Should a plumbers mate PAY the plumber??

[kingm1988]

An interesting debate has risen from the 'work placement' thread.

A member is advertising on behalf of a trainee plumber, who has just finished their City & Guilds 6129, saying they are prepared to pay £150 per week to a plumber for the experience and their expertise.

What are peoples thoughts on this....an apprentice, a trainee, paying the PLUMBER to take them on? Is this right? Is it common place? As a plumber, would you be happy to accept money from a trainee even though you would be employing THEM?

"an absolute joke, a disgrace that the trade finds itself in,"

"you need to pay these days, otherwise what's in it for the plumber."

...these are some previous thoughts shared by other members. What do YOU think?

 

[Blackcatgas]

I think that Id have to look at the merits of each individual case.
If I was taking on an aprentice young or old with a view to training and employing him for a min of 4yrs then I would pay him (its how I got to where Iam today).

If however somone aproached me asking for a short term placement so that they can get thier course signed off and then set up in direct competition with me down the road then yes Id want somthing out of it.

A new starter for the first 6mnths will actually cost you money while you train him/fix thier F@@@ ups watch over them so they dont mess anything up etc.

My public liability would go up to £700 from the £350 per anum I already spend.