CITB Construction skills

villabadger

Lifeisbutadream wrote: »

Oh and I dont encourage any of that political correctness either! I might be in charge, but I like being wolf whistled at as well

I hope you don't distract the guys - especially when they are playing with their hammers or chops saws. Could be a H & S issue:p

Sambucus_Nigra

adr0ck wrote: »

Come on CITB person give us your reasons for the following:

1. Why do secretaries wages count towards the training levy for tradesmen?

2. Why do surveyors (who already pay for training through RICS) wages count towards the training levy for tradesmen?

3. Why do plumbers (who already pay for training through their membership association) wages count towards the training levy for tradesmen?

4. Why do electricians (who already pay for training through their membership association) wages count towards the training levy for tradesmen?

These are simple questions that all of us on here would like answered.

Please stop hiding and give us a proper grown up answer.

Even worse than just secretaries etc being included when calculating the levy is that, when I first joined CITB - one member of staff in the grant section would refuse ALL grant for females as they were not 'in the industry'; as the grant is only payable for construction trades. :eek:

We had to find ways of getting round that so we would recommend that everyone put their job title as 'operative' - and just an initial to get round it.

One lady was a site supervisor and her first aid grant was refused as women don't go on site; erm yes they flippin do. We had a huge fight over that one.

The issue of plumbers is as I've mentioned before...

If a company is a plumbing company they are out of scope because that activity is out of scope.

If the company is in scope because overall they do work that is in scope [general builders for example] then they are in and all their wages are included on the levy form. You can't take individual trades off this just because the individual trades are not in scope....

adr0ck

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

The issue of plumbers is as I've mentioned before...

If a company is a plumbing company they are out of scope because that activity is out of scope.

If the company is in scope because overall they do work that is in scope [general builders for example] then they are in and all their wages are included on the levy form. You can't take individual trades off this just because the individual trades are not in scope....

thats the bit i find most unfair

why should plumbing companies be excluded but plumbers working for builders not be excluded

the reason that plumbers are excluded is because they already pay towards training - yet plumbers that work for builders pay exactly the same training so in effect have to pay twice

this is the bit that is most unfair

Sambucus_Nigra

Because it is the company that is liable for the levy, not individuals....and if they let individual non-construction trades be removed from the levy then their income would be much less.

It would be better if only plumbing companies did plumbing then no plumbers would pay - so in effect the companies are choosing to do plumbing rather than leaving it to plumbers to do outside of the levy system.....and thus it is their choice so are liable for the levy on that trade the same as all their trades.

adr0ck

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Because it is the company that is liable for the levy, not individuals....and if they let individual non-construction trades be removed from the levy then their income would be much less.

It would be better if only plumbing companies did plumbing then no plumbers would pay - so in effect the companies are choosing to do plumbing rather than leaving it to plumbers to do outside of the levy system.....and thus it is their choice so are liable for the levy on that trade the same as all their trades.

that doesn't make any sense

how as a construction company can you not employ a plumer to carry out a plumbers trade

are builders supposed to build extensions / houses etc and then leave the client to employ a plumber under a seperate contract to install bathrooms / heating?

Sambucus_Nigra

adr0ck wrote: »

that doesn't make any sense

how as a construction company can you not employ a plumer to carry out a plumbers trade

are builders supposed to build extensions / houses etc and then leave the client to employ a plumber under a seperate contract to install bathrooms / heating?

I'm not saying it's right, just that's the way it is [interpreted]. It brings in the money to the CITB. :beer:

adr0ck

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

I'm not saying it's right, just that's the way it is [interpreted]. It brings in the money to the CITB. :beer:

i don't see how any tax especially one which is so obviously unfair can be celebrated

Lifeisbutadream

adr0ck wrote: »

i don't see how any tax especially one which is so obviously unfair can be celebrated

I dont think SN meant that he was celebrating - only that the CITB were!

I dont think they get any of their money by doing anything fairly! I think we can all agree on that...

Sambucus_Nigra

Lifeisbutadream wrote: »

I dont think SN meant that he was celebrating - only that the CITB were!

I dont think they get any of their money by doing anything fairly! I think we can all agree on that...

Exactly - although like yourself I am a she.

Interesting they they have been 'asked' not to contribute any more...call me a cynic but I expect it was the other way around.

villabadger

To those of you that have used plumbers or leccies, did you contract them on a labour only basis? These guys (not gender specific:D) usually like the benefits of supply and fit

Can you reduce the 'tax' on this basis? Sorry if this appears to be a stupid suggestion but after re-reading their definitions etc and looking at the form, maybe you could choose to omit their invoices or get them re-worded as 'supply and fit'? How are the citb going to know? Do they check all of your purchase invoices?