There is another way of looking at the
VB vs QF pay for endorsement thing.
VB make you pay for the endorsement, but put you on full pay from day 1.
QF "give" you the endorsement but put you on PUIT pay, and then on a lower pay scale as a S/O for 2 years (I stand to be corrcted on the specifics there)
If you spent 4-5 months on PUIT pay, you would find that your "free" endorsement is actually costing you money.
I was thnking about it the other day, and the
VB method probably costs them as much or more in the long run than if they paid for the endorsement and put everybody on PUIT pay to start.
Granted you need to stump up the readies for the endorsement, and you carry the risk if you fail, which is an issue in some cases, but it certainly provides a measure of motivation!
I am not sure which I prefer - pay for your endorsement training up front but have no bond, or pay for it through a reduced salary, but have a bond for a couple of years.
I guess if you hold the high moral ground and refuse to apply, you are probably better off as you would not be happy if you got the job...but there are plenty that are happy to sign on under the advertised conditions