Tradesman question.

olly300

aliasojo wrote: »

I'm just sick to the back teeth of shoddy work done by laid back tradesmen and their trainees. I wouldn't feel the same if I'd only had the odd issue, but it's taken 20 years to find a good set of workmen. We do seem to have a high percentage of those with the laid back approach up here and at least 80% of those issues have been caused by trainees/inexperienced workers.

If the work is shoddy it's the trademan's fault not the trainee's, so you need to say something asap.

The trademan should be checking on the work of the trainee to check it's up to his standard.

BTW you do know lots of self-employed people use a company name even if they aren't a limited company, so anyone can turn up they think is capable of doing the work.

aliasojo

olly300 wrote: »

If the work is shoddy it's the trademan's fault not the trainee's, so you need to say something asap.

The trademan should be checking on the work of the trainee to check it's up to his standard.

I accept this but it seems to me that some/a lot of tradesmen use the trainees as cheap labour rather than anything else. Maybe I'm just jaded (happy to accept that as a possibility) but I can only base my thoughts on my experiences.

The other thing is timing. For example we are moving and I have a strict schedule to keep to. Last bits of work need doing and I need to have a joiner, a plumber and a painter in, over a few short days before we leave and move nearly 200 miles away.

If Mr joiner's trainee stuffs up and cuts my oak short, I then have to wait until Mr joiner sources more replacement oak (we can't get this oak locally, we need to make an hour and a half long trip there and the same back) and can arrange a return time to fix it. That then interferes with the painter's schedule who was coming out to decorate the room but now can't as the oak isn't in place.

So even although Mr joiner may be entirely professional and is happy to sort out any little mishaps his trainee makes, it still has a big effect on me and is a big inconvenience. In a situation such as this, I'd just rather be able to have the option of asking for experienced people only in an effort to lessen the risk of anything not being done as well as it could be. I don't mean to upset anyone but is that really so bad to feel like that?

DVardysShadow

LargeWrench wrote: »

If everyone had your attitude how would all the apprentices get trained up? You don't just suddenly become fully trained, everybody has to start from the bottom and work their way up.

baldelectrician wrote: »

.... If someone tells me they don't want an apprentice on site I tell them to look for another contractor, as I prefer to pass my skills on to the next generation- if everybody did this then the skills gap would be massive

I understand your quality issues, but quality issues should be addressed anyway- it doesn't matter if the tradesperson or the apprentice did the work you are unhappy with, the tradesperson is responsible

I agree with these posts. I had a plasterer do out a lounge diner a few years ago. He took on a lad as a labourer for that job, and while my back was turned, the lad would do the various stages on the wall to one side of the chimney breast. I could tell by the quality of the plastering that it was not quite the plaster's own quality. But I was happy to let it happen - and the plasterer put it all right with a final skim.

I lost nothing. We all gain from someone being put on the road to being a plasterer.

DVardysShadow

aliasojo wrote: »

... So even although Mr joiner may be entirely professional and is happy to sort out any little mishaps his trainee makes, it still has a big effect on me and is a big inconvenience. In a situation such as this, I'd just rather be able to have the option of asking for experienced people only in an effort to lessen the risk of anything not being done as well as it could be. I don't mean to upset anyone but is that really so bad to feel like that?

You need to say to Mr Joiner what the timescales are and why - so that he understands whether he can put the trainee under that pressure or he has to do it himself.

aliasojo

DVardysShadow wrote: »

You need to say to Mr Joiner what the timescales are and why - so that he understands whether he can put the trainee under that pressure or he has to do it himself.

Valid point, but it's interesting that most people feel the choice is with the tradesmen.

I wonder why the customer is not afforded any say in this choice to use or not use a trainee (especially since they might be paying hundreds if not thousands of pounds).

ukjoel

Cos a tradesmen not going to be giving you a testicular examination or sticking his finger up your tradesman entrance.....

MaggieBaking

aliasojo wrote: »

I accept this but it seems to me that some/a lot of tradesmen use the trainees as cheap labour rather than anything else. Maybe I'm just jaded (happy to accept that as a possibility) but I can only base my thoughts on my experiences.

The other thing is timing. For example we are moving and I have a strict schedule to keep to. Last bits of work need doing and I need to have a joiner, a plumber and a painter in, over a few short days before we leave and move nearly 200 miles away.

If Mr joiner's trainee stuffs up and cuts my oak short, I then have to wait until Mr joiner sources more replacement oak (we can't get this oak locally, we need to make an hour and a half long trip there and the same back) and can arrange a return time to fix it. That then interferes with the painter's schedule who was coming out to decorate the room but now can't as the oak isn't in place.

So even although Mr joiner may be entirely professional and is happy to sort out any little mishaps his trainee makes, it still has a big effect on me and is a big inconvenience. In a situation such as this, I'd just rather be able to have the option of asking for experienced people only in an effort to lessen the risk of anything not being done as well as it could be. I don't mean to upset anyone but is that really so bad to feel like that?

It's not really about cheap labour. A tradesman may charge £150 a day, if they bring an apprentice with them you will still be charged £150 a day. If you have told the tradesman that you were on a tight deadline, it would seem reasonable, as I said earlier to bring in an apprentice so they can do more of the grunt work.

If you only bought enough wood exactly for the job, then that is your error particularly if you knew it was difficult to source. For example when I had some tiling done, I bought more than was needed so mistakes could be made and rectified. I factored this into the cost of the job.

I don't think it's bad to feel that way, I think it's perfectly reasonable to dictate who you want in your home. As I said, it is unreasonable that they brought in an apprentice after you specified they shouldn't.

However, I think myself and others on here are trying to dispel the notion that you are getting an unfair deal by them bringing in a labourer.

baldelectrician

aliasojo wrote: »

So how come, when you hire a tradesman, you invariably end up getting the trainee on your job too, with no regard to how you, the paying customer might feel about it?

How does an apprentice get experience?

Would you prefer your tradesperson to take another 2 hours on a 4 hour job (where the apprentice work was to a similarly good standard compared to that of the tradesmans) whilst the tradesperson did all the non menial work?


I may suggest you have had tradesmen that don't allow apprentices to develop.
I constantly get good feedback about my apprentice- one couple last week actually asked me to get my apprentice to pop in to their house (after I was paid) to allow them to give a bonus personally to him

Not all tradesmen are the same

aliasojo

MaggieBaking wrote: »

If you only bought enough wood exactly for the job, then that is your error particularly if you knew it was difficult to source.

However, I think myself and others on here are trying to dispel the notion that you are getting an unfair deal by them bringing in a labourer.

The oak that was cut short was an oak sill (for the largest window in the house). I don't think many people would buy a sill and a spare.

Accept your other points though.

baldelectrician wrote: »

How does an apprentice get experience?

Would you prefer your tradesperson to take another 2 hours on a 4 hour job (where the apprentice work was to a similarly good standard compared to that of the tradesmans) whilst the tradesperson did all the non menial work?


I may suggest you have had tradesmen that don't allow apprentices to develop.
I constantly get good feedback about my apprentice- one couple last week actually asked me to get my apprentice to pop in to their house (after I was paid) to allow them to give a bonus personally to him

Not all tradesmen are the same

I think there are plenty of people around who don't feel the same way I do so apprentices will still get their hands on experience. I realise most people wont be put up or down by an apprentice on the job, I personally would just like to have the option, that's all. An apprentice doing the menial work is one thing, but I just can't be happy about one who does the main parts of a job (like my oak sill for example).

I don't expect something for nothing, I'd be happy to pay extra for my choice.

The blokes I've got now are brilliant. I go out of my way to make their job as easy as poss, I feed them, water them, stay out their way and pay them extra sometimes, so yes, theres are some gems out there and not all tradesmen are the same. And yes, I suspect the ones I've had complete with trainees in tow have not been the most conscientious, shall we say.

Thanks to all for the comments and points made.