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?

Ask your manager want he/she wants you to do and get on with it. When you become a manager you can then make these decisions

YABVVU to be a senior planner in 2024 and not understand how job roles work. Not only that you use favouritism as a reason for your ignorance.

A degree apprentice is supposed to be trained on the job. At the end of her apprenticeship she should be ready for a junior planning role. As PP said there's strict criteria for learning and development goals. She wasn't hired to just send emails. Quite the opposite of favouritism actually your company has treated her terribly.

The assistant is hired and paid to do exactly that - assist. It doesn't matter what other qualifications she has. Advancement something for her to formally discuss with her line manager and request development opportunities like attending meetings. Not for you. And besides, It looks like she attends meetings anyway, so I don't see what the 'unfairness' is. Do you just not want to develop the apprentice?

BTW if someone behaved like you on my team I'd give you a stern talking-to.

Could someone without a wealthy background support themselves through the apprenticeship on the apprentice wage? I'm trying to work out if social mobility factors are at play.

You need to meet your obligations towards the apprentice but at the same time you can support the development of the assistant. Does the assistant have a development plan and what is their long-term future at the company?

You fail to understand what an apprenticeship programme does, which is exceptionally concerning.

You have been told by your manager what to do. You are letting your personal opinion influence that decision.

What is more concerning is your lack of knowledge that an organisation is not a level playing field. It is a hierarchy.

An assistant should not be comparable with an apprentice, they have completely different paths.

Yes it is convenient and appropriate to have the apprentice to take on some and follow some of the assistants work. But they are six months plus in!

You need to fill your knowledge gap because it is very unfair on both the assistant and the apprentice.

@MumDoingMyBest I teach some apprentices outside of the UK, Ireland.

In the past 20 years there has been a very diverse range of learners. They tend to be supported practically (live at home) or financially.

The assistant already gets to sit in meetings. The OP's complaint is that the assistant took a longer time before being allowed to do so.
Social mobility means that both the apprentice and assistant will eventually be able to progress it doesn't mean they have to be at the same rate. The apprentice should be at an accelerated rate, given that apprenticeships meet strict criteria but also, are somewhat subsidized by a central pot.

My company pays them the standard minimum wage (for above 25 regardless of age). I can't imagine the assistant earning much more.

YABU as she needs these opportunities to grow and develop. You can alternate or suggest a timetable so that the more experienced assistant continues to get taken out a bit more often and to those clients that will enhance his learning experience.

If you fundamentally dont agree with how they are running this business, in the long term you unfortunately need to look for a new job. But try and remain professional in the meantime and don’t discriminate agaisnt this assistant.

I have used the term assistant where i mean apprentice!!

@Catza, I agree with you there. However, it should not be on par. Presumably, there are regulatory issues involved here with providing advice, etc., so participation beyond sitting in will be limited.

Ideally, there continues to be a difference in responsibility between the two roles, so perhaps the apprentice can be taken along to less important clients and a smaller number of them. Also, this should then be linked to learning objectives, like reflection, etc.

You previously stated that the assistant should have more responsibility than the apprentice because she already had a degree and is working towards further qualifications.
You're correct - if and only if the assistant role is officially meant to be a pathway towards a junior planning role.

That's not always the case. Many graduates can't find a 'graduate role' in their field and so have to settle for a lower grade role that doesn't necessarily require a degree. Also while there's nothing stopping the assistant from getting qualifications and learning opportunities, becoming a junior client facing planner like the OP might not be a planned 'progression path'.

I was a bit confused by the OP's post because of the term planner. Usually it's a financial adviser that does the client meetings, however the review and research is done by paraplanners who then provide recommendations to the advisers. The latter wouldn't see clients. Maybe by 'planner' OP means 'financial planner'?

While being a paraplanner can be a stepping stone to becoming a financial adviser, it's now a career in its own right.

A bit like how a paralegal can become a solicitor. But they're obviously not guaranteed the role as a natural progression path unlike someone who has obtained an actual training contract, regardless of previous experience.

You say the relationship the apprentice is in is not relevant, but I think you are seeing it as highly relevant and allowing it to cloud your judgement.

Does the relationship breach any HR policies? Does he have managerial responsibility for her? Is it predatory? If not, then it is none of your business.

There quite possibly has been some sort of conversation where the apprentice has said to her boyfriend that she doesn't feel she is being developed and he has said to the senior planners. That doesn't make it wrong - from what you are saying she isn't in fact being properly developed.

I think you don't like her for a variety of reasons, boyfriend, family background, degree apprenticeship path rather than traditional working the way up the ladder and you are allowing that to influence your opinion of her and how you treat her.

To be blunt, if this was my private company and we were trying to make money, I’d want to give her a leg up. She comes from money. Her parents and no doubt lots of their mates are targets of the firm. She has contacts with them. If you take a step back and look at it from a purely financial point of view it makes most business sense to promote her. The company don’t have to promote those who work hard but have no contacts over the person who will make the firm profit.

So she has been asked to resend an email?!

How challenging!

She may have highlighted some concerns herself to upper management and that could be why she is getting earlier opportunities

Im sorry but you need to suck this up or it’ll be you who gets called into the HMs office next!!

The last paragraph sums it up exactly. I'd definitely be on OP side if she stated that the apprentice was being given more opportunity than is normally the case.
Whether OP likes it or not the apprentice and the assistant are on two different paths. They're not comparable.
Also it's unclear how promotion is supposed to work based on the two job roles.

I think I might be working with a different definition of social mobility. For me social mobility is the opportunity for people to improve their socioeconomic status over the course of their lifetime or when compared to their parents.

The apprentice is described as from a family with money and the assistant is described as working harder and waiting longer to get the privilege requested for the apprentice. I'm trying to unpick why one is an apprentice and the other an assistant and if any promises were made to the assistant when she started but which cannot now be met because the company has subsequently taken on an apprentice.

I’m not sure why it’s hard to understand why one is an apprentice and one an assistant? They took different paths?

The assistant decided to complete a traditional degree, then take on a job as an assistant (fairly common) and is now doing the relevant exam to become qualified.
The apprentice is much younger, applied to do a degree apprenticeship (through UCAS I believe), the idea is where she finishes her course all she will have to do is the exam which she should have a head start with as a lot of the content is covered on the academic part of her degree?

Social mobility doesn’t come into it, it’s 2 different paths and the apprenticeship pay started on well above minimum wage for a 18 year old, and climbs so that in her 3rd year she’s on the same pay as the assistant.

People take the pathways they are aware of and what they are aware of varies depending on their background.

Sometimes it can be frustrating to see one person who is working hard to follow the path into a career as described by Google get overtaken by someone with more social capital who knows exactly which things are essential to do to progress and only does those.

However, based on your replies that isn't what you are concerned about here.

Let me reassure you both these young women attended private schools, come for financially comfortable backgrounds and come into work with Rolexes and Louis Vuitton bags everyday.

This is not a social mobility issue.

I’m not sure why it’s hard to understand why one is an apprentice and one an assistant? They took different paths?

This isn’t hard to understand at all, but the information we don’t have is what has been committed to re the assistant’s role and development. The title assistant doesn’t suggest automatic progression to qualification in either a set time or at all.

Apprentice on the other hand does, and it really doesn’t sound like she’s getting the development opportunities you’d expect an apprentice to have.

Whether or not the assistant is also being unnecessarily delayed or hindered in her development is impossible to say. Regardless, her development is completely separate from the apprentice’s and not a reason to hold the latter back.

Exactly.
@Quackaduck Your replies make your attitude even more strange. Both these young women are equally privileged. In your OP you seemed to dislike the apprentice because she was from a wealthy family the implication being the assistant wasn't.

Unless you're going to clarify that actually, in your understanding, the assistant should naturally progress along the same path as the apprentice, @CardamomGarden has it right.

@Quackaduck

let me assure you it really is none of your business as to the progression rates of these two team members

that is an issue for senior management and them alone - you are there to simply carry out their instructions and act on any decisions they make

you come across rather bitter - honestly just relax and let things go, work, home, get paid and spend your dollar!

@Quackaduck this is just the way it works. Nursing Assistants could have 20 years on the job and then Nursing students come along and do things that a Nursing Assistant isn't allowed to do in their first year. That's the result of choosing to be a Nursing Asssitant.

Your job is to give the apprentice the skills she needs. I think it's dreadful that she has so far done basic admin and answered a couple of phone calls.

This isn't what modern degree apprenticeships are like, not at my workplace anyway. Competition is fiercer than it is for university entry, the quality of candidates is higher and we would expect our apprentices to be more job-ready at the end of their apprenticeship than a university graduate would. They are effectively expected to out-perform university graduates over the three years because they gain the qualifications but also the experience on the job. A graduate is likely to need some support on entering the world of work, but an apprentice would be expected to work in the role fully independently by the point of completion. That's why degree apprenticeships are notoriously fast-paced and challenging.

That's also why they are paid and a university student is not, it's not about doing a bit of admin to earn their keep at all. They are meant to be the creme-de-la-creme.

Hence this employer is failing their apprentice - she doesn't particularly sound on track to be employment-ready after 3 years.

the relationship and the "her family are actually now on our target client list" seem the main reasons why your ment to include her, basically its good for business rather than whats morally correct or fair.