Chartered Accountants Annual Fee 2024

trajan said:
As an engineer I can say with confidence that for amoral as well as moral reasons that nobody without the proper qualifications and institute memberships/chartered status/etc would be taken into a position of quality responsibility in a medical device manufacturing plant. NASI auditing quality standards isn't much use if piles of individually expensive artificial knees have been churned out and passed quality checks in the meantime: the potential financial loss is too high.
Click to expand...
Okay, so I work in medical device manufacturing most of my adult life and I actually machined knee joints about 25 years ago. Very few of the engineers, technicians, tradespeople or QA people I've worked with in a career spanning more than 30 years supplying multinationals in Ireland, Europe and the USA have been members of a professional body and none of them have required that accreditation in order r to do their job.

I've been part of customer R&D teams and Design Teams, I've lead process development teams, developed process validation procedures, worked as a QA Engineer maintaining both ISO 99001 and 13485 quality management systems (that required training and certification only), worked as a CAD engineer and programmer, introduced LEAN, and served my time as a Toolmaker. I can say emphatically that no one involved in ensuring the quality of the products we've produced has ever required membership of a professional body, neither have any of the engineers I've worked with within my MNC customers.

Those engineers had Masters and PhD's and were brilliant engineers from all over the world. Their employer cared firstly about their experience and ability and secondly about their qualification. Nobody cares about whether they are members of a professional body. That all seems very anachronistic.
 
trajan said:
Leo, the emphasis in my question is on why an employer be obliged to pay pro membership fees - not what benefit might accrue to the employer/employee for so doing.
Click to expand...
You didn't mention an obligation in the original post. Are the accountancy firms really obliged? And if so by whom?

Anyway, my points is that the payment of relevant industry memberships is a common practice across multiple sectors.
 
@Purple In your professional life you have been lucky in finding such pragmatic employers. The rest of us don't seem to have it so handy.
 
@Leo

I didn't say employers were obliged. I said "be obliged" - "be" being the subjunctive of the verb to be as applied in legal English. The very context of our discussion should have eliminated the interpretation you made.

In everyday English, I meant why might an employer ever feel obliged to pay employees' annual fees ?

I ask as I see no reason for an employer to be obliged to do this.

Employers may of course propose this to employees for a variety of convenience based reasons.
 
Last edited:
trajan said:
@Purple In your professional life you have been lucky in finding such pragmatic employers. The rest of us don't seem to have it so handy.
Click to expand...
None of the engineers I've worked with in medical device companies in Ireland, Europe or the USA have been required my their employer to be members of a professional body.

Oh, and I'm not a professional so I've only had a working life.
 
Last edited:
trajan said:
In everyday English, I meant why might an employer ever feel obliged to pay employees' annual fees ?
Click to expand...
Much like offering healthcare, a subsidised canteen or gym membership etc is it not also a perk used to attract suitable candidates?
 
Purple said:
Much like offering healthcare, a subsidised canteen or gym membership etc is it not also a perk used to attract suitable candidates?
Click to expand...

Yes.

But that's an initiative of the employer's - not an obligation.

The employee could not take a case to the courts saying his employer had failed to honor employment legislation in not paying their pro body fees. Not unless every other employee at the same grade was given it anyhow.
 
trajan said:
In everyday English, I meant why might an employer ever feel obliged to pay employees' annual fees ?
Click to expand...
Now you're adding feelings!!!

Again, who is obliging them? For the avoidance of doubt or further attempts to move the goalposts I mean obligation as in an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment.
 
@Leo

You're asking the very question that I ask !

The answer is clear.

Nobody should (is obliged to) pay annual fees for employees.

If it's done it's a benefit for the employee and potentially for a convenience of the company too, e.g. audit firms ensuring their staff's accreditation is current.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top