Harsh treatment of young EMPLOYEES, or not, comments please?

this forum is mainly for farriers - all are welcome but don't enter if you are easily offended!

Moderator: admin

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Harsh treatment of young EMPLOYEES, or not, comments please?

Postby PNB » Sun May 10, 2009 6:34 pm

All,

It seems plans are well advanced for apprentices to be sacked by a third party [FTAMB], should they be "BACK BLOCKED" twice by the farrier colleges. it seems they will be disqualified from continuing with their apprenticeships. The ATF conference save for your elected representative, [I appeared out of step here] took what I feel is the unusual step in agreeing with the policy, two stripes and out. How do you feel about this?? I am open to suggestion how I should proceed!!

Further, in future all apprentices who fail their technical certificate will have to pay to resit the exam. £500 was the figure stated today, [yet at TAC the figure given was £1000, (£500 for the exam and a further £500 to WCF for administration costs of their craft secretary!!) ]. How do you wish me to proceed?? Funnily enough having passed NVQ3 and the money being drawn down by FTA (from LSC or its successor body) for completion of NVQ {completion payment}, they will not be eligible to register in the UK.

As an aside, I wonder about registration under EFFA?? Please advise what actions you wish me to follow.

PNB.

csc
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:40 am
Location: berks

Postby csc » Mon May 11, 2009 5:47 am

peter you must be aware that legaly after completing the nvq one is alowed to practice farriery.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Who pulls the STRINGS?? Exit stage left DipWCF ??

Postby PNB » Mon May 11, 2009 6:21 am

Stuart,

That is what I thought, but if I follow my logic, it seems then that the only register the NVQ 3 farrier's will be able to register on, is the EFFA version the one administered by the retired ex FRC Registrar.

I hope the FTAMB have fully thought this this through, and the possibility of actions under the various employment acts/laws of "A CONSTRUCTIVE THIRD PARTY TERMINAION OF EMPLOYMENT" for those "Employees" [please remember these are employees and not STUDENTS !!] subjected to, "TWO STRIPES AND OUT"!!

"CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL CLAIMS", in the above circumstances are something I, no we at FRC must morally find difficult to defend!!

Do I again detect someone again setting rules to get around and be outside of "PRIMARY LEGISLATION", without going through the pleasantries of legislative amendment?? Who knows.

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Mon May 11, 2009 7:20 pm

CSC & Peter, It was set in stone when we were asked many years ago to set the NVQs that to get on the register one HAD TO pass the DipWCF. And I will myself fight tooth and nail to make sure this promise is kept by all, regardless of those who were not there at those meetings. As far as apprentices being thrown out if they don't come up to scratch, I am fully behind such a move, after witnessing many of these students work well after taking their DipWCF three and four times. We don't need them, and most certainly the horse doesn't.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Mon May 11, 2009 8:48 pm

John,

The proforma for NVQ's has been changed, been amended and shortened since then, we are trying to fight history.

Seemingly my enquiries seem to demonstrate that the Dip WCF is holding on by the skin of its teeth, and seems only because it has been incorporated in the NVQ system, yes, INCORPORATED as a UK technical certificate, how, must been a stroke of genius.

To my disgust, Europe seemingly doesn't need such a certificate to measure up with its EFFA qualification, the future of the Dip WCF to me would seem a bit tenuous, we certainly will have to fight tooth and nail with the Euro Farrier Certification as being the standard to practice, in order to make the Dip sustain, I am glad you are on board for this scrap.

Kicking out apprentices, can it be anything other than effectively a third party constructive dismissal from EMPLOYMENT. One lawyer has already again just been briefed. As an aside and council had to pick up a £23k [uninsured] damages and legal bill, and then reinstate rather than go to tribuneral,[it has been reported, the advice was FRC training had not a chance of winning in the courts!!] last year for doing just that to an ATF and his employees!!

My question was, how do you wish me to proceed here, but please remember the significance of your input as you no longer employ trainees.

PNB.

csc
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:40 am
Location: berks

Postby csc » Wed May 13, 2009 5:39 am

this debate was debated ages ago on this very forum if someone wanted not to take the dip w then legally they would have a right to go on the register.
however i side with john that the dippy w must be fought for as a dilution of standards would not be a desired outcome in my book and i think peter you feel the same as i suspect all those on frc do

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Wed May 13, 2009 6:13 am

Stuart,

You are right that is what I feel, but everything must be done lawfully, in the open and with no accord taken of exceptions for EFFA!!

Read your FRC minutes Stuart, take careful note of what was said at FRC by the Registration Committee, in my little world there seems very little accord to determine the existing diploma out come, Dip WCF to be the standard.

Our rights and the rights of the horse to have the historical level of hoof care today I see as hanging very much in the balance.

If I am wrong I will stand behind saying what I do above, but in order to be fair to the craft I feel intentions have to be transparent, which to my way of thinking presently they are not. I still don't know who or what is pulling the STRINGS, but I have a fair idea who is leading it or them, an idea which I post to the body politic at the ATF conference.

PNB.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Constructive Third Party Dismissal of apprentices.

Postby PNB » Fri Jun 12, 2009 6:20 am

College Apprentice Referral Policy. Two strips and out. [ see The Forge Magazine], contract NAFBAE if you wish or use the WARS line.

This matter is still going forwards, it seem it can only be being driven by the Farriery Training Agency Management Board.

I spoke with Peter Ablett yesterday and advised him I intend to construct a letter to OFSTED this weekend. I feel this is a matter of an education establishment and a training provider stripping a satisfied secure employee away from his satisfied dependent employer. It has to be wrong at law, when the reason for doing it is not often related to what the employee doesn't do daily or at all in the course of his employment.

I need help however by more the ATFs sharing their thoughts with me regarding this proposed form of constructive sacking.

pnbaker@tiscali.co.uk.

I will depersonalise your comments and either record all of your comment or summarize anything points you wish to make, as you wish.

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:59 pm

I agree to two stripes and the apprentice is out. The Farriers Registration Act 1975 was put in place to protect the horse and no one else. I am all in favour of raising the bar higher and higher, if the horse gets the benefit.
If an apprentice thinks they can just swan through their apprenticeship by doing the minimum amount of work god help the horse when or if they scrape through the DipWCF. Because the apprenticeship in farrier starts the first day after one qualifies and continues till death. If an apprentice can't be self motivated with-in the apprenticeship, it is certain that he/she will never try to get better afterwards, which will be detrimental to the horse. Also ATFs who pick the wrong apprentice for reasons above, or can't be bothered to educate their apprentice to the highest levels should also have their ATF certificate withdrawn. Farriery has no place for cheap labour by those ATFs who abuse the system, and those apprentices coming into farriery should have pride in all that they do to achieve the highest level possible.

csc
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:40 am
Location: berks

Postby csc » Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:56 am

i have to agree with john
and peter you have a bee in your bonnet over this as you have debated the stripes and out point a number of times and had it explained the reasoning behind it a line needs to be drawn so everyone knows where they stand
after two stripes and a appeal the apprentice will be moved to another ATF we must bear in mind that not everyone has the skills to become a farrier
john as you are not a ATF i find it alarming you blame us the atf .s with such ease what about the colleges they have the nvq standards not the ATF i believe the ATF,s job is to put into practice and polish up what the colleges have taught

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Views of a non employing, non ATF,Approved Training Farrier.

Postby PNB » Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:05 am

John,

Well spoken from a [at his own choice] non employing, non ATF farrier. I hear your view point and you are not alone have no doubt!!

John,

I also here from many other sources, [drawing in the same way from the third party related sources, as you seemingly do here !!] from men that fear retribution should they speak out, "These lads are my employees, they do daily what I need them to do in order for me to earn my living, I am 100% happy with them as employees and they are 100% happy working for me". "The lads who have problem get "UNDERMINED" [phone I will explain how, its a bollocks] "and encouraged to relocate to other chosen ATFs", [which causes real bad vibes, several examples]. "In return I provide them with a forge [£10K PA] a Vehicle [ £10K PA, for the last two years, pay their wages whilst they are away at college [£1500 PA], apart from their normal wage and NI £250 per week, variable NMW], holiday pay 4 weeks, look after their social worries, console them when the stress levels of examinations mean they could easily loose their employment", [due to a third party constructive dismissal, " after 2 simply mistakes, as simple as one burnt shoe or a broken stamp!!" [A FACT].

John,

Sorry if this response seems a bit HARD on you it needs to be said. Thanks all the same your response was just what I wanted to see. I will be copying this entire thread to the Training Chief Executive, Peter Ablett The National Farriery Training Agencies [NFTA] and OFSTED, shortly to enable them to review the impact of the proposed "Two Strips and out", NFTA policy/response as sufficent for employment dismissal [Enabling Contracted Apprentice Sackings], within COLLEGE APPRENTICE REFERAL POLICY!! [CARP].

pnbaker@tiscali.co.uk , Mobile 07879817175. You have elected me to national office, if you are suffering as above or have suffered I maybe can and definatly will help to give you a voice, if you ask, and point you to cost efficient legal advice as necessary. First of all how ever get LEGAL indemnity, direct from "DAS" direct or through the far cheaper route your NAFB&AE membership. The first half hour of advice is free, but then on it ain't cheap!!

[Sorry all you misinformed doubters, haven't I just recommended NAFB&AE membership!!

PNB.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Valuable. A caution,"Don't gamble with the crown jewels

Postby PNB » Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:31 am

Stuart,

After an appeal, fine but when the result of the appeal gets taken to the High Court, "See how they ran"!! and pay up the £22k costs [the bulk out of your registration fees] even without referral to the serving membership elected onto FTAC or FRC!! [seemingly against the rules of council, currently subject of two formal complaints]. What was done and the way it was done was simply illegal [proven by council solicitors advice], no matter how much it was desired by the FTAMB.

The words Chickens comes to mind, when OFSTED and LSC get the form, "WILL A SIMILAR CHICKEN RUN-PIE NEED TO BE EATEN". [Remember there is a corporate responsibility within, and Sefton House is ultimately up as a bond, should we come up against a grumpy Old Judge. How much is a LIFE LONG employment as a FARRIER WORTH?? [Top line maybe more than the total assets of FRC!!]

The facts are we won't know until we ask!!

PNB

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:00 am

John,

Drawing from what you have posted about recently, and in the past, regarding recently qualified apprentices, comments made by you for nearly a decade, "has raising the bar through the super FTAMB, its rules and contracts, the system of NVQs which the craft rejected NVQs, yet we got it anyway", improved matters regarding street shoeing standards??

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Sun Jun 14, 2009 3:25 pm

Stuart, you are correct in your observations that I am no longer an ATF. But you are very wrong in your assumptions that because I have given up training apprentices, I no longer take an interest in to what is going on, or watch other ATFs and their apprentices during their time. And be sure my observations are not just around the Bristol or South West area's.
Also as I have a working forge here at Pucklechurch, I get many apprentices and those people wishing to become one, having days of forge practice here, with no charge to the pupil, just a bit of pride for myself that I have tried to help another person fulfill their ambition. Peter, as regards to the NVQs, if the DipWCF exam was raised even to a higher level especially on the practical side, it doesn't matter if we have them or not, because all apprentices would have to raise their standards 100% to pass this exam before being allowed onto the Farriers Register.
Finally, just take a good look at the quality of professional standards in this country today, after making it possible for every Tom, Dick or Harry to become a brain surgeon, even top Universities are getting embarrassed having some of these pupils walking their corridors. There is nothing wrong sweeping roads or being an employee on a production line, providing you do it better than the other person. No one should think they have a god given right to to anything in this world, and we should not have to pander to those who don't try. It was very interesting to see how few ATFs were at the Bath & West Show this year to watch and encourage their first year apprentices?

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

As clear as mud!! Think on.

Postby PNB » Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:51 pm

John,

We are Europeans now, it is not yet quite clear but I have very little doubt that the NVQ Technical Certificate Dip WCF, will not be essential in order to practice farriery in the UK, seemingly thanks to the central core of the body politic farriery, NVQ 3 is what will be needed in Europe, does it then not follow that the same critera will follow here.

Entry onto part one of the UK register maybe something else. It seems the possibility is The Dip WCF may not be a prerequisite to practice. C-EF seems to be the buzz phrase, and NAFB&AE the issuing authority.

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:47 pm

Peter, if you and others wish to proceed in making sure that farriery in this country is available to even the lowest denominator then carry on. I for one will not accept such a proposal for the horse's sake. If you and others continue to force horse's in the UK to be shod by anyone who wants to earn a living regardless of their ability, then lets get rid of the Farriers Registration Act 1975 now and be done with it. I will put the horse's welfare well above the welfare of people who have their own private agenda, or just want to make a few bob. It seems to me that you Peter as a representative would rather have every waif and stray shoeing horse's rather than those who have, or are trying to reach the top in their ability. May I suggest you drop all the politics of the industry and concentrate on the basic values that go towards shoeing our horses in the UK to the highest level possible. That being, the right person selected, the right ATF training, and the best system to raise standers even higher.

csc
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:40 am
Location: berks

Postby csc » Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:31 am

john your last posting is spot on i only hope peter you take it on board

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

I don't need your inuendo, the state is bust mate.

Postby PNB » Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:02 am

John,

Don't include me in the above rant, we, 5+ of us farriers, went to The House of Lords and DEFRA, to try and stop this erosion of standards.

When push comes to shove Alex C, Stuart C and PNB are/were there as window dressing, we have something to say for the working craft but the central core body politic farriery don't give a jot!! It is a hopeless task, if it doesn't change, I foresee the Act will collapse through loss of a supporting registration structure.

Drawing from a comment by The Registrar at FRC 10th June 09, HORSESHOERS seem NO LONGER TO NEED TO BE ON PART ONE OF THE REGISTER, TO WORK IN THE UK. I undertook before council to clarify the matter through, Lord Addington, Baroness Golding [our friends in The Lords] and DEFRA. But it sounds hopeless.

Seemingly FRC had a meeting with DEFRA following our visit to the LORDS, a meeting the original 5+ enquirers were excluded from, well not included anyway, even though our request was made before DEFRA!! The outcome has never been to my knowledge published to full council, a real Democratic NO NO maybe.

It is hugely sad that the EFFA register and NVQ 3 is the current standard for the EU register, and even MWN/NAFB&AE C-EF register is a fall back position of no substance in the big picture. Seemingly if you have worked for two years in EUROPE but outside the UK, can prove it by a paper trail, Europe's front door is permanently open!! It stinks John, STANDARDS as we know them don't enter the arena, it appears what we have left is a shrinking CASH COW, it's purpose to be milked for as long as possible.

Depressed, YOU BET.

PNB.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Multitasking ??

Postby PNB » Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:19 am

John, Stuart,

We are here to give the craft a VOICE, shout and scream at me personally if you wish, I hear, apprentices and ATFs have problems with CARP, a fight for the rights of the EMPLOYER needs support.

Johns protestation's it seems have been introduced as part of a side show.

As per my last posting, EFFA, C-EF, MWN, and the NAFB&AE register are on the main stage and should hold all of our concentration.

PNB.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:01 pm

John,

I made the following comment before council on the 10th June 2009.

I hope you do accord, "All we should be interested in, is producing competent apprentices to shoe horses, drop all the fluff and dross, we simply need trained competent tradesmen at the end of it all".

A 95% successful pass out at the end of the apprenticeship, seems to be upheld as sufficent, John, I assume you don't agree ??

PNB

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:16 pm

Peter you can get a 100% pass rate as long as we keep standards low enough. I am not interested in the percentage game, I am far more interested in what we have as a finished product. Whilst a person is in their apprenticeship, they have scrutineer's every three months in the form of Field Officers, Verifiers, Assessors, and Examiners. Which still can't turn out 75% of farriers which would get me to shake in my boots by their practical skills. And the worry about your figure of 95% pass rate is that from the time they do pass till death, not one Field Officer, Verifier, Assessor, or Examiner will ever check their work. The only check on the new farrier, would possibly be from a veterinary surgeon, who is unskilled in the practical sense, and would never refer that farrier to the FRC for a revision course. If we turned out top rate professionals in the first place with a strong conscience in the work that they do, the Farriers Registration Council would then be fulfilling their responsibility for what the 1975 Act was put in place to deal with. We have far too many young crap farriers around without adding to it. And many of the top flight farriers unfortunately are not in the highest seats on the committees to change anything, and those who are prefer to be there just for their self importance. It seems to me that the more paper work we introduce, the less hammer work will be achieved, and on that point I have never witnessed a horse being shod with 1000 reams of A4. Let me stress I don't include myself as a top farrier just a very conscientious one, who can see the difference between an adequate job of shoeing to one that is dismal.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

You make the case well!! College hands on shoeing shortfalls

Postby PNB » Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:18 am

John,

I think there lies the nub of it, I will cite a comment, one of my ICONS, a fifteen year + college tutor!!,"We should be training apprentices to SHOE HORSES (while they are at college), not training them to become (beautiful) BLACKSMITHS". ( brackets = my rational).

It is still reported to me that the lads at college rarely apply shoes to horses at college, when under any of the supervision that you outline above, as little as 2 1/2 to 4 sets in the 23 weeks of training it seems is about the mean!! To shoe a pair of feet on one horse daily, is the exception and not the rule, mostly single feet, front or hind "pairs" never it seems, not even during the Dip WCF. [At one college the only one I know about] an outside of campus farrier, not even an ATF shoes the college horses!!

If!! as you say the college training outcome is "so deficient", then the "Hands On" college incidents of out of the work place horse shoe application shortfall surely must be addressed. Because during their working lives, that is what the college qualified lads will be doing,not being BEUTIFUL workers of iron, and as YOU say, that is what they will be judged on, as YOU see.

Comment: The application of personally hand made horse shoes in the street seldom happens, and when it does it is because the shoes the apprentices have to make as part of their training require / need to be USED UP!!

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:33 pm

Peter, on your comment of apprentices being taught to be beautiful workers of iron, I think you may have already lost the plot. Hand made shoes or machine made shoes still need forging and still can be finished off in a respectable fashion regardless to it being at a competition, college, or the workplace. Especially in the workplace where someone is paying you to do a professional job. And why should apprentices shoe horses everyday at college when they should have an ATF teaching them everyday to do that. I would have thought that the time an apprentice shoes horses at college, is the time they want to see if the ATF is teaching the apprentice at all, and not using him/her as cheep labour. Yes the system is flawed, but it's not one sided by a long chalk.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:11 pm

John,

Your Quote, ,"Hand made shoes or machine made shoes still need forging and still can be finished off in a respectable fashion regardless to it being at a competition, college, or the workplace. Especially in the workplace where someone is paying you to do a professional job". End quote.

John, with an attitude towards your fellow workers like that I doubt you have ever had the plot!! Today, the modern day shoes don't need to be forged out, apart from a quarter straighten, or a blow too, or a heel send on Ready Made Shoes Fall on, Hot or Cold!!!!

The Jim Blurton range of bar shoes with the speed toe have taken away any need to forge bar shoes. The New Equitech Cuff products and associated technology alone or with these bar shoes allow a farrier to encompass almost all horses needs, without a single forging.

Sadly as it may be things have moved on, A QUALITY AND STANDARD OF forging skills NEEDED TODAY is negligible, in order to achieve the very best of outcomes, like 70 results from 70, 100% sound outcomes from very serious conditions, P3 fractures, seedy toe, white line disease through sheared heels to limb deviation assistance aqnd imballance correction. The sun shines up here in Wiltshire today.

The need for Forging Shoes from Bar Stock is now out of a matter of choice, not a need, which has been reduced to the practice of a non obligatory "ART FORM", sad or otherwise as it may be. And you are wrong, the horse is the beneficiary not a sufferer.

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:43 pm

Well you keep to your opinion Peter, I will still maintain that if you can't make a good shoe you will never be able to alter one, or fit it, handmade or machine made. And if you cant dress a foot correctly, no matter what you put on it, it wont work to improve foot function which is paramount. That is why in today's shoeing of horses we have all these gadgets coming onto the market to fix so-called bad footed horses. yet if the basics had been carried out in the first place using a bit of time and common sense, most of these products would never be needed.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

"OCCUPATIONAL" standard", "VOCATIONAL&qu

Postby PNB » Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:00 pm

John,

So you agree then apprentices should be taught at college to shoe horses, prepare feet, dress feet level, fit shoes from what ever source, [and even like the 95% of the rest of us without apprentices, off the shop shelf], and attach them to hooves and finish off such work.

TO SHOE HORSES, John??

PNB.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:45 am

John,

Your quote, "It was very interesting to see how few ATFs were at the Bath & West Show this year to watch and encourage their first year apprentices?" End Quote.

The apprentice training system in place at the moment discriminates both financially and socially against the one man band who wishes to have a single cost efficient apprentice working with them, in return for the lad being taught the skill that enable efficient horse shoeing then!! The interest in seeing your lad compete against other lads then seemingly has evaporated!! [ Your Observation!!].

I concluded long since, that it was no longer either socially or economically viable for a man working alone to employee an apprentice, and as such the life skilled UK farriers have walked away from the system!! You and I and many dozens of men identified to me have similarly WALKED and are still walking. Why, simply because of the system!! in place and the level of controls maybe disproportional controls at that, insisted upon. John, that is where the problem lies!!

Farriery does not fit well into any of the government boxes it is and should be unique [one man and his lad], and until the body politic farriery realise this, and allow the craft to employ on a need for needs basis, and become self financing and employer requirement led, things won't change. Government money for farriery training is not needed other than to sustain the TRAINING ADMINISTRATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE, [keep Sefton House bums on seats!!]. Government funding has become a cash cow, to be milked as long as it exists, it may be as well to note, all lactation comes with an end date!!

I have little doubt that young men would still become competent farriers, find employment, and be trained, if government funding was to cease today!! We heard at council, things money/funding maybe critical, the LSC is struggling, DEFRA can only just meet its obligations, the colleges seemingly cannot function on the money FTAMB are prepared to put up!!

Matters funding are so bad in the UK at present I feel. I said and honestly meant at council on 10th June 2009, a contingency should the system implode has been put in place by the new "Farriery Training Chief Executive", working with farriers, for a system of E/Learning to kick in when it becomes necessary.

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:05 pm

At present Peter, I don't know the best way forward of apprentice training. One thing I am certain of though is that full time College training
would not work in the best interest of the apprentice or in deed the horse. We have far too many pen pushers and institutionalized persons in the College system at the moment over 24 weeks of an apprenticeship, think of how our newly qualified farriers would be like in the real world if they were at College permanently for the whole duration of an apprenticeship.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:37 pm

On another issue regarding apprentices, you may all like to take a look at a letter I sent out.


The Registrar
The Farriers Registration Council
Sefton House
Adam Court
Newark Road
Peterborough
PE1 5PP

17 June 2009



Dear Mrs Heather,

My reason for writing to you and members of council is because of growing concern over the numbers of apprentices we are still training to carry out the art of farriery in the UK.

As of May 14th 2009 there were 2567 registered farriers in parts 1, 2, 4, and 5, with a further 79 in part 3.

As of May 14th 2009 there were 447 apprentices in training within the UK which are broken down in the following manner: 1st Year Apprentices: 106. 2nd Year Apprentices: 108. 3rd Year Apprentices: 107. 4th Year Apprentices: 126.

I am fully aware that the Farriers Registration Council or the Farriers Training Agency doesn’t select apprentices to be trained, and that the persons responsible for taking on new apprentices is solely down to the Approved Training Farriers (ATF) I am also aware of laws and rules connected to any industry that receives government funding. But many of these laws/rules have no bearing with the farriery industry, or the horse of which we are all trying to protect.

Many council and committee members may not be aware of an alarming state of affairs looming in the farriery trade which unknowingly is being created by many ATFs with a selfish attitude towards the trade in general and the future.

To explain in simple terms: An ATF will take on one apprentice to train, and will increase the clientele to cover the extra wages and expenses incurred. Naturally when the apprentice is studying at the School of Farriery, or on holiday, the ATF finds that he has to cover all the extra work alone whilst the apprentice is away. So the ATF takes on another apprentice so that there is always some help, but of course the ATF will try and increase the clientele even further to cover wages for the extra staff.

The problem starts to escalate when the apprentice finishes the apprenticeship and sets-up business.
Regardless to which area that newly qualified person sets-up in business, the ATF still has too much work for one person to service, therefore instead of cutting down his clientele, he takes on yet another apprentice.

Call this cheep labour by the back door, you can call it what you like, but this course of events which is escalating, can only in time be detrimental to what the Farriers Registration Act 1975 was set-up to do, stamp out Cruelty to Horses from poor shoeing practices.

I am fully aware that the FRC Act 1975 was put in place because of farriers and not for farriers, it was established to protect the horse. But members of the FRC and committee members of other controlling organizations must appreciate that farriery is also a commercial industry.

With too many farriers brings a recipe for a price war: A price war brings on a recipe for poor quality work: Poor quality work is a recipe of more horses being referred to a veterinary practice. And on this note please remember that it is not one poor shoeing job that cripples horses, it is a series of poor shoeing jobs that cripple horses. Our work as good qualified tradesmen and women is to keep horses away from veterinary practices, and to avoid at all cost to our clients horses turning up at these veterinary practices, because of poor shoeing that result in a lameness which cannot be corrected in a very short period, if ever.

The above concerns and observations have no personnel attachment to me or my business. At 63 years old with my house bought and paid for, the children long flown the nest, and a regular four to five sets of shoes a day, makes me a very contented person. We all know that the good conscientious farrier will never have problems getting work, or have problems getting the right price for that work. (This isn’t a boast; I am still learning how to shoe horses well everyday)

Too many farriers racing around shoeing fewer horses that need shoeing, will make the Farriers Registration Act 1975 a complete farce in controlling what it set out to do. Stopping cruelty to horses because of poor and bad shoeing practices




Yours truly,

J C Ford

Copies To: The Farriery Training Services
Chairman JFTC (C T Swan)
Worshipful Company of Farriers

csc
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:40 am
Location: berks

Postby csc » Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:31 am

john you have my support

Giles
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:41 am
Location: Wales
Contact:

Postby Giles » Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:33 am

Well said John, and so true. The rubbish Farriers are out there already. Why do you think we get so many problems with horses feet that I never got with my own clients ever, we know why but I think they dont want to admit it.

Giles

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:07 am

John,

A good summary of what is written in these above threads and you have implied many times before.

The central core of farriery management cannot I feel function without "numbers!!" of trainees, yet is/was so top heavy and cost inefficient it was/is struggling to function within it's current budget, to that end it is reported 7 members of Staff at Sefton House have been made redundant, by a decision of the Farriery Training Agency Management Board, [not full council!!].

The trimming of superfluous staff had to be made, with a view to the current financial climate and the possible mass reduction of government funding for farriery training. Consolidation at Sefton House had to happen I have no doubt, further actions must follow until we are down to a sustainable staffing level of foot soldiers, [mingling in the street to the real benefit of trainee employees!!] sufficent to maintain an E/learning infra structure!! [One to support employers to support their employees to a common standard, matching the requirement of the 21st century].

Hopefully long serving and in the past very valuable staff at Sefton House will be provided with a sufficent golden handshake. These were once in another past critical time assistant and acting registrar's and respective heads of departments!!

I feel the craft should say a big thank you to them all, and I personally offer them my thanks and "FUTURE SUPPORT" should it be needed.

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:14 pm

And what may I ask Peter is that last posting all about, nowt to do with the shoeing of horses or the numbers of apprentices learning farriery. Get off the political wagon and talk constructive common sense.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:41 pm

John,

You got total accord from all of those that posted on the subject. Your comments are recorded and you have sent the definative document to the body politic. Did you want the thread to die??

It from my view point time to develop some of the above observations to their conclusion. Maybe I should start another!!

PNB.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Aid memory.

Postby PNB » Tue Jul 07, 2009 7:59 pm

John,

The National Farrier Training Chief Executive stressed at FTAC that consultation has to be just that true consultation, seemingly something to be proven as having happened and be shown as thus.

It is very easy to state consultation has been undertaken but it is its QUALITY that counts.

I pressed the training officer NFTA the other day WHY NO MEMBERS OF THE RACING OR POLO INDUSTRIES seemingly the numerically biggest providers of apprentices?? why were they not involved in the construction of FARRIERY NATIONAL OCCUPATIONAL STANDARD'S [NOS] setting group, this was more poignant when we heard bare footers were involved on mass, to be told all 2600 UK farriers were to be consulted.

It was suggested at that time, by way of a referendum, it seems this is not the case now and the proposed NOS will posted on the farriery WEB SITES, UKHSA was promised an electronic copy!! One week later I suppose it is in the post. Trouble is July is the dead line for the document's construction!!

PNB.

csc
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:40 am
Location: berks

Postby csc » Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:35 am

peter is correct and also the farriery nos was delivered on the day at the tac meeting the committee by its own rules should have presented it at least ten days prior not only that the representation of farriers to barefoot trimmers was disproportionate

csc
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:40 am
Location: berks

Postby csc » Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:36 am

peter i have tried to find the name list of those involved in NOS DO YOU HAVE THE NAMES TO PUBLISH HERE

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Breech of rules on consultation.

Postby PNB » Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:05 am

Stuart,

The document was seen for the first time on the 1st July 2009 at the F/TAC meeting, before any document can be deemed as consulted upon it has to be presented as papers of a meeting 10 days before that meeting. The outcome of this specific consultation has to be completed, before any further meetings of F/TAC are scheduled [late October]. It follows the consultation of F/TAC will then not have taken place.

You said it before, JB gave it as the reason for his resignation from F/TAC. F/TAC is window dressing!! The decisions are made else where, F/TAC inputs are never formally debated and voted upon by that committee, records of discussions are filtered out by by The Management Board before being minuted and recorded for council and The Court of the Company to see!!

I agree it is SOME SORT OF CRAFT ELECTED REPRESENTATION, documents effective "To Note" their existence, an INFORMAL CONSULTATION at best, yet I don't feel it will do by anybodies standards.

I will include CONSULTATION in the preamble to the report to LSC and OFSTED, which is now ready for posting.

I don't feel being a CRAFT ELECTED MEMBER OF F/TAC is worth a carrot to the CRAFT, however should we resign the COMPANY and NAFBAE will nominate for the ELECTED then VACANT SEATS!! giving away true elected posts.

PNB.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

NOS Steering group/committee. List as requested.

Postby PNB » Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:39 pm

Stuart,

Below are the names of the members of the steering group!!

I requested the names as your elected member on F/TAC. I have taken away the contact details in the interest of those named privacy, but added the little I could find out about the members. The only consultation I have had has been from Dan G a barefoot trimmer educator. Thanks Dan.

I feel the list is a bit short on men that actually earn their full time living day on day shoeing horses!! It seem to be devoid of members of Polo and Racing Industry Farriers.

Names :-
Nicky Butcher NFTA employee
Lisa Jarvis LANTRA employee
Jenny Smith LANTRA employee
Howard Cooper WCF appointee chair NFTAMB
Cecil Swan Appointee chair of F/TAC
Kevin Willard New chair of F/TAC, BEHEST Internal Verifyer.
Dan Guerrera Bare foot Educator
Donovan Howden College ??
Steve Lloyd Copllege
Wayne Preece College
Brian Saunders ?? Not known by FRC rep.
Nigel Gatesman Known to CSC??
Mark Johnson ?? Not known by FRC rep.
Gill Greeves BEHEST

PNB

csc
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:40 am
Location: berks

Postby csc » Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:34 am

all we can do peter it to keep reporting on this site and exposing what is going on even though they try and silence us its obvious free speech is not appreciated

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Craft Representations?? Get what you are given rather than!!

Postby PNB » Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:51 am

Further.

Stuart,

We were informed at F/TAC 01/07/09, that the working barefoot trimmers groupings had 3 specific further meetings after the initial craft/barefooter's JOINT do at LANTRA, which was stated as regarding the establishment and setting of National Occupational Standards for hoof care.

The above MEMBERSHIP list, I understand was in place to fulfill the representation for "The Craft Occupational Working Farriers". Please note my comment about the inclusion/exclusion of blue collar farriers!! [A formal request was made for Democratic Craft "Elected" members on F/TAC and FRC to be included in the grouping, at the ATF conference and the initial LANTRA bash, (by myself)].

For some reason this request was passed over, then seemingly ignored or forgotten about!! So it seems we are not going to get Formal recognised consultation specified for "FARRIERS", into which the Blue Collar Craft can have " A Recorded Structured Debate".

PNB.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Consultation document recieved in post today.

Postby PNB » Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:39 am

Stuart,

Please see a link below to the LANTRA website and the proposed NOS for farriery and barefoot trimmers, 2009 version.


I ask you to note Unit 4 which seems to cover working under horses both difficult and straight forwards animals, and the cautions which should be observed.

I feel unit 4 needs developing a wee bit, but it is a very good start!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is the link to our website area which will have the NOS uploaded next week currently it shows dates of work done so far and whats to come



http://www.lantra.co.uk/stakeholders/no ... vised-nos/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments to LANTRA or FTA most urgent!!

PNB.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:45 am

All,

Well our above comments do seem to work!!

The proposed "NOS" are as we speak, being uploaded to the LANTRA website later today!!

PNB.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Over view from the LANTRA website.

Postby PNB » Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:16 pm

All,

Please see the below abstract from the LANTRA web site, how do they form the conclusion, It is due to availability of funding that the "NON" Existent shortfall of suitable entrants is caused. Quote:- "Funding restrictions on Modern Apprenticeships are resulting in a lack of suitable entrants to the profession", end quote. A percieved shortfall detail I feel which doesn't even exists.

It is the bull Sh-one-t that government funding and LANTRA bring with them that makes training farrier apprentices both socially and economically non viable for the one man band farrier, and nothing else!! Just look at the STATS, under 200 Approved Training Farriers now remain, half what it was a couple of years ago!! Government Funding we don't need and is educationally non beneficial.

A correspondent states the current government trend is to close down parasitic cost inefficient quango's. I suggest those related to farriery training look to their laurels.

If there is a shortfall it because they LANTRA force us to abandon employing practically skilled lads who have shown dedication to helping farriers whilst still at school, for other kids with higher educational qualification, [what is now 5 GCSE,s A-C grades plus two obligatory obtained out side the school system, extra key skills [call it what they like], and what for?? To enter FUTURE PRACTICAL MEN ABLE TO WORK ALONE TO DO A DIRTY PHYSICAL JOB, self employed for their whole working lives!! Employment thats a laugh, employment doesn't come into view after the apprenticeship obligatory training is completed!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Full Quote :-"The skills of you and your staff are central to the performance of the business. Addressing the right issues – such as skills training, education, better communication and business development – can help you to improve efficiency, reduce wastage and increase your profits".

"Funding restrictions on Modern Apprenticeships are resulting in a lack of suitable entrants to the profession, and this is just one reason why farriery businesses have to be flexible and adaptable in order to remain competitive".

"Lantra can make a real difference because we understand the challenges that face you. From identifying and addressing skills issues to business development and support, we can give you access to help – when you need it". End quote.

PNB.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Lantra live proposed NOS link?? Apprentice funding vital.

Postby PNB » Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:11 am

All,

So is it now ,"Later today maybe"??

This is vital a consultation document for you the CRAFT to read, get involved in and leave formative comment upon. All ongoing apprentice funding depends on the submission of this document by September, then fully craft approved!! Its out there, I have seen a copy and made some comment. So why ain't it ONLINE??

Seems there is to be a formal consultation meeting later in JULY, I suppose that is if and when LANTRA get around to inviting the BLUE COLLAR CRAFT to meet them!! Just maybe it is "A CONSULTATION", by which LANTRA really would rather not hear the BLUE COLLAR Craft's views, who knows!!

I know I have not spoken to that many working craftsmen or aired their views upon it/about it, as I can't advise it's content, or where to find it !!

PNB.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Help requested.

Postby PNB » Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:36 am

All,

Can anybody tell me how to contact Jane Carey, ex, employee as Head of Certral Services Sefton House!!

Or please ask her to contact me. 07879817175.

PNB.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

A right pigs breakfast, contrived to an end result or not??

Postby PNB » Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:00 pm

Correspondent,

The following is as I see the things at the moment, it really boils down to my opinion, I feel as an Craft Elected Member my suggestion should by right be fully explained, demonstrated and detailed and in the full light of day!!

So is the National Farriery Training Agency, [new name 2010] a Quango or is it not a true Quango, seemingly the information being LSC and LANTRA are true farriery associated Quango's !!

The Farriers Registration Council is not a Quango, it is a not for profit organisation [like LANTRA and LSC who are actual also not for Profit Organizations], but FRC is deemed a formal craft self funded Regulatory Body.

The National Farrier Training Agency with both its Old and New Handles is WHOLELY OWNED BY FRC!! by regulation FRC seemingly should function from it registration funds.

FRC and The National Farrier Training Agency don't actually sit well together as apprenticeship and apprentice administration need money in order to exist, which seemingly under the Farriers Registration Act FRC cannot correctly draw down for its own use. Then it seems FRC act purely as a conduit to draw down central LSC [government] funding which is then immediately passed down to its own Training Agency [FTA] who distribute it to those farriery allied organisations which FTA choose, both in agreement with the FRC / LSC funding CONTRACT and otherwise, which it seems is at the Farrier Training Agencies Management Boards behest.

This disposal seemingly happens/takes place out side of the STATUTORY STRUCTURE of the FRC and FRC appointed and elected member's sight.

It would seem there is not even a contracted in obligation to report proposed significent expenditure to the full council membership prior to a payment event. Significant transactions are seemingly expedited within the Training Agency own matrix!!

A quango, maybe not in name but in reality?? that's presently your decision to make, the government however if one is prepared to accept last weeks national news, are undertaking multiple reviews presently!!

I would be grateful for a detailed and even maybe more correct overview.

PNB.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Thanks, I hope this helps!!

Postby PNB » Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:10 am

Caller,

No that is not right, a lay member of the Farrier Training Management Board highlighted in a recent report, that a certain allied farrier organisation who nominates multipule members to both FRC and FTA have strong vested interests in their continuing memberships of the same Management Board.

This is an historical matter going back to before 2003, when the Chair of FRC Finance in a FRC Meeting Minute formally drew to the attention of council, that the said organisation should correctly generate invoices to FRC for "It's half"!!

I have to ask half of what??

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:49 pm

Well Peter, I can see why you have contributed to the last eight postings on this board without an input from anyone else. Because I can't understand a word of it, and I doubt anyone else can. But please carry on mate, cause it makes me feel even better, knowing that I still have a life.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Cut me some slack??

Postby PNB » Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:12 pm

John,

A daily BLOG is a daily BLOG, drawn from daily contacts of all sources, its quite hard work to keep a daily BLOG going. You may not understand all of it, but I can assure someone always does, as almost all my postings are specific to a direct enquiry or comment from one or more of my peers!!

I think this BLOG site is unique within UK farriery, would you like me to let it die?? To me its the only voice UK farriers have to challenge what quite a lot of people view as injustice.

To my way of thinking, it would be a shame if this voice was to stop, or would it, you tell me??

I thought you would know about contacts and sources, I can turn up a few postings of not so long ago to which you and these comments relate!!

PNB.


Return to “farriers discussion board”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest