5 ms·
One could argue that their "raises" were paid in training
by jhwang5 8y ago
One could argue that their "raises" were paid in training
- nsxwolf 8y agoTraining was “paid for” by the low initial salary.
- jhwang5 8y agoI don't think the OP indicated anything about lowness/highness of the initial salary. OP did mention that the training they provided was exceptional. That's kinda rare.
- stormbrew 8y agoIf the only raise you give them is in training, then the only way they can turn that 'raise' into something tangible is by leaving. If this is your attitude and you're still shocked they're leaving you've missed something in your calculus.
- jhwang5 8y agoSure, but the baseline of comparison here is vs a situation where the job didn't give you raises nor good training. And yes, the employer in OP's example should reconsider providing value through training vs straight cash.
- tomohawk 8y agoIn a static analysis. But in a dynamic analysis, the employee has learned some things and is now in a completely different job market.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]