5 ms·

You could make the same argument from the worker's perspective. Companies don't need to hire graduates, they need to offer training for their employees! Why a

by panic 9y ago

You could make the same argument from the worker's perspective. Companies don't need to hire graduates, they need to offer training for their employees! Why are we focused on what people should do when companies are the ones setting the bar?

toomuchtodo 9y ago
Puritanical work ethic America can't shake off combined with an arrogant expectation of rugged individualism.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Which, it turns out, emerged from ... a political speech by Herbert Hoover in 1928. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=rugged+individualism&year_start=1900&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Crugged%20individualism%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=rugged+individ...
prostoalex 9y ago
The skills need to be non-transferable to other places, otherwise the company is just paying to supply their competitors with a better-trained workforce.
- adrianN 9y ago
  They employer has ways of making it more attractive to work at their company. More pay, nicer workplace, more freedom... But besides that, many people tend to develop loyality when they started as an apprentice and the employer gives the impression that they offer a stable job for life. That system works reasonably well here in Germany and, from what I hear, in Japan.
  - pferde 9y ago
    To be fair, in Japan it tends to be more about people being discouraged to leave, lest they be branded for life as disloyal, and therefore not employable by any other big company.
- cadlin 9y ago
  No, all the training has to do is increase the corporation's profits by more than the cost. People are getting paid to provide labor, not to be serfs.
  - nawitus 9y ago
    In theory the company can instead hire trained employees whose training is paid by the other companies, and not invest anything to train their own workforce. And that ultimately leads to no company investing into training, other than the bare minimum.
    - jimhefferon 9y ago
      In theory after training you can demand a salary higher by at least the value of training.
      - zero_intp 9y ago
        This. It is much cheaper for me to hire a fresh masters in telecommunications and spend 6 months in training than to hire a 15+ year industry veteran with no college education.
- examancer 9y ago
  This a very dim, short-sighted view. Most large companies do have training programs and don't artificially limit the skills to ones that are not transferrable. Investing in the skills of your current employees can be far cheaper than trying to hire for those same skills. Even in your worst case scenario you've presumably gotten some benefit from the employee before they depart and spent less than you would on a bad hire who has the desired skills (and therefore makes more). If the result of your investments really is competitors with better trained employees then you have a higher skilled pool to recruit from when you need it. Plus, you've saved money in the meantime.
  - chronic61a 9y ago
    Investing in non-transferable skills to bind your employees to your company can be a very cheap alternative to hiring more or new workers. If the person with non-transferable skills is unproductive, simply fire them and hire another. I've been doing this in Oslo for several years with great success.
- fiblye 9y ago
  If people are leaving your company right after being trained, your company has some major problems.
- 0xbear 9y ago
  The age old management dilemma: "CFO: What happens if we train them and they leave? CEO: What happens if we don’t and they stay?"
- pyrale 9y ago
  The company I was at prevoiusly had this exact dilemna. In the end, they are still ahead of competition, in part because of their trained workforce, and in part because training people also means the hierarchy is more susceptible to listen to them. The people that leave for companies not training are not as effective in their new roles because of that.
- pasquinelli 9y ago
  the flip side is that i'm paying through the nose to get trained to do a job for you, but with no actual job, maybe never an actual job.
- WheelsAtLarge 9y ago
  It's absolutely true. Here's one example: The Los Angeles Department of water and powers pays millions on its apprenticeship programs yet many never finish or they start working for some other company. Here's the story: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-dwp-audit-20170328-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-dwp-audit-20170328-...
- Broken_Hippo 9y ago
  There aren't so many of those jobs, but there are solutions that make this not so much of a problem. On pharmacy I worked at trained their own pharmacy technicians. You can go to school for it and get a license. If you train at the pharmacy, however, it is not transferable to a competitor. Some companies have contracts, stating that you must work at the company for x years after completing training. Occasionally there will be money to pay back. This is exactly so the company feels it can get some of its training investment back. I've seen this quite a bit with education reimbursement and management training programs. You can also simply make your workplace a horrible place to work. Treat employees well, don't take advantage of employees-in-training, give vacations and be reasonable. You know, normal stuff.
- dmitri1981 9y ago
  There are some companies that take this approach, though I am not sure if it is intentional. Goldman Sachs being one of the most famous examples who use lots of proprietary in-house technology, which can make it difficult for leavers to get new jobs elsewhere.
- crispyambulance 9y ago
  Well, they can also HIRE better trained staff from their competitors. If companies really wanted to preserve talent for the long term, however, they should look long and hard at aggressive outsourcing programs that evacuate all technical and operations expertise to offshore companies. This has been "training competitors" for decades. There will be a comeuppance for this someday.

by panic 9y ago

toomuchtodo 9y ago

Puritanical work ethic America can't shake off combined with an arrogant expectation of rugged individualism.

dredmorbius 9y ago
Which, it turns out, emerged from ... a political speech by Herbert Hoover in 1928. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=rugged+individualism&year_start=1900&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Crugged%20individualism%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=rugged+individ...

prostoalex 9y ago

The skills need to be non-transferable to other places, otherwise the company is just paying to supply their competitors with a better-trained workforce.

adrianN 9y ago
They employer has ways of making it more attractive to work at their company. More pay, nicer workplace, more freedom... But besides that, many people tend to develop loyality when they started as an apprentice and the employer gives the impression that they offer a stable job for life. That system works reasonably well here in Germany and, from what I hear, in Japan.
- pferde 9y ago
  To be fair, in Japan it tends to be more about people being discouraged to leave, lest they be branded for life as disloyal, and therefore not employable by any other big company.
cadlin 9y ago
No, all the training has to do is increase the corporation's profits by more than the cost. People are getting paid to provide labor, not to be serfs.
- nawitus 9y ago
  In theory the company can instead hire trained employees whose training is paid by the other companies, and not invest anything to train their own workforce. And that ultimately leads to no company investing into training, other than the bare minimum.
  - jimhefferon 9y ago
    In theory after training you can demand a salary higher by at least the value of training.
    - zero_intp 9y ago
      This. It is much cheaper for me to hire a fresh masters in telecommunications and spend 6 months in training than to hire a 15+ year industry veteran with no college education.
examancer 9y ago
This a very dim, short-sighted view. Most large companies do have training programs and don't artificially limit the skills to ones that are not transferrable. Investing in the skills of your current employees can be far cheaper than trying to hire for those same skills. Even in your worst case scenario you've presumably gotten some benefit from the employee before they depart and spent less than you would on a bad hire who has the desired skills (and therefore makes more). If the result of your investments really is competitors with better trained employees then you have a higher skilled pool to recruit from when you need it. Plus, you've saved money in the meantime.
- chronic61a 9y ago
  Investing in non-transferable skills to bind your employees to your company can be a very cheap alternative to hiring more or new workers. If the person with non-transferable skills is unproductive, simply fire them and hire another. I've been doing this in Oslo for several years with great success.
fiblye 9y ago
If people are leaving your company right after being trained, your company has some major problems.
0xbear 9y ago
The age old management dilemma: "CFO: What happens if we train them and they leave? CEO: What happens if we don’t and they stay?"
pyrale 9y ago
The company I was at prevoiusly had this exact dilemna. In the end, they are still ahead of competition, in part because of their trained workforce, and in part because training people also means the hierarchy is more susceptible to listen to them. The people that leave for companies not training are not as effective in their new roles because of that.
pasquinelli 9y ago
the flip side is that i'm paying through the nose to get trained to do a job for you, but with no actual job, maybe never an actual job.
WheelsAtLarge 9y ago
It's absolutely true. Here's one example: The Los Angeles Department of water and powers pays millions on its apprenticeship programs yet many never finish or they start working for some other company. Here's the story: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-dwp-audit-20170328-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-dwp-audit-20170328-...
Broken_Hippo 9y ago
There aren't so many of those jobs, but there are solutions that make this not so much of a problem. On pharmacy I worked at trained their own pharmacy technicians. You can go to school for it and get a license. If you train at the pharmacy, however, it is not transferable to a competitor. Some companies have contracts, stating that you must work at the company for x years after completing training. Occasionally there will be money to pay back. This is exactly so the company feels it can get some of its training investment back. I've seen this quite a bit with education reimbursement and management training programs. You can also simply make your workplace a horrible place to work. Treat employees well, don't take advantage of employees-in-training, give vacations and be reasonable. You know, normal stuff.
dmitri1981 9y ago
There are some companies that take this approach, though I am not sure if it is intentional. Goldman Sachs being one of the most famous examples who use lots of proprietary in-house technology, which can make it difficult for leavers to get new jobs elsewhere.
crispyambulance 9y ago
Well, they can also HIRE better trained staff from their competitors. If companies really wanted to preserve talent for the long term, however, they should look long and hard at aggressive outsourcing programs that evacuate all technical and operations expertise to offshore companies. This has been "training competitors" for decades. There will be a comeuppance for this someday.