5 ms·

I don’t find it amazing, but it’s an issue I try to help solve where I have control. The trouble with an offer that includes training is that it is effectively

I don’t find it amazing, but it’s an issue I try to help solve where I have control. The trouble with an offer that includes training is that it is effectively a provisional offer. Candidates do not like that unless they think they’re getting training valuable enough. Meanwhile, employers don’t want it to be too valuable or else they’re just training people to work somewhere else. So, the offer needs to come with an expectation of 2+ (depending on industry) years of employment on both sides without actually being contractual (again, industry dependent) because of employment laws and because training costs can’t be clawed back as they’re just payroll going to an unskilled worker. Navigating this, in my experience, takes a lot of emotional intelligence on our part and I don’t know how I’d scale that in a bureaucratic organization.

lovich 8y ago
They don't have to train people to work somewhere else. It's perfectly legal to offer training to someone with a claw back on training costs if they leave before x years. The issue is that this creates a contract and every employer in the US currently wants to have at will employment at all costs. I have had managers complain about turnover and offered to sign a contract with them if we could agree on set goals that would translate to a set raise if reached each year. They don't even entertain the thought. Companies and managers want to just mine society for skilled labor but put zero investment into creating it. They can lie in the bed they made at this point. Most employees would prefer known stability. We didn't all start job hopping because the idea of working at one place for 40 years and retiring comfortablly became unpalatable to the population at large. We started getting treated as disposable and now employers are treated as disposable right back
- 1123581321 8y ago
  Yes, I don’t think either party wants to be locked into a contract. Your personal example is interesting, though. I’d like to think we would entertain a contract if presented the idea, but that would require negotiation, as I mentioned, and I don’t see how training contracts with financial consequences to the candidate could scale effectively in a bureaucratic org —- but again, it’s a puzzle I keep trying to solve. I respect but don’t generally share your dimmer view of the labor market, but I do agree that some companies have made it difficult for other companies to present themselves as stable places worth investing time into. I also think some employees have made it difficult for other employees. I try to improve the situations I can control.
  - lovich 8y ago
    Your point about the trust between employers and employees being poisoned by bad actors has been true everywhere I've worked. I've seen both management micromanaging employees out of fear because they had one employee burn them with poor performance. I've also seen employers try to tell their employees that there was nothing to worry about and no one was going to get laid off despite the rumors, _and_ mean it, but employees started jumping ship because that's exactly what a company that's about to lay off everyone says
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  > It's perfectly legal to offer training to someone with a claw back on training costs if they leave before x years. The issue is that this creates a contract and every employer in the US currently wants to have at will employment at all costs. There is an obvious failure mode here (well, a related pair of them) -- I don't want to sign a clawback contract, get fired just before x years, and have to disgorge the training costs. This is a live issue with option vesting and it's only not a live issue with training costs because that sort of employment contract is rare. On the other hand, once we've signed a multi-year contract making it difficult for you to fire me, I may not be inclined to work all that hard.
  - lovich 8y ago
    All 100% true points. That's still the buyers problem if they are going after a scarce resource, in this case labor. In every other market you get a better rate for a stable, repeatable transaction vs being able to buy as needed. Employers are going to have to raise their rates a lot if they expect to have people maintain skills that are relevant to the employer while not offering stable employment.
  - ams6110 8y ago
    > once we've signed a multi-year contract making it difficult for you to fire me, I may not be inclined to work all that hard Right... Training, once paid for, is a "sunk cost." The decision to fire or retain an employee can't really be based on recovering costs associated with hiring the employee.
  - briffle 8y ago
    The the easy way is to say that If you leave of your own will, then your get credited 1/24th of the training costs for every month you work there. (similar to cell phone payment plans in the US.)
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    If the employees are only working just hard enough to not get fired, there are other problems with the company. Firings are all stick. There should also be some carrot.
ourmandave 8y ago
Meanwhile, employers don’t want it to be too valuable or else they’re just training people to work somewhere else. Or pay them what their worth so they don't look for greener pastures. Having skilled employees is an asset.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  I like to focus on this point. The unwillingness to train provides some indication about the labor market, that it isn't all that tight.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  If consumers don't show a willingness to pay for skilled employees, then it isn't an asset. In low margin, low skill businesses such as retail for everyday items, there simply isn't much value to be provided other than stocking shelves, keeping the place clean, keeping an eye out for theft, occasionally telling people where things are, and scanning items at check out. I stay at Hilton hotels and they frequently have digital keys that use phone to open the hotel door. I don't even interact with any staff, just use the app and I'm out and in at my own leisure. Some businesses are just skirting the line between do we invest in employees or automate things, and of course automating things is the preferred option.
  - Avshalom 8y ago
    consumers don't always have the ability or the option to discriminate based on employee pay. And the lower you are the less you can discriminate which creates a vicious cycle because you are almost certainly in the same boat as the employees at $low_wage_employer.
    - lotsofpulp 8y ago
      People might not have been aware that by choosing to shop at Walmart and Home Depot, they would help create this cycle, but we're firmly in it and there's no way out. Anyone that tries to train and reward employees more than necessary is not going to survive as a busines, especially in retail. Retail and other business that deal with the public also have the problem that people are a pain in the ass from the whole "customer is always right" attitude. No one with options is going to choose to work in retail, so they will always be scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of employee talent.

lovich 8y ago

They don't have to train people to work somewhere else. It's perfectly legal to offer training to someone with a claw back on training costs if they leave before x years. The issue is that this creates a contract and every employer in the US currently wants to have at will employment at all costs. I have had managers complain about turnover and offered to sign a contract with them if we could agree on set goals that would translate to a set raise if reached each year. They don't even entertain the thought. Companies and managers want to just mine society for skilled labor but put zero investment into creating it. They can lie in the bed they made at this point. Most employees would prefer known stability. We didn't all start job hopping because the idea of working at one place for 40 years and retiring comfortablly became unpalatable to the population at large. We started getting treated as disposable and now employers are treated as disposable right back

1123581321 8y ago
Yes, I don’t think either party wants to be locked into a contract. Your personal example is interesting, though. I’d like to think we would entertain a contract if presented the idea, but that would require negotiation, as I mentioned, and I don’t see how training contracts with financial consequences to the candidate could scale effectively in a bureaucratic org —- but again, it’s a puzzle I keep trying to solve. I respect but don’t generally share your dimmer view of the labor market, but I do agree that some companies have made it difficult for other companies to present themselves as stable places worth investing time into. I also think some employees have made it difficult for other employees. I try to improve the situations I can control.
- lovich 8y ago
  Your point about the trust between employers and employees being poisoned by bad actors has been true everywhere I've worked. I've seen both management micromanaging employees out of fear because they had one employee burn them with poor performance. I've also seen employers try to tell their employees that there was nothing to worry about and no one was going to get laid off despite the rumors, _and_ mean it, but employees started jumping ship because that's exactly what a company that's about to lay off everyone says
thaumasiotes 8y ago
> It's perfectly legal to offer training to someone with a claw back on training costs if they leave before x years. The issue is that this creates a contract and every employer in the US currently wants to have at will employment at all costs. There is an obvious failure mode here (well, a related pair of them) -- I don't want to sign a clawback contract, get fired just before x years, and have to disgorge the training costs. This is a live issue with option vesting and it's only not a live issue with training costs because that sort of employment contract is rare. On the other hand, once we've signed a multi-year contract making it difficult for you to fire me, I may not be inclined to work all that hard.
- lovich 8y ago
  All 100% true points. That's still the buyers problem if they are going after a scarce resource, in this case labor. In every other market you get a better rate for a stable, repeatable transaction vs being able to buy as needed. Employers are going to have to raise their rates a lot if they expect to have people maintain skills that are relevant to the employer while not offering stable employment.
- ams6110 8y ago
  > once we've signed a multi-year contract making it difficult for you to fire me, I may not be inclined to work all that hard Right... Training, once paid for, is a "sunk cost." The decision to fire or retain an employee can't really be based on recovering costs associated with hiring the employee.
- briffle 8y ago
  The the easy way is to say that If you leave of your own will, then your get credited 1/24th of the training costs for every month you work there. (similar to cell phone payment plans in the US.)
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  If the employees are only working just hard enough to not get fired, there are other problems with the company. Firings are all stick. There should also be some carrot.

ourmandave 8y ago

Meanwhile, employers don’t want it to be too valuable or else they’re just training people to work somewhere else. Or pay them what their worth so they don't look for greener pastures. Having skilled employees is an asset.

maxerickson 8y ago
I like to focus on this point. The unwillingness to train provides some indication about the labor market, that it isn't all that tight.
lotsofpulp 8y ago
If consumers don't show a willingness to pay for skilled employees, then it isn't an asset. In low margin, low skill businesses such as retail for everyday items, there simply isn't much value to be provided other than stocking shelves, keeping the place clean, keeping an eye out for theft, occasionally telling people where things are, and scanning items at check out. I stay at Hilton hotels and they frequently have digital keys that use phone to open the hotel door. I don't even interact with any staff, just use the app and I'm out and in at my own leisure. Some businesses are just skirting the line between do we invest in employees or automate things, and of course automating things is the preferred option.
- Avshalom 8y ago
  consumers don't always have the ability or the option to discriminate based on employee pay. And the lower you are the less you can discriminate which creates a vicious cycle because you are almost certainly in the same boat as the employees at $low_wage_employer.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    People might not have been aware that by choosing to shop at Walmart and Home Depot, they would help create this cycle, but we're firmly in it and there's no way out. Anyone that tries to train and reward employees more than necessary is not going to survive as a busines, especially in retail. Retail and other business that deal with the public also have the problem that people are a pain in the ass from the whole "customer is always right" attitude. No one with options is going to choose to work in retail, so they will always be scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of employee talent.