actually do. She’s isn’t qualified to give advice so while we sometimes ask her (and the assistant) to come up with ideas/approaches before meetings and suggest them to us, she can’t actually pass that to clients. We are well regarded for our apprenticeships and she is only 1 year in.

Apprenticeships have specific requirements and objectives. Her path to development might look quite different from that of the assistant, and higher ups in your organisation might be making plans based on that.

I don’t think it’s necessarily your role to decide what her development track ought to be. If those higher up in your organisation have decided she needs more client-facing experience then I don’t think you need to question it.

I would alternate taking the assistant and the apprentice so they both get the experience of dealing directly with clients. That way there’s no unfairness and you’re helping them both.

She is an apprentice though. The other signed up for an assistant role and happens to be doing her exams.

The apprenticeship is a specific learning and supposedly she should be being trained not just being an office dogsbody. Frankly if I were the apprentice I would be complaining about the lack of training and about how the so-called senior staff didn't realise what they should be doing as regards her training.

The other one is not an apprentice. The other is an assistant.

Agreed if she is going a graduate apprenticeship she should be on the same track as if she was doing a degree in the subject. It does not sound like your company are handling it correctly at all.
At the end of her apprenticeship she should be qualified in the field in the same way a new graduate would be. It has specific criteria that needs to be met. The assistant is an assistant that is the role she applied for and will not have the same strict criteria to be met within certain time frames as a graduate apprenticeship.

They only have asked for you to take her to meetings, not for her to handle more tasks related to the client. I see no issue with that, at all.
Did the assistant start as an apprentice there too? I understand that is not the case, the assistant does have a degree and preparing for exams- which may have something to do with them not going around for that many lunch meetings. And they will then follow slightly different training paths, plus these will match the needs of your firm at the time.
Also, "IF" there is any favouritism towards this girl, it may have more to do with the possibility of her family being customers. The firm may want to impress her = impress the money from her family = better prospects for the firm and yourself.

This… before I even got to your question I read the first paragraph twice as I couldn’t work out why the assistant was doing what the apprentice should be (ie exams, client experience etc).

The apprentice should be on a structured programme whereby at the end of it they have the skills to be a junior planner. The assistant should be doing an assistants job and if there is spare time for her to pick up extra work to become a planner that the apprentice can’t do, then she can do the planner-in-training stuff.

The apprentice is going to be a planner. The assistant isn't. You're looking at this wrongly. The apprentice should be doing all these things to learn the job. It's what an apprenticeship is! You also seem to be tossing around accusations of nepotism to justify your attitude. But you're still wrong.

In our company, apprentices end up on a fairly accelerated path - they're involved with a lot of things fairly quickly to widen their knowledge, they get invited to meetings that people of a similar experience / grade wouldn't and given opportunities in a similar style. This is because the apprentices are the future employees of the company - they want to keep them, develop them and train them to be future team members who have a wide range of knowledge and skills.

I don't know any of our apprentices who in their second year are just doing basic minute taking / email sending / admin! I also work in finance and they're way more involved, we're also nationally recognised for our apprenticeship scheme.

The assistant who is doing exams isn't on that apprenticeship career path - they should be doing an assistants work. If they qualify and apply for a planning role in the future then that is different.

To me it sounds like you're judging her on her relationship / family and trying to bring her down a bit to the level you think is appropriate (which you've used the assistant to demonstrate) when they're in totally different roles and on totally different career paths.

Same as what everyone else has said. You’re comparing two people with very different roles and development pathways. unless she’s on an apprenticeship to become an assistant (unlikely) I think it’s really poor form on your part to put barriers in the way of someone’s apprenticeship and training and I hope your company rightly pulls you up on it. She is training for a career not an extra admin bod.

Apprenticeships should be a great opportunity but your post and my son’s experience really make me doubt if there are any decent ones out there!

I don't understand PPs. In such sectors, an apprenticeship is a separate route into work that often normally would require a uni degree as entry requirement. Your assistant has met that level and is working towards more specific qualification. Your apprentice is still working towards that entry requirement, and does that by learning on the job. No, the apprentice isn't on an accelerated programme. She is, arguably, on a programme for people who have a different learning style that doesn't suit uni education. And earning while doing so. So it is more than reasonable to have her earn her keep by letting her do some basic stuff as well. I agree it would be grossly unfair for the already degree-possessing assistant to be put on a level with someone who has the equivalent of one year post-school experience. The assistant deserves more responsibility.

Is the problem you are trying to fix occuring earlier when people apply to be either an assistant or apprentice?

I would expect that an assistant is paid more than an apprentice and also that some people would be unable to afford to be an apprentice as they couldn't meet current financial commitments. From what you've said I can't tell if this is the case though.

The apprentice starts on less than the assistant, but by the end of the 3rd year has had made quite big leaps and is usually on the same.
Historically for us the apprentice has then spent some time as an assistant sorting exams before in about 6-12 months if they pass the exam being promoted to junior planner.
The apprentice does 2 half days a week at university studying academic modules, the assistant does not and usually (but not always) has a degree when they join us.

Honestly for these sorts of roles building exposure to clients through low risk interactions like this is crucial. I think what you are being asked to do is entirely normal.

I also think that while there is a lot of nepotism in these sorts of industries a) it doesn’t follow that the beneficiary of the nepotism isn’t worthy of the support and b) it’s not up to you to prevent it.

You seem to have appointed yourself as some sort of crusader for meritocracy. The sentiment is fine but if you want to do this I would try to support the other people (such as the assistant) rather than trying to hinder the apprentice. It’s not your job to decide who is worthy and who isn’t and as the apprentice is likely to get promoted to a junior planner at some point you are probably going to make your own job harder.

I would try to support the other people (such as the assistant) rather than trying to hinder the apprentice.

Yes, there seems to be a determination to keep the apprentice at or below the same level as the assistant, where it is blindingly obvious that someone doing a degree apprenticeship should be doing a lot more than admin stuff, including attending client meetings. It may or may not be fair of reasonable that the assistant is where she is with her experience and abilities, but this separate to what is going on with the apprentice.

I was a trainee solicitor at the same time other people, who had been taken on in admin roles, were also being supported by my company with legal and other professional qualifications. My qualification was speedier than theirs due to the track I was on, and I wouldn’t have appreciated being kept back in the name of fairness.

"The apprentice does 2 half days a week at university studying academic modules, the assistant does not and usually (but not always) has a degree when they join us."
Being blunt, the apprentice is on a particular program which the workplace has agreed to provide. There will be things that the university REQUIRE the apprentice to do/experience. Even if the other person is better qualified/has more experience/would benefit more than the apprentice in terms of development, the workplace either has to discontinue the apprenticeship, or they have to give the apprentice the experience and training that they agreed to when they took her on.

The assistant was hired to be an assistant. The apprentice is there to learn how to be a planner. You are not being fair on the apprentice if you don't teach them, out of sone misguided attempt at fairness to someone who has a different role.

The issue is that the apprentice is not doing some "basic stuff as well". She is only doing admin tasks. She spent 12 months in her apprenticeship and only learned how to send an email and make a phone call. I don't think she is meeting her training objectives.
The assistant may well deserve more responsibility but I don't see why it should come at the expense of someone else's learning. Presumably, there are more employees than just OP and more than one client to meet. I see no reason why both can't be progressed.