Why do learning providers in FE not have much respect?

[furiousfrog]

You raise a very valid point. Can I explain it from a salon point of view?
When you leave college, you will not be "salon ready". A salon would have to start you off practically at the bottom, you would have no "column" skills, and as such would not earn the salon a profit. You would start on full adult minimum wage. Chances are you would have other aspects to your life too such as children which would have to be worked around. It will take at the very least 2 years before you had built up sufficiently to earn a profit for the salon.
Change that to a 16 year old on training allowance, doing models as soon as they learn each module, building speed and "column skills". They get to 18 and qualify. We then pay them 18 year old's minimum wage, which is covered by the money they bring in doing models. They progress to stylist, and are well known to all the clients. They have always worked to the disciplines of a column, and by the time they are 21 and paid as an adult, they have built a clientele, and have 5 years salon experience.

At the moment, most salons are fighting to survive. They cannot take a 2 year loss on a stylist.

Also, those of us who have experienced older trainees have also found that 30 year old women with lots of experience in other sectors find it difficult to accept that an 18 year old may actually know an awful lot more than them about salon subjects. It has often caused conflicts.

Thanks for getting back to me, and I appreciate your honesty but this response absolutely horrifies me.

Essentially, you're saying that there's no place for me within the industry with my college learning, requiring adult wages!

The problem I find is this: This is my second foray into hairdressing. I joined a salon at 16 as an apprentice and was really enthusiastic. Unfortunately, my salon was very interested in cheap work and uninterested in investing time into training me. I spent almost 2 years at the salon on £30 YTA per week washing hair, sweeping floors, drying towels, mixing colour etc. etc. and in that time, I carried out possibly 5 or 6 blow-dries (all on my friends) and a one-length cut. I left, very disillusioned after this time and went into office work.

This wasn't just me - many of my friends at college had exactly the same experience and now, at college with many of the girls who are doing day release on apprenticeships, I've been told that very little has changed - the only time they learn anything is on the day-release and not in the salon.

In addition, if a salon is struggling to survive, as you say, then having to nurture a 16 year old and spare fully-qualified stylists (who will be working at full-price) to train them in techniques - this surely is going to cut fairly seriously into your bottom line. Assuming of course, that you're invested in training and aren't just using teenagers as cheap labour.

If you get a level 2 leaver with a good portfolio, a bit of initiative and an enthusiastic attitude then they're going to need far less supervision and will be able to carry out services so they'll start bringing in money straight away.

And I don't know if I accept your premise about childcare and other issues for older workers. I'm painfully aware of the girls in my local salon calling in late because of hangovers, or having problems because their boyfriend has dumped them or even of getting pregnant themselves!

I have had my children: they're almost grown-up and childcare is no longer an issue. I have significantly less drama in my life than virtually any teenager you care to mention and I would suggest that my work ethic is also significantly stronger as I have a family to support. I'm also far more conscious of business issues, profit and cost - I can guarantee I'd be a far better bargain -(despite having to pay me) than a brand-new 16 year old girl with no basic knowledge.

Lastly, I think many clients prefer older stylists - depending on a salon's "brand" most of the clients are over 25 and walking into a salon where stick-thin teenage girls giggle in a corner and all look at you when you go in can be intimidating. Having stylists that are slightly older and less truculent than teenage girls can only be a good thing!

I hope that this post doesn't sound confrontational as that wasn't my intention but I really feel I need to stick up for us older girls as I feel we've got a lot to offer in different ways and to dismiss us out of hand for learning at college is short-sighted, to say the least.

 

[Petit Basque]

Thanks for getting back to me, and I appreciate your honesty but this response absolutely horrifies me.

Essentially, you're saying that there's no place for me within the industry with my college learning, requiring adult wages!

The problem I find is this: This is my second foray into hairdressing. I joined a salon at 16 as an apprentice and was really enthusiastic. Unfortunately, my salon was very interested in cheap work and uninterested in investing time into training me. I spent almost 2 years at the salon on £30 YTA per week washing hair, sweeping floors, drying towels, mixing colour etc. etc. and in that time, I carried out possibly 5 or 6 blow-dries (all on my friends) and a one-length cut. I left, very disillusioned after this time and went into office work.

This wasn't just me - many of my friends at college had exactly the same experience and now, at college with many of the girls who are doing day release on apprenticeships, I've been told that very little has changed - the only time they learn anything is on the day-release and not in the salon.

In addition, if a salon is struggling to survive, as you say, then having to nurture a 16 year old and spare fully-qualified stylists (who will be working at full-price) to train them in techniques - this surely is going to cut fairly seriously into your bottom line. Assuming of course, that you're invested in training and aren't just using teenagers as cheap labour.

If you get a level 2 leaver with a good portfolio, a bit of initiative and an enthusiastic attitude then they're going to need far less supervision and will be able to carry out services so they'll start bringing in money straight away.

And I don't know if I accept your premise about childcare and other issues for older workers. I'm painfully aware of the girls in my local salon calling in late because of hangovers, or having problems because their boyfriend has dumped them or even of getting pregnant themselves!

I have had my children: they're almost grown-up and childcare is no longer an issue. I have significantly less drama in my life than virtually any teenager you care to mention and I would suggest that my work ethic is also significantly stronger as I have a family to support. I'm also far more conscious of business issues, profit and cost - I can guarantee I'd be a far better bargain -(despite having to pay me) than a brand-new 16 year old girl with no basic knowledge.

Lastly, I think many clients prefer older stylists - depending on a salon's "brand" most of the clients are over 25 and walking into a salon where stick-thin teenage girls giggle in a corner and all look at you when you go in can be intimidating. Having stylists that are slightly older and less truculent than teenage girls can only be a good thing!

I hope that this post doesn't sound confrontational as that wasn't my intention but I really feel I need to stick up for us older girls as I feel we've got a lot to offer in different ways and to dismiss us out of hand for learning at college is short-sighted, to say the least.

I have to say that I whole-heartedly understand how you feel.

I am a mature student of nearly 47. I hold Level 2 Beauty Therapy and Level 3 Swedish Massage and am currently back at college studying Level 3 Beauty.

I work from a home based salon and have done so since September of last year and thankfully it is all building up very nicely. I was fortunate in that I had excellent tutors at college but what was most essential for my skills and confidence were the "salon" days which we all had to undertake from Feburary to July for 2 full days a week. These took place within the college salon and formed the basis of our NVQ assessments...but more importantly, gave essential practice of handling clients, being the salon manager, being the receptionis, dealing with different situations and treatments etc...

I can honestly say that I felt no need whatsover to go into a salon when I a qualified and I am very thankful for that as it would have killed me to be on a minimum wage when I can set my own prices!

I also totally agree that a lot of clients, especially more mature clients, prefer a more mature therapist/hairdresser or whatever, who they can relate to and who they feel understand their needs and issues better. At 47, my life and people skills are far superior to when I was 18 and I have a far better attitude to my college lectures than several of the much younger girls who seem to come in as and when they feel like it!

I accept that not all college leavers will be fortunate enough to have had my experience but salons shouldn't be so quick to write off college leavers either. Surely it comes down to personality and the desire to learn and work hard....everybody has to start somewhere.

The ultimate chicken and egg scenario.....can't get experience without a job and can't get a job due to lack of experience!

PB
x

 

[lucelasticx]

In addition, if a salon is struggling to survive, as you say, then having to nurture a 16 year old and spare fully-qualified stylists (who will be working at full-price) to train them in techniques - this surely is going to cut fairly seriously into your bottom line. Assuming of course, that you're invested in training and aren't just using teenagers as cheap labour.

If you get a level 2 leaver with a good portfolio, a bit of initiative and an enthusiastic attitude then they're going to need far less supervision and will be able to carry out services so they'll start bringing in money straight away.

In a decent salon the junior will also shadow the stylists as well as doing tea , shampooing cleaning etc. They pass foils and learn loads of different foiling patterns and techniques. All the whilst learning about colour placement , chemistry etc. This is whilst a stylist is working on a full fee paying client. Juniors have probably watched 100's of colours before they attempt one themselves. During this time they will have learnt loads by osmosis ,that is it just gradually sinks in.

By shadowing different services and processes junior learn invaluable lessons that just cant be obtained at colleges.
Dont forget all the little mishaps due to technical errors or an incomplete hair history that stylists have to correct that juniors are aware of and learn from.

My only option was to go to college but i know this puts me at a disadvantage if i was to go for a job, but you know what i worked harder and continue to do so. I did voluntary work due to the financial situation minimum wage plays. The training i got was invaluable .If i was to trade test and i didnt get the job i would ask for constructive critisism to know where my weaknesses still lie.

It just baffles me that someone would think that a college education would be as good as a apprenticeship in a decent salon... there is really no comparison.
Ohh and college salons are good experience but they are no comparison to the real thing.

 

[furiousfrog]

It just baffles me that someone would think that a college education would be as good as a apprenticeship in a decent salon... there is really no comparison.

Having experienced both, I'd say that a good college experience has taught me far more than a poor apprenticeship so baffle away!

I picked up virtually nothing at my apprenticeship and whilst I appreciate that this isn't fair to good hairdressers, I'd say that any struggling salon will not be taking business away from stylists who still require paying in order to help train an apprentice who is an unknown quantity. Only well-established and profitable salons have the luxury to be able to spend the time and money to be a good training provider.

I also disagree strongly with the learn-by-osmosis theory too. People have to be actively involved in their learning. If they're handing over foils whilst gossiping about their boyfriends or nights out, then they're not learning anything. It's like buying a book and reasoning that you'll pick the contents up by osmosis without reading it!! I'd say that if someone's actively involved in their learning then they're likely to do well - whether through an apprenticeship or in college.

Now, I'm not saying that college is a replacement for experience - I'd never make that claim. But someone who has been to college for 2 years will NOT be in the same position as a brand-new 16 year old apprentice who doesn't have the life experience to even know that this is what she wants to do.

Given this, what I'm saying is that an older trainee with NVQ level 2 under her belt and life-experience that teaches her to listen to those with more knowledge, use products correctly and be aware of overheads / costs and profit margins is likely to be up and running without much supervision in a vastly shorter space of time than someone starting from scratch - this is just common sense.

 

[furiousfrog]

By shadowing different services and processes junior learn invaluable lessons that just cant be obtained at colleges.

Dont forget all the little mishaps due to technical errors or an incomplete hair history that stylists have to correct that juniors are aware of and learn from.
...snip...
Ohh and college salons are good experience but they are no comparison to the real thing.

My experience is that they're not hugely dissimilar. Can you give me an example of why they're so different? Maybe college salons vary from area to area?

 

[staceymackey]

You raise a very valid point. Can I explain it from a salon point of view?
When you leave college, you will not be "salon ready". A salon would have to start you off practically at the bottom, you would have no "column" skills, and as such would not earn the salon a profit. You would start on full adult minimum wage. Chances are you would have other aspects to your life too such as children which would have to be worked around. It will take at the very least 2 years before you had built up sufficiently to earn a profit for the salon.
Change that to a 16 year old on training allowance, doing models as soon as they learn each module, building speed and "column skills". They get to 18 and qualify. We then pay them 18 year old's minimum wage, which is covered by the money they bring in doing models. They progress to stylist, and are well known to all the clients. They have always worked to the disciplines of a column, and by the time they are 21 and paid as an adult, they have built a clientele, and have 5 years salon experience.

At the moment, most salons are fighting to survive. They cannot take a 2 year loss on a stylist.

I don't think the above can be disputed, financially. Here in Australia the government has a "Mature Aged Apprenticeship" program, where employers are offerd financial insentives for taking on older trainees and providing them with qualifications. The reason they did this was that there was a NECESSITY for the incentive with employers. xx

 

[furiousfrog]

I don't think the above can be disputed, financially. Here in Australia the government has a "Mature Aged Apprenticeship" program, where employers are offerd financial insentives for taking on older trainees and providing them with qualifications. The reason they did this was that there was a NECESSITY for the insentive with employers.

I'd respectfully disagree that it can't be disputed. Often, when there's a government incentive offered it's not because of the objective logistics of the situation, but more that there's an entrenched opinion prevalent within the industry. For example, schools in the UK were offered financial incentives to use phonics as the uptake of these were generally very slow. NOT because they weren't as good as the methods being used (there was a lot of evidence to the contrary) but mainly because there was a prejudice against using new methods because people had already decided they were a new-fangled 'fad'.

I'd say that this was exactly the same situation: people have already decided that older trainees are no good, hence there's no places available for them. However, Australia had a real problem a while back with a lack of qualified hairdressers- to the extent that they advertised in the UK, offering work visas to qualified hairdressers - no questions asked. I'd say that's a demonstration that something needed to change within the industry and the government are doing the absolute right thing by addressing it.

 

[staceymackey]

I'd respectfully disagree that it can't be disputed. Often, when there's a government incentive offered it's not because of the objective logistics of the situation, but more that there's an entrenched opinion prevalent within the industry. For example, schools in the UK were offered financial incentives to use phonics as the uptake of these were generally very slow. NOT because they weren't as good as the methods being used (there was a lot of evidence to the contrary) but mainly because there was a prejudice against using new methods because people had already decided they were a new-fangled 'fad'.

I'd say that this was exactly the same situation: people have already decided that older trainees are no good, hence there's no places available for them. However, Australia had a real problem a while back with a lack of qualified hairdressers- to the extent that they advertised in the UK, offering work visas to qualified hairdressers - no questions asked. I'd say that's a demonstration that something needed to change within the industry and the government are doing the absolute right thing by addressing it.

I understand your argument regarding government (frustrating), however totally disagree with the statement that older trainees are no good - or seen to be no good. The issue arose when it became evident that employers WANTED to take on older trainees but simply could not afford to. Here 16 yo start on as low as $7 an hour, compared to $18 for adult (industry dependent). The financial incentive allows employers the ability to choose.

We are in short supply of hairdressers because all of ours are working in coal mines . Lol

 

[furiousfrog]

I understand your argument regarding government (frustrating), however totally disagree with the statement that older trainees are no good - or seen to be no good. The issue arose when it became evident that employers WANTED to take on older trainees but simply could not afford to. Here 16 yo start on as low as $7 an hour, compared to $18 for adult (industry dependent). The financial incentive allows employers the ability to choose.

We are in short supply of hairdressers because all of ours are working in coal mines . Lol

Ok, thanks for this - really interesting. I would be more interested in the perceptions of salons in Australia taking on (college) qualified older trainees versus brand new trainees with no experience or training whatsoever. Does the training grant still apply to these, or just to apprentices with no other quals?

Other than that - I would LOVE to know why all your hairdressers are working in coal mines!? Some new glow-in-the-dark hair colour for all the fashionable miners perhaps?

 

[persianista]

I fully understand all the arguments, but can only speak from a position of extensive experience. Nobody is saying no to older college leavers for fun, or to be nasty. It is a question of economics (of which people seem to have little grasp), reality about exactly how long it takes to train, and knowledge in terms of what salons can and cant afford.

Every salon owner strives to have the best, most motivated team possible, however we also have to operate within the minimum wage laws AND make a profit.

Perhaps you should write to your MP if you would like to see the laws changed.

 

[Tomme]

I'm trying to work out the advice from my college and their policy that you need to have a minimum of 1 year salon experience before level 2, how, If salons won't employ is someone meant to get the years experience? I do agree that before level 3 you need to practice your skills so far before going for the advanced methods etc... But to contradict that it's not 100 true as I was a level 2 and had to do a piggyback perm in college, which hadn't even been explained to me until the day the client was in, and that was to only do it that day seeing as its not level 2 "stuff", needless to say I passed my assessment on it.

But to get to level 3 ready you need experience, how can you get to that stage to earn the salon more money of you can't get into a salon to begin with?!? Xoxo

 

[furiousfrog]

I fully understand all the arguments, but can only speak from a position of extensive experience. Nobody is saying no to older college leavers for fun, or to be nasty. It is a question of economics (of which people seem to have little grasp), reality about exactly how long it takes to train, and knowledge in terms of what salons can and cant afford.

Every salon owner strives to have the best, most motivated team possible, however we also have to operate within the minimum wage laws AND make a profit.

Perhaps you should write to your MP if you would like to see the laws changed.

Hi there,

To be honest, I wouldn't like to see the laws changed. I think the minimum wage is unlivable as it is and I don't like the idea of people being trapped into claiming benefits because business owners want to make larger profits.

Even though I apparently don't have a good grasp of economics, I'd argue the following:

Cost of employing an apprentice for 2 years:
£95 per week for pay: £9880
50% of training fees: @£3000 - depending on qualifications and area
In-house training costs (based on a full-time stylist earning £15ph providing training for 10 hours per week): £15,600.

So, before the apprentice has started making money for the salon, you've paid out £28,480

Adult College leaver:

According to Andrew Collinge training school, a good college leaver with level 2 qualifications can start working on some customers immediately (basic procedures), and they would expect them to be profitable within 6 months.

So: wages: £6.08 per hour (based on min wage) for the first 6 months:
£5928
In-house training costs (based on a full-time stylist earning £15ph providing training for 10 hours per week over the first 6 months): £3,900

So, total cost for a good college leaver: £9828

Now, some of these figures may be slightly different depending on your perspective, but even if you provided NO in-house training to your apprentices or college leavers this still shows that apprentices are not cheaper than college leavers and they don't require a full 2 year investment.

Therefore, I believe that the "economic" argument is a pervasive fallacy as 16 year olds are cheaper, don't tend to stick an apprenticeship out before full wages kick in and provide cheap labour in the meantime.

Good salons that offer staff progression and are profitable enough to invest in their staff would actually find a college leaver quicker to get going properly than a 16 year old school leaver. It seems to me that the smaller, struggling salons aren't in a position to offer anyone training, let alone apprenticeships.

I'll leave it there as I don't want to belabour the point any more. BUT I'll always stick up for the older girls and college leavers on this issue as I think there are other benefits that people don't see as easily.

 

[persianista]

Hi there,

To be honest, I wouldn't like to see the laws changed. I think the minimum wage is unlivable as it is and I don't like the idea of people being trapped into claiming benefits because business owners want to make larger profits.

Even though I apparently don't have a good grasp of economics, I'd argue the following:

Cost of employing an apprentice for 2 years:
£95 per week for pay: £9880
50% of training fees: @£3000 - depending on qualifications and area
In-house training costs (based on a full-time stylist earning £15ph providing training for 10 hours per week): £15,600.

So, before the apprentice has started making money for the salon, you've paid out £28,480

Adult College leaver:

According to Andrew Collinge training school, a good college leaver with level 2 qualifications can start working on some customers immediately (basic procedures), and they would expect them to be profitable within 6 months.

So: wages: £6.08 per hour (based on min wage) for the first 6 months:
£5928
In-house training costs (based on a full-time stylist earning £15ph providing training for 10 hours per week over the first 6 months): £3,900

So, total cost for a good college leaver: £9828

Now, some of these figures may be slightly different depending on your perspective, but even if you provided NO in-house training to your apprentices or college leavers this still shows that apprentices are not cheaper than college leavers and they don't require a full 2 year investment.

Therefore, I believe that the "economic" argument is a pervasive fallacy as 16 year olds are cheaper, don't tend to stick an apprenticeship out before full wages kick in and provide cheap labour in the meantime.

Good salons that offer staff progression and are profitable enough to invest in their staff would actually find a college leaver quicker to get going properly than a 16 year old school leaver. It seems to me that the smaller, struggling salons aren't in a position to offer anyone training, let alone apprenticeships.

I'll leave it there as I don't want to belabour the point any more. BUT I'll always stick up for the older girls and college leavers on this issue as I think there are other benefits that people don't see as easily.

Righty ho, you win:irked:
Am not replying further.
Good luck

 

[furiousfrog]

Righty ho, you win:irked:
Am not replying further.
Good luck

Oh, I'm sorry if I've offended you. I just wanted to see people my age get a fair chance and I'll argue for that - I'm sorry if I've taken it too far.

 

[persianista]

BTW your figures are totally utterly wrong. Do you seriously beleive that a salon owner is gonna pay £150 per week to train you, and pay you too? Deluded and clearly you have NO idea how salons and training works.
As you argue with every statement, I am happy to let you find out the hard way how our industry works.

 

[furiousfrog]

BTW your figures are totally utterly wrong. Do you seriously beleive that a salon owner is gonna pay £150 per week to train you, and pay you too? Deluded and clearly you have NO idea how salons and training works.
As you argue with every statement, I am happy to let you find out the hard way how our industry works.

Ok, that's fine. I'm really sorry if I've upset you. I did try to get my figures from reputable sources and this was the estimated cost of using the stylists already employed in the salon to train apprentices for a reasonable time each week. However, you actually run a salon so I'm happy to be told that these aren't correct.

Obviously, I'm really passionate about this subject because it's my livelihood and from what you say there's no job waiting for me which is... distressing, to say the least.

Once again, I'm really sorry to have offended you and I'll leave it there.

 

[Noodle]

... and on that note, perhaps this is the best place to close this thread.