Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Across the board seems to be a bit broad. Its obviously been pretty consistent in your experience. However, I had the opposite. I've never worked for a company that did not provide training.
And as for training being cut from the budget. I'll provide a counter point to why that may be. At my last job, I budgeted money for training for everyone in my dept. year after year. And year after year, about 30% took advantage of it regularly. When the real estate bubble burst - we had to tighten our purse strings like everyone else. What did we do, we looked at our spending. And its a no brainer to remove things that were not being used from the budget. So yea, we decreased the training budget.
It goes both ways. No business, no job. The fact is that there are plenty of businesses out there that provide training. They key is to be aligned with those that offer it. Of course, the better a company treat their employees, the more competition there will be to work for them.
And the bottom line about the company/employee relationship - the companies are the customers. You can call me a corporate apologist or whatever you want. But fact of the matter is - the companies with the jobs to fill aren't your enemy. They're your potential clients. The person next to you who want that same job is your "enemy". Not saying you need to bend over and take it... but some strategy on what one can do to better themselves may help.
I don't find anything you've stated equivocating to being an apologist. I do not disagree with anything you've written.
I want to interject - not all employees do this. In fact, I'm the opposite. I know I want to move, but I know I need some extra cash as I wait. Solution? I'm targeting temp agencies and jobs that only last temporarily. Why? I know I don't want to stay here, I don't want to **** a company out of money for training and well, I'd like to stay long term at a job - which is what I'm looking for as I send out resumes to where I want to live. People have actually told me I should get a job other than temp because it's commonplace to quit on an employer after training. Maybe for them it is, but that doesn't sit well with me. If you know you won't be staying, why would someone do that when temp agencies or temp assignments not through a temp agency are available? I don't know, I might be 25, but I see things in the long term and believe in company loyalty once you get that permanent job. I know, how terrible.
Watch your back with temp agencies. They will ********* over if they get the chance.
Vesting schedules into retirement plans or 401Ks might be another way for employers to make up for the cost of training if an employee leaves. For example, a new employee has 3% deducted into a retirement plan, but isn't vested for four years. If you leave before four years, you lose the 3% of your pay.
My older brother said hes trained approximately 60 people to perform his occupation. Out of that number, maybe 10 are still doing it. The others either failed the certifications or went into another field not too long after. Each certification TEST costs about $500 and must be taken every 3 years for re-certification.
I can see why some companies don't shell-out the money for it, but to not train them at all is kinda stupid and self-defeating.
My older brother said hes trained approximately 60 people to perform his occupation. Out of that number, maybe 10 are still doing it. The others either failed the certifications or went into another field not too long after. Each certification TEST costs about $500 and must be taken every 3 years for re-certification.
I can see why some companies don't shell-out the money for it, but to not train them at all is kinda stupid and self-defeating.
The flip side is that is $500 dollars + costs for training courses that the employee needs to shell out if the company doesn't. I don't know about everyone but $500 isn't exactly throwaway money.
Its always the employees fault with you isn't it? Always the corporate apologist. The only intelligent path is to invest in your employees. Without employees there is no company. Companies have no one to blame but themselves. They choose to hire by cherry picking employees from other companies rather than hire from a skilled unemployed workforce. This is the bed corporate america has made for itself and now has to lie in it.
Consider it from the employers point of view. If you have the opportunity to hire someone that is trained for the job, and ready to take on the job, vs. hiring someone that is going to cost you money and be inefficient for a period of time, which one would you choose. One is a valuable employee immediately. One is a costly unknown that may or may not be a good employee after spending considerable money training them. The second one, is possibly one of the people that after training will immediately look for another job.
Today when there are lots of people with training and education behind them and a few years experience, why take on an unknown and spend a lot of money training them. It does not make sense.
And yes it is the fault of employees. The past few years, the young men and women have the idea they will only work for a company for a couple years to a maximum of five and then move on somewhere else. They have burned employers over and over again, who took them on and trained them only to have them leave as soon as they are capable of doing a good job for the company. They are tired of spending considerable time and money training their competitors employees.
Consider it from the employers point of view. If you have the opportunity to hire someone that is trained for the job, and ready to take on the job, vs. hiring someone that is going to cost you money and be inefficient for a period of time, which one would you choose. One is a valuable employee immediately. One is a costly unknown that may or may not be a good employee after spending considerable money training them. The second one, is possibly one of the people that after training will immediately look for another job.
Today when there are lots of people with training and education behind them and a few years experience, why take on an unknown and spend a lot of money training them. It does not make sense.
This is not the point. Of course if you have 2 candidates, one fresh out of school and another who has 5 years of experience, you're going to take the latter. Even then, it may be months before the experienced employee is up to speed.
What is happening is that employers are looking for purple squirrel candidates who may not exist for one reason or another. In other words, you may not be able to convince an experienced person to move to the mid west for the salary you are offering. So, you may have to bite the bullet and take a less than optimal person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtrader
And yes it is the fault of employees. The past few years, the young men and women have the idea they will only work for a company for a couple years to a maximum of five and then move on somewhere else. They have burned employers over and over again, who took them on and trained them only to have them leave as soon as they are capable of doing a good job for the company. They are tired of spending considerable time and money training their competitors employees.\
Again, this is not all on the employee. The employer has some skin in the game as well. The issue is when the employee is up and running you're only giving them minimal raises.
Consider it from the employers point of view. If you have the opportunity to hire someone that is trained for the job, and ready to take on the job, vs. hiring someone that is going to cost you money and be inefficient for a period of time, which one would you choose. One is a valuable employee immediately. One is a costly unknown that may or may not be a good employee after spending considerable money training them. The second one, is possibly one of the people that after training will immediately look for another job.
Today when there are lots of people with training and education behind them and a few years experience, why take on an unknown and spend a lot of money training them. It does not make sense.
And yes it is the fault of employees. The past few years, the young men and women have the idea they will only work for a company for a couple years to a maximum of five and then move on somewhere else. They have burned employers over and over again, who took them on and trained them only to have them leave as soon as they are capable of doing a good job for the company. They are tired of spending considerable time and money training their competitors employees.
As BigDavey mentioned, if a business were to get a college grad with a relevant major but no relevant work experience (rather than course experience) vs someone with work experience, provided the experienced worker doesn't want too much. In that case either the business takes the grad or leaves the job open because God-forbid they train someone.
As BigDavey also mentioned, the benefits and pay for working are historically lower than ever. When raises are just at COLA levels if anything, they aren't competitive and the way you get a raise is promotion or departing for another job. What would you do if your 35K a year job just gets a 1K raise next year and that is not even enough to keep up with healthcare increases? Would you stay with them or go elsewhere and get a 5K raise?
Again, this is not all on the employee. The employer has some skin in the game as well. The issue is when the employee is up and running you're only giving them minimal raises.
X = raise
T = cost of training
The flip side of your argument is that when the employee is up and running, they get a raise of X for moving to another employer. That employer doesn't incur the cost of training.
The initial employer has the cost of T (training) + X (raise to stay competitive with workers who have been, for years, incented to jump employers if it is minimally advantageous to them). (X + T) > X
To the employee, it's a wash. X is X. To the employer, paying for T is a loss in the current environment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
