6 ms·

> I'm wondering what is the cognitive dissonance with employers who are unwilling to train workers. I mean, I understand the reasons if you're a an SMB, but lar

by zeveb 10y ago

> I'm wondering what is the cognitive dissonance with employers who are unwilling to train workers. I mean, I understand the reasons if you're a an SMB, but large corporations used to train their employees or hold something close to apprenticeship programs. It was far less common for people to change jobs back then, too. Neither employers nor employees feel any real loyalty towards one another, so investing in one another feels foolish. There's nothing to incentivise someone to stay once he's learnt the skills he needs to get a position elsewhere.

r00fus 10y ago
> There's nothing to incentivise someone to stay once he's learnt the skills he needs to get a position elsewhere. Are there no velvet/golden handcuffs allowed in .es?
- WalterSear 10y ago
  Allowed, sure. Practical in the current environment is another question.
Daishiman 10y ago
The benefits were far better too. I've worked at the same place my father did; the benefits he had when he started 35 years ago are literally unobtainable for our generation.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  I started roughly 31 years ago and I was making $10 an hour, with rent @ $400 a month. That's $22 2016 an hour with inflation against $880 a month rent for a crappy apartment with air conditioning in 90-100 degree heat about 80% of the time, for half a year ( Dallas ). But at least we had a pool. Helicopters chased people down the "creek" at night. "The benefits" are because health insurance has been a slow-moving disaster starting in 1949. And from about 1989 until 1993, I did without health insurance. IT was a low-paying job. I paid my dues and the money's gotten better.
ZenoArrow 10y ago
> "It was far less common for people to change jobs back then, too. Neither employers nor employees feel any real loyalty towards one another, so investing in one another feels foolish. There's nothing to incentivise someone to stay once he's learnt the skills he needs to get a position elsewhere." Sorry, I still don't understand this attitude. I live in the UK, it's common here to have at least some level of on-the-job training, especially for jobs where there's a skills shortage. In my experience, training opportunities are a great way of building up company loyalty, you want to stay with the company because you know you can progress in the company.
- joshyeager 10y ago
  We invest a lot in training and mentoring, especially for a small company. Someone once asked "what if we train them and they leave?" Our CEO replied "what if we don't train them and they stay?"
- calgoo 10y ago
  There is "some" training, but I think the general understanding is: "There are 50,000 others who want the job, and if we dont like this one, we will get someone else" so why train them? The normal training I see here is "know the company" kind of stuff and the yearly health and safety course mandated by the government.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    I still find the attitude bizarre. If you train your current employees they generally become better at their job. If they become better at their job then the company can work more effectively without requiring additional staffing overhead. Those "50,000 others" are not equal in productivity and effectiveness to the employees you train in-house. In addition to all of this, sometimes you don't even need any additional budget to train employees, you just need to give them the space to work based on their own ingenuity.
- vacri 10y ago
  Developer skills take a very long time to train. For example, you can train someone to use a forklift in a day, but there are people who have developed for 10 years and still have trouble with version control software. Developers are a professional role, and you don't get unskilled, unemployed people and train them on the job to be professionals.
kowdermeister 10y ago
> There's nothing to incentivise someone to stay once he's learnt the skills he needs to get a position elsewhere. So it's better if they remain low skill and they stay. Great value for the company's product / services. http://www.iqpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/8-Hiring-Myths-21.jpg http://www.iqpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/8-Hirin...

by zeveb 10y ago

r00fus 10y ago

> There's nothing to incentivise someone to stay once he's learnt the skills he needs to get a position elsewhere. Are there no velvet/golden handcuffs allowed in .es?

WalterSear 10y ago
Allowed, sure. Practical in the current environment is another question.

Daishiman 10y ago

The benefits were far better too. I've worked at the same place my father did; the benefits he had when he started 35 years ago are literally unobtainable for our generation.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
I started roughly 31 years ago and I was making $10 an hour, with rent @ $400 a month. That's $22 2016 an hour with inflation against $880 a month rent for a crappy apartment with air conditioning in 90-100 degree heat about 80% of the time, for half a year ( Dallas ). But at least we had a pool. Helicopters chased people down the "creek" at night. "The benefits" are because health insurance has been a slow-moving disaster starting in 1949. And from about 1989 until 1993, I did without health insurance. IT was a low-paying job. I paid my dues and the money's gotten better.

ZenoArrow 10y ago

> "It was far less common for people to change jobs back then, too. Neither employers nor employees feel any real loyalty towards one another, so investing in one another feels foolish. There's nothing to incentivise someone to stay once he's learnt the skills he needs to get a position elsewhere." Sorry, I still don't understand this attitude. I live in the UK, it's common here to have at least some level of on-the-job training, especially for jobs where there's a skills shortage. In my experience, training opportunities are a great way of building up company loyalty, you want to stay with the company because you know you can progress in the company.

joshyeager 10y ago
We invest a lot in training and mentoring, especially for a small company. Someone once asked "what if we train them and they leave?" Our CEO replied "what if we don't train them and they stay?"
calgoo 10y ago
There is "some" training, but I think the general understanding is: "There are 50,000 others who want the job, and if we dont like this one, we will get someone else" so why train them? The normal training I see here is "know the company" kind of stuff and the yearly health and safety course mandated by the government.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  I still find the attitude bizarre. If you train your current employees they generally become better at their job. If they become better at their job then the company can work more effectively without requiring additional staffing overhead. Those "50,000 others" are not equal in productivity and effectiveness to the employees you train in-house. In addition to all of this, sometimes you don't even need any additional budget to train employees, you just need to give them the space to work based on their own ingenuity.
vacri 10y ago
Developer skills take a very long time to train. For example, you can train someone to use a forklift in a day, but there are people who have developed for 10 years and still have trouble with version control software. Developers are a professional role, and you don't get unskilled, unemployed people and train them on the job to be professionals.

kowdermeister 10y ago

> There's nothing to incentivise someone to stay once he's learnt the skills he needs to get a position elsewhere. So it's better if they remain low skill and they stay. Great value for the company's product / services. http://www.iqpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/8-Hiring-Myths-21.jpg http://www.iqpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/8-Hirin...