The Training Trap: When Mandatory Training Becomes an Underpayment Scandal

Mandatory training is no longer a "check-the-box" compliance exercise. It is fast becoming an industrial relations, reputational, and governance timebomb—and executive leaders should be paying close attention.

Across the sector, outdated training models are colliding with tighter regulation, workforce shortages, and heightened scrutiny under the strengthened Aged Care Quality Standards. In particular, Standard 2.9 has sharpened the focus on workforce capability, supervision, and safe systems of work.

What many providers have not fully confronted is this:
the way mandatory training is delivered can expose organisations to underpayment claims, care quality risk, and lasting brand damage.

The Underpayment Risk No One Wants to Talk About

For years, aged care providers have relied on two default approaches to mandatory training:

1. Asking staff to complete eLearning at home, in their own time, or
2. Pulling staff off the floor for 30–60 minutes to complete eLearning during shifts

Both approaches are problematic.

When training is mandatory, it is work.
And when work is unpaid, underpayment risk follows.

"If a staff member is clicking through a module on their couch at 9:00 PM, you aren't 'driving a learning culture'—you are accruing a liability especially if that time training isn’t accurately captured for payroll."

Recently, a large aged care provider employing more than 13,500 staff was required to back-pay workers after a Fair Work dispute relating to unpaid mandatory training completed outside paid hours. You can read the public reporting on that case here: Unpaid Mandatory Training Risk

In a sector already under intense scrutiny, the question executives should be asking is not “Could this happen to us?”
It’s “How confident are we that it isn’t already happening?”

Reputational Damage in a Tight Labour Market

Underpayment claims do not exist in a vacuum.

They trigger:

• Media attention
• Union involvement
• Regulator interest
• Workforce distrust

In a tight labour market, reputational damage has real commercial consequences. Providers found to be underpaying staff—intentionally or not—risk being seen as unsafe employers, eroding their ability to attract and retain skilled workers.

At a time when aged care providers are competing to position themselves as employers of choice, underpayment stories do the opposite. They signal poor governance, weak systems, and a disconnect between executive intent and operational reality.

Once trust is lost, it can be really hard to rebuild.

The Hidden Risk: Training Data and Payroll Blind Spots

The problem is not just whether training is paid.
It is whether training time is accurately captured, recorded, and reconciled.

When staff complete hours of training at home:

• Is that time consistently logged?
• Does it flow into payroll systems?
• Is it reviewed, approved, and audited?
• What happens if it is missed?

Each manual step introduces risk.

What starts as “just an hour of training” can quickly turn into:

• Payroll discrepancies
• Retrospective back-payments
• Additional payroll staff
• Increased administrative overhead

In a sector that is already financially stretched, this is bad system design.

Even worse, executives lose visibility. If training data is fragmented or unreliable, leaders cannot confidently answer a basic question:

Do we actually know where our workforce capability gaps are?

Why Pulling Staff Off the Floor Isn’t the Answer Either

Some providers attempt to avoid underpayment risk by scheduling eLearning time during shifts. But this creates a different set of problems.

Pulling staff off the floor for long blocks of e-learning:

• Compromises care continuity
• Increases workload pressure on remaining staff
• Introduces resident safety risks
• Fuels resentment among teams already under strain

It is neither cost-effective nor operationally sensible—and it still does not guarantee meaningful learning or retention.

As we have argued before, aged care simply can’t afford traditional e-learning models that are disconnected from real work and real care (see: Why Aged Care Can’t Afford eLearning).

Why This Matters Under Standard 2.9

Standard 2.9 raises the bar.

It requires providers to demonstrate that:

• Staff are appropriately skilled and supported
• Training is effective, relevant, and current
• Systems enable safe, high-quality care

Critically, regulators are not just looking at whether training exists—but how it is embedded into daily practice.

If your training model:

• Creates underpayment risk
• Compromises care delivery
• Relies on fragile data capture
• Or cannot be confidently defended in an audit

…it is no longer fit for purpose.

The Solution: Learning in the Flow of Care

The answer is not a better Learning Management System (LMS). The solution is to stop treating training as an "event" and build a more scalable and sustainable continuous learning model.

We need to move away from "Compliance Theatre" and toward learning in the fow of care. What "Flow of Care" looks like in practice:

• Micro-Moments, Not Marathons: Replacing 60-minute modules with 3-5 minute bursts of learning in the flow of care.
• Zero-Disruption Learning: Training that happens after charting, during handover or at the start of shift —no "pulling staff off the floor" and no "unpaid homework."
• Verifiable Competence: Moving from "I watched a video" to "I can demonstrate competence through repeated practice."
• Automatic Audit Trails: Every second of learning is digitally time-stamped, verified, and linked to payroll—eliminating the underpayment "blind spot".

How Forget Me Not® Eliminates the Risk

Forget Me Not® isn't just another training tool; it’s a risk-mitigation engine.It changes the equation for executive leaders by aligning care quality with industrial reality:

1. Eliminates Underpayment Liability: Because learning happens in 3-5 minute bursts during paid hours, the risk of "unpaid training claims" is removed.
2. Solves the Standard 2.9 Competency Evidence Requirement: Forget Me Not® doesn't just track completions; it tracks retention. It gives you the data to prove to regulators that your staff are actually competent, not just "completing courses."
3. Protects Care Continuity: By removing the need for "training blocks," residents receive more face-to-face time with carers who are better informed and less stressed.

From Risk Exposure to Employer of Choice

By implementing a "Flow of Care" learning strategy, you aren't just dodging a lawsuit—you are building a culture of excellence.

The choice for Executive Leaders is simple: You can continue to fund a "Status Quo" that could be building a future liability, or you can invest in a system designed for the modern aged care reality.