15 ms·

Did you ever consider that the employee might be a smidge less likely to walk out the door if the employer invested in him or her, recognized his or her achieve

by sidlls 9y ago

Did you ever consider that the employee might be a smidge less likely to walk out the door if the employer invested in him or her, recognized his or her achievements in a timely manner with responsibility and authority (promotion) and compensated him or her fairly? Seems to me employees "are likely to walk out the door" mainly because employers view them as expendible expenses and not humans trading labor for something of value

vinceguidry 9y ago
Sure, but that still doesn't make it an investment, it just makes it a less risky bet. And betting on people being high-minded over being selfish has always been a bad one.
- ionised 9y ago
  Are you really equating company loyalty with high-mindedness here?
  - vinceguidry 9y ago
    Well, yeah, that's what it means, right? If you pay me $50k per year and invest $20k of company resources to train me, and the second my training's up, I jump ship to a company promising to pay me $60k, wouldn't you feel ripped off? Nobody these days would turn down a $10k raise out of company loyalty. They might for other reasons, but loyalty is absolutely not one of them anymore.
    - denimnerd 9y ago
      if completeting the training makes someone worth 10k more then give them that raise.
      - vinceguidry 9y ago
        I don't know why I let myself get sidetracked into this worthless ideological discussion. Final answer, then I'm getting back to work. Because when you take risks, you should expect a reward. If your reward isn't worth the risk, but you still take it anyway, then you're the dumb one. When you're the one offering liquid compensation, you get to decide on the risk profile of the bought solution.
        ionised 9y ago
        > Because when you take risks, you should expect a reward Isn't the whole point of taking a risk is that there may not actually be any reward? If you expect reward every time then it's not really a risk.
    - noonespecial 9y ago
      The right thing to do is to start transitioning the $20k you were spending training the new guy into salary as he acquires the skills. Its stupid to spend the $20k, figure its "done" and then think you can just go on paying the $50k after the fact even though the employee is clearly now worth $70k. You want a $70k talent, you can either find one straight up or make one with some mix of lower salary + training until you have one.
      - vinceguidry 9y ago
        You don't see what's wrong with this? Unreal. If you hire someone for $50k, then train them with $20k, then give them a raise after the training is over for the $20k it takes to bring their comp up to market, you're out $90k. Accounting-wise, you just gifted the employee $20k on top of his comp. Or you can just go out and hire for $70k and just be out $70k. This is what's already being done, shifting the cost of training and education onto the ones receiving the benefits of that training. I'm trying hard to not post a diatribe about what's wrong with this kind of thinking and just point out the errors in reasoning that come from it, but this game of whack-a-mole is frustrating. You can't demand your employer to shoulder all the risks and grant unto you all the rewards. It's unethical and leads to underhanded dealing. We want a more professional labor marketplace, not one governed by promises and half-truths.
        sidlls 9y ago
        The employer's reward in this scenario is more than $20k in value provided by the newly trained employee. The risk,10 of course, is through employee leaving before the employer can realize the reward fully. It's interesting that you don't see it that way, and that you think it's an error in reasoning.
- HillaryBriss 9y ago
  all investments carry risks. e.g. if a company invests in a building for their office, there's always a risk that building will incur excessive maintenance expenses, become unusable because of some calamity, or that the location around the building will become a bad neighborhood and make that building a lot less useful. i think a company can invest in, say, teaching their employees a valuable skill and then make money off that investment, even if the employee leaves eventually.
  - vinceguidry 9y ago
    You can insure against risks. You can't against bets. Good luck getting an insurance company to sell you a policy covering training cost recovery in the event of employee-initiated turnover.
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      Investments are bets. You can totally insure your bets, the term “hedge your bets” exists for a reason. You seem to be equating bets with gambling for some reason.
      - vinceguidry 9y ago
        Self-insurance against the risk of employee defections costing them time and money is exactly what employers are already doing, by not taking on the risk of educating and training employees.
        seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        You can hedge your bets in many different ways with different assumptions for likely outcomes. For example, if you think it likely that your employee won’t hang around for very long, then you can act by treating them as disposable. You could also choose to mitigate the risk of them leaving if you thought you could be successful at it. Both approaches are forms of self insurance, none of them are full proof, and they can also lead to self fulfilling prophecy problems.
- denimnerd 9y ago
  An investment and risk go hand in hand.
  - vinceguidry 9y ago
    Yes, but the difference between an investment and a bet involves the amount and type of risk. Investments generally don't disappear. Bets do. Also the expected rewards are higher too. If a company bets $20k in an employee, the best they can hope for is that the employee does a good job. Not that that bet doubles in value.
    - learc83 9y ago
      > If a company bets $20k in an employee, the best they can hope for is that the employee does a good job. Not that that bet doubles in value. What do you think it means from the company's perspective to "do a good job"? A developer who does a good job will most likely double that $20k in a few months.

by sidlls 9y ago

vinceguidry 9y ago

Sure, but that still doesn't make it an investment, it just makes it a less risky bet. And betting on people being high-minded over being selfish has always been a bad one.

ionised 9y ago
Are you really equating company loyalty with high-mindedness here?
- vinceguidry 9y ago
  Well, yeah, that's what it means, right? If you pay me $50k per year and invest $20k of company resources to train me, and the second my training's up, I jump ship to a company promising to pay me $60k, wouldn't you feel ripped off? Nobody these days would turn down a $10k raise out of company loyalty. They might for other reasons, but loyalty is absolutely not one of them anymore.
  - denimnerd 9y ago
    if completeting the training makes someone worth 10k more then give them that raise.
    - vinceguidry 9y ago
      I don't know why I let myself get sidetracked into this worthless ideological discussion. Final answer, then I'm getting back to work. Because when you take risks, you should expect a reward. If your reward isn't worth the risk, but you still take it anyway, then you're the dumb one. When you're the one offering liquid compensation, you get to decide on the risk profile of the bought solution.
      - ionised 9y ago
        > Because when you take risks, you should expect a reward Isn't the whole point of taking a risk is that there may not actually be any reward? If you expect reward every time then it's not really a risk.
  - noonespecial 9y ago
    The right thing to do is to start transitioning the $20k you were spending training the new guy into salary as he acquires the skills. Its stupid to spend the $20k, figure its "done" and then think you can just go on paying the $50k after the fact even though the employee is clearly now worth $70k. You want a $70k talent, you can either find one straight up or make one with some mix of lower salary + training until you have one.
    - vinceguidry 9y ago
      You don't see what's wrong with this? Unreal. If you hire someone for $50k, then train them with $20k, then give them a raise after the training is over for the $20k it takes to bring their comp up to market, you're out $90k. Accounting-wise, you just gifted the employee $20k on top of his comp. Or you can just go out and hire for $70k and just be out $70k. This is what's already being done, shifting the cost of training and education onto the ones receiving the benefits of that training. I'm trying hard to not post a diatribe about what's wrong with this kind of thinking and just point out the errors in reasoning that come from it, but this game of whack-a-mole is frustrating. You can't demand your employer to shoulder all the risks and grant unto you all the rewards. It's unethical and leads to underhanded dealing. We want a more professional labor marketplace, not one governed by promises and half-truths.
      - sidlls 9y ago
        The employer's reward in this scenario is more than $20k in value provided by the newly trained employee. The risk,10 of course, is through employee leaving before the employer can realize the reward fully. It's interesting that you don't see it that way, and that you think it's an error in reasoning.
HillaryBriss 9y ago
all investments carry risks. e.g. if a company invests in a building for their office, there's always a risk that building will incur excessive maintenance expenses, become unusable because of some calamity, or that the location around the building will become a bad neighborhood and make that building a lot less useful. i think a company can invest in, say, teaching their employees a valuable skill and then make money off that investment, even if the employee leaves eventually.
- vinceguidry 9y ago
  You can insure against risks. You can't against bets. Good luck getting an insurance company to sell you a policy covering training cost recovery in the event of employee-initiated turnover.
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    Investments are bets. You can totally insure your bets, the term “hedge your bets” exists for a reason. You seem to be equating bets with gambling for some reason.
    - vinceguidry 9y ago
      Self-insurance against the risk of employee defections costing them time and money is exactly what employers are already doing, by not taking on the risk of educating and training employees.
      - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        You can hedge your bets in many different ways with different assumptions for likely outcomes. For example, if you think it likely that your employee won’t hang around for very long, then you can act by treating them as disposable. You could also choose to mitigate the risk of them leaving if you thought you could be successful at it. Both approaches are forms of self insurance, none of them are full proof, and they can also lead to self fulfilling prophecy problems.
denimnerd 9y ago
An investment and risk go hand in hand.
- vinceguidry 9y ago
  Yes, but the difference between an investment and a bet involves the amount and type of risk. Investments generally don't disappear. Bets do. Also the expected rewards are higher too. If a company bets $20k in an employee, the best they can hope for is that the employee does a good job. Not that that bet doubles in value.
  - learc83 9y ago
    > If a company bets $20k in an employee, the best they can hope for is that the employee does a good job. Not that that bet doubles in value. What do you think it means from the company's perspective to "do a good job"? A developer who does a good job will most likely double that $20k in a few months.