22 ms·
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
by 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 agoYou 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 agoThe 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.