11 ms·

I work at a company that does heavy manufacturing. They're begging for welders. They only accept something like 30% of applicants, I hear drugs is a big probl

I work at a company that does heavy manufacturing. They're begging for welders. They only accept something like 30% of applicants, I hear drugs is a big problem with applicants. They thing is that you don't even need to know how to weld, they'll train you. They put you through their training program and eventually you'll be welding for them. And the type of welding they do isn't small scale thing but really heavy duty thick sheets of steel. And here's the kicker, their pay is terrible. Which is why they're constantly begging for more people to train.They totally know that they're basically the guys that train all the welders in the area. People come in to learn the ropes then about 2 years later or so they get a job down the street making a lot more. I'm not a business guy but I guess it works for the company because they've been going for a very long time and still growing. I guess it's cheaper for them to constantly be training than it is to retain their welders.

marcosdumay 7y ago
If you can deal with the variance, training people is a very good way to get cheap talent. I have no idea why it isn't very common.
- Kalium 7y ago
  I think the business case for it depends on training time, training costs, the odds of a person being useful after training, and how expensive it is to get someone already trained. Training a batch of people for six months who will mostly be useful after completion and are mostly likely to complete training might be a good proposition. If training time is four years, 50% of entrants complete training, and 50% of those trained are useful... the case might be weaker.
  - jseliger 7y ago
    I believe the biggest issue is people leaving. Invest x months of training at y cost. Then the person leaves right after training for a higher-paying job. That dis-incentivizes training.
    - journalctl 7y ago
      It also incentivizes paying more.
    - HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
      Or, increase psychological incentives by saying "raises for people who make it a year" or "signing on bonuses only for people who make it six months." Those help a lot.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  How would the trained guy be cheap talent? Now he's trained and on the market as a trained worker. Are you going to ask him to pay you back for training if he quits?
  - em-bee 7y ago
    in a proper master/apprentice system quitting early is like aborting your training, that is, you don't get a certificate for incomplete training. for a short training like welding, i don't know, but if it comes with a certificate i suppose you could withhold it if they leave early. in IT this is a real problem. it takes about half a year to make someone productive. it takes another half year or so before i start getting a return on my investment. if they leave then, i am barely breaking even. if they leave earlier, i am making a loss. a friend of mine tried this business and couldn't make it work financially.
- droithomme 7y ago
  > training people is a very good way to get cheap talent It's also exactly how the master-apprentice system works. It's a good system, is fair, and works. It's also vastly superior than the system where you pay to be trained by someone who is not a working master and end up learning substandard or obsolete methods.
- gnopgnip 7y ago
  Many industries are competitive, there is a limited pool of people to hire. If you pay a little more you get lower turnover, and you end up with more experienced and more skilled employees than your competition.
johnmaguire2013 7y ago
There's a software shop in my area that works the same way.
- mrkstu 7y ago
  I used to work for a managed service provider and their NOC was the same way. They would cycle through newbie guys constantly since they had a pretty low cap on NOC tech pay. I was a design engineer so I was out of their direct loop, but close enough to observe. A lot of the local network engineers in the Austin area owe their start to working on that NOC desk- they were fairly large so they kept 30ish people fairly busy. Once they reached a certain level of competency they either moved to supervisory positions or got poached...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- em-bee 7y ago
  could you link to that shop? i'd like to know how they make it work. i have seen a friend fail trying the same thing...
tempguy9999 7y ago
> I hear drugs is a big problem with applicants Possible legalisation of drugs and stuff around that is a matter of interest for me, so if you can elaborate on that I'd appreciate it.
- jartelt 7y ago
  Many physical labor jobs require applicants to take a drug test and breathalyzer on their first day of work. For some reason, a fair number of workers do not realize this and end up failing one of the tests and get fired on the first day.
- refurb 7y ago
  Since welding is a hazardous occupation, safety is a big concern. As such, they drug test workers on a regular basis. If you fail, you get fired. Even if drugs were legalized, this would still happen.
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    "Even if drugs were legalized, this would still happen" - that's what I was after. Thanks.
    - refurb 7y ago
      Maybe I should temper my response. They test for drugs because being under the influence of drugs (including alcohol) is a safety hazard. I suppose if tests were developed that could differentiate between "I'm intoxicated" and "I smoked on my day off", the situation could change.
      - hansjorg 7y ago
        There's a Y Combinator startup for that: https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/13/y-combinator-bets-on-a-startup-building-a-weed-breathalyzer-for-cops/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/13/y-combinator-bets-on-a-sta...
      - 7y ago
count 7y ago
Is this company funded by govt contracts for ship manufacturing by any chance?
- COGlory 7y ago
  EB? I've heard they'll take just about anyone with a pulse. I've also heard they're horrible to work for, and have known several people that have quit.

marcosdumay 7y ago

If you can deal with the variance, training people is a very good way to get cheap talent. I have no idea why it isn't very common.

Kalium 7y ago
I think the business case for it depends on training time, training costs, the odds of a person being useful after training, and how expensive it is to get someone already trained. Training a batch of people for six months who will mostly be useful after completion and are mostly likely to complete training might be a good proposition. If training time is four years, 50% of entrants complete training, and 50% of those trained are useful... the case might be weaker.
- jseliger 7y ago
  I believe the biggest issue is people leaving. Invest x months of training at y cost. Then the person leaves right after training for a higher-paying job. That dis-incentivizes training.
  - journalctl 7y ago
    It also incentivizes paying more.
  - HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
    Or, increase psychological incentives by saying "raises for people who make it a year" or "signing on bonuses only for people who make it six months." Those help a lot.
scarejunba 7y ago
How would the trained guy be cheap talent? Now he's trained and on the market as a trained worker. Are you going to ask him to pay you back for training if he quits?
- em-bee 7y ago
  in a proper master/apprentice system quitting early is like aborting your training, that is, you don't get a certificate for incomplete training. for a short training like welding, i don't know, but if it comes with a certificate i suppose you could withhold it if they leave early. in IT this is a real problem. it takes about half a year to make someone productive. it takes another half year or so before i start getting a return on my investment. if they leave then, i am barely breaking even. if they leave earlier, i am making a loss. a friend of mine tried this business and couldn't make it work financially.
droithomme 7y ago
> training people is a very good way to get cheap talent It's also exactly how the master-apprentice system works. It's a good system, is fair, and works. It's also vastly superior than the system where you pay to be trained by someone who is not a working master and end up learning substandard or obsolete methods.
gnopgnip 7y ago
Many industries are competitive, there is a limited pool of people to hire. If you pay a little more you get lower turnover, and you end up with more experienced and more skilled employees than your competition.

johnmaguire2013 7y ago

There's a software shop in my area that works the same way.

mrkstu 7y ago
I used to work for a managed service provider and their NOC was the same way. They would cycle through newbie guys constantly since they had a pretty low cap on NOC tech pay. I was a design engineer so I was out of their direct loop, but close enough to observe. A lot of the local network engineers in the Austin area owe their start to working on that NOC desk- they were fairly large so they kept 30ish people fairly busy. Once they reached a certain level of competency they either moved to supervisory positions or got poached...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
em-bee 7y ago
could you link to that shop? i'd like to know how they make it work. i have seen a friend fail trying the same thing...

tempguy9999 7y ago

> I hear drugs is a big problem with applicants Possible legalisation of drugs and stuff around that is a matter of interest for me, so if you can elaborate on that I'd appreciate it.

jartelt 7y ago
Many physical labor jobs require applicants to take a drug test and breathalyzer on their first day of work. For some reason, a fair number of workers do not realize this and end up failing one of the tests and get fired on the first day.
refurb 7y ago
Since welding is a hazardous occupation, safety is a big concern. As such, they drug test workers on a regular basis. If you fail, you get fired. Even if drugs were legalized, this would still happen.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  "Even if drugs were legalized, this would still happen" - that's what I was after. Thanks.
  - refurb 7y ago
    Maybe I should temper my response. They test for drugs because being under the influence of drugs (including alcohol) is a safety hazard. I suppose if tests were developed that could differentiate between "I'm intoxicated" and "I smoked on my day off", the situation could change.
    - hansjorg 7y ago
      There's a Y Combinator startup for that: https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/13/y-combinator-bets-on-a-startup-building-a-weed-breathalyzer-for-cops/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/13/y-combinator-bets-on-a-sta...
    - 7y ago

count 7y ago

Is this company funded by govt contracts for ship manufacturing by any chance?

COGlory 7y ago
EB? I've heard they'll take just about anyone with a pulse. I've also heard they're horrible to work for, and have known several people that have quit.