3 ms·

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 befor

by 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.

by lovich 8y ago

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.