23 ms·

Reminds me of Kim Wexler from Better Call Saul. Her tuition was paid by the law firm she worked for. This comes up in the story later on. I imagine that comp

Reminds me of Kim Wexler from Better Call Saul. Her tuition was paid by the law firm she worked for. This comes up in the story later on. I imagine that companies can't just be used for free education. There has to be some middle ground. If there is a middle ground found, then both sides (the employees and the employers) will both end up in a better place. If there is no protection for the employer, well then they will just not provide any as much education as the situation calls for. And if employees are given a fair deal, they will be more likely to apply for these jobs. Maybe let the free market solve this.

rtkwe 4y ago
That wasn't her tuition being paid AFAIK she personally owed the money they were repaying for her while she worked there I though? Been a while since I watched that season though.
- bena 4y ago
  Yeah, she had essentially loaned the money from HHM. It was pretty much like this. They would pay for her law school, she agreed to work for them for X years, if she quit or would be fired before that, she'd owe an amount prorated to time worked. At some point, there's some back and forth with her trying to pay it off and Hamlin refusing and choosing to forgive it instead. And in the end, Great Value Humperdink pays it off for her as a sort of signing bonus.
  - rtkwe 4y ago
    I thought she had paid and the loans were in her name and HHM was paying them for her is what I meant.
    - bena 4y ago
      No, I would think HHM would be smarter than that. Student loans are pretty predatory, shit interest rates, deferment, capitalization, etc. all combine to make these loans cost way more than they should. HHM could likely either get a more conventional loan or just use cash on hand to pay the tuition up front. With a conventional loan, they could get a more reasonable interest rate, start paying immediately, etc. And there are reason HHM would still take a loan for the amount even if they had cash on hand to pay it up front. It's likely if HHM took any loans, they're technically paid off by now. Kim's debt is solely between her and HHM by this point. How they structured the deal could affect things. They could have charged her like a 3% interest and started the clock the day she graduated and counted every day worked as $X towards her loan. Or a portion of her billing.
oneplane 4y ago
The free market is a joke and big companies will always win against individuals unless they get protected by law. They have more people, more time and more money. If you want to be an employer, you're the one taking the risks. Don't want to take risks? Don't become an employer, or better yet, don't do business, because that comes with risks too. And just in case people haven't thought about externalities or a more basic factor: people can be desperate, that doesn't mean you should therefore exploit them as an employer. We're not living in the 1400's anymore.
- jmartrican 4y ago
  Well I think the problem is many companies might decide to not take on that risk like you said. And we all lose. The trick is to figure out the right amount of risk that the government will help or hurt the employer.
  - oneplane 4y ago
    And I think not, because in countries with much stronger employee protections it works out pretty well. The biggest 'downside' is a smaller concentration of power and wealth because the risk/reward calculation is different. But being bigger serves nobody except a few sub-1% shareholders/owners. There also is no "we all lose" scenario because of the same reason companies have been able to exploit desperate (or extremely poor) people; companies can be discarded and traded in for more respectful ones in the same fashion. Sure, a bunch of megacorps will not function any longer without a disposable workforce, but that's not really bad for society, or at the very least 'less-bad' when compared with disposable employees. The same "we have to give them tax breaks or they will move away" logic fails here; if you give a company that sort of leverage, you're essentially blackmailing yourself because they can use that leverage for anything they want. As long as there are locations to move to, that is. If there are no more locations, be it because they have used them all up, or because it's made useless by law, that leverage ceases to exist. Downside-wise there is only one thing I can consistently come up with, and that is the benefit of having a high concentration of resources and purpose (or vision perhaps) to develop something completely new (like re-usable rocket boosters fit for human flight). While I don't think we should trade that for disposable humans, there should probably some sort of avenue where we can have that benefit without having the human-downside factor. I'm not sure how such a thing would be implemented or work out in detail, but not having it (and in turn also not have people get discarded with great ease) might still be a net positive in the grand scheme. Rolling over going all "welp I guess this is just how it is" gets everyone nowhere, so before someone comes along and suggest that a better way is a waste of time and energy to look for: you're wrong. (not aimed at you, jmartrican ;-) )
adamsmith143 4y ago
One of my employers gave every employee 5000 per year for education with no strings attached. Want to get a Masters in Basketweaving? No problem. They gave up to 10k with manager approval. Typically places that will totally fund expensive degrees (JD, MBA, etc.) will have you sign a contract and you typically are required to stay on for X years after you finish the degree they paid for.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
> I imagine that companies can't just be used for free education. It is not free education if the employee is working for them business. All benefits are part of the compensation in exchange for the employees’ time.
DangitBobby 4y ago
The difference is Kim chose to go to Lawschool so she could become a lawyer, and the firm that hired her was helping her pay off her debt as part of her compensation. That situation is a little dystopian, but pretty different from what's happeming in the article. They are required by their work to get this training (so, employees are not choosing to do it) and sticking them with the bill.
- jmartrican 4y ago
  It was required that Kim got her law degree if she wanted to move out of the mail room.
  - rhino369 4y ago
    That situation is pretty distinguishable from what happened in the article. A law degree's benefits mostly fall on Kim, it's not specific training for her job, it's a legal requirement for an attorney role, and it is fully usable in other attorney jobs. Most importantly, it's a truly optional deal to get Kim a promotion--not a requirement to keep the job you were already hired for. And most people pay for the degree themselves. That's not the same as a company specific trainings for people who are already licensed for the job. There is definitely some sort of gray area between education and on-the-job training, but Kim's case isn't in that area IMO.
AlwaysRock 4y ago
But loads of companies, dare I say every company, is already used for free education. Every single job I've been in taught me a set of skills which I used to find a significantly better job within a few years. They got me a little rough around the edges but otherwise productive for xx months and I got on the job training. Now any of those companies in the past could have said, "Hey we recognize that you've been here xx months and that your skills have increased. You can likely go get a job at another firm doing x and earning y. We want to offer you that here." But none of them have. At least not until I've gotten an offer elsewhere and decided to make that move already.
- jmartrican 4y ago
  Solid point. I would say that the point here is extra education that is paid for by the employer, not experience points from doing the job.
fckgw 4y ago
I've done tuition reimbursement programs at two jobs (One for bachelors, one for Masters). The businesses have two benefits to offering these programs: 1) The amount paid is a benefit to the employee but is not subject to payroll taxes. 2) The amount is also qualified as a business expense and can be calculated as such for tax purposes. So companies have serious tax benefits from offering these programs and generally end up being no-cost due to offsetting tax burden. Even if an employee leaves after earning their degree (mine have always had a 12-month payback period) the company still comes out on top.

rtkwe 4y ago

That wasn't her tuition being paid AFAIK she personally owed the money they were repaying for her while she worked there I though? Been a while since I watched that season though.

bena 4y ago
Yeah, she had essentially loaned the money from HHM. It was pretty much like this. They would pay for her law school, she agreed to work for them for X years, if she quit or would be fired before that, she'd owe an amount prorated to time worked. At some point, there's some back and forth with her trying to pay it off and Hamlin refusing and choosing to forgive it instead. And in the end, Great Value Humperdink pays it off for her as a sort of signing bonus.
- rtkwe 4y ago
  I thought she had paid and the loans were in her name and HHM was paying them for her is what I meant.
  - bena 4y ago
    No, I would think HHM would be smarter than that. Student loans are pretty predatory, shit interest rates, deferment, capitalization, etc. all combine to make these loans cost way more than they should. HHM could likely either get a more conventional loan or just use cash on hand to pay the tuition up front. With a conventional loan, they could get a more reasonable interest rate, start paying immediately, etc. And there are reason HHM would still take a loan for the amount even if they had cash on hand to pay it up front. It's likely if HHM took any loans, they're technically paid off by now. Kim's debt is solely between her and HHM by this point. How they structured the deal could affect things. They could have charged her like a 3% interest and started the clock the day she graduated and counted every day worked as $X towards her loan. Or a portion of her billing.

oneplane 4y ago

The free market is a joke and big companies will always win against individuals unless they get protected by law. They have more people, more time and more money. If you want to be an employer, you're the one taking the risks. Don't want to take risks? Don't become an employer, or better yet, don't do business, because that comes with risks too. And just in case people haven't thought about externalities or a more basic factor: people can be desperate, that doesn't mean you should therefore exploit them as an employer. We're not living in the 1400's anymore.

jmartrican 4y ago
Well I think the problem is many companies might decide to not take on that risk like you said. And we all lose. The trick is to figure out the right amount of risk that the government will help or hurt the employer.
- oneplane 4y ago
  And I think not, because in countries with much stronger employee protections it works out pretty well. The biggest 'downside' is a smaller concentration of power and wealth because the risk/reward calculation is different. But being bigger serves nobody except a few sub-1% shareholders/owners. There also is no "we all lose" scenario because of the same reason companies have been able to exploit desperate (or extremely poor) people; companies can be discarded and traded in for more respectful ones in the same fashion. Sure, a bunch of megacorps will not function any longer without a disposable workforce, but that's not really bad for society, or at the very least 'less-bad' when compared with disposable employees. The same "we have to give them tax breaks or they will move away" logic fails here; if you give a company that sort of leverage, you're essentially blackmailing yourself because they can use that leverage for anything they want. As long as there are locations to move to, that is. If there are no more locations, be it because they have used them all up, or because it's made useless by law, that leverage ceases to exist. Downside-wise there is only one thing I can consistently come up with, and that is the benefit of having a high concentration of resources and purpose (or vision perhaps) to develop something completely new (like re-usable rocket boosters fit for human flight). While I don't think we should trade that for disposable humans, there should probably some sort of avenue where we can have that benefit without having the human-downside factor. I'm not sure how such a thing would be implemented or work out in detail, but not having it (and in turn also not have people get discarded with great ease) might still be a net positive in the grand scheme. Rolling over going all "welp I guess this is just how it is" gets everyone nowhere, so before someone comes along and suggest that a better way is a waste of time and energy to look for: you're wrong. (not aimed at you, jmartrican ;-) )

adamsmith143 4y ago

One of my employers gave every employee 5000 per year for education with no strings attached. Want to get a Masters in Basketweaving? No problem. They gave up to 10k with manager approval. Typically places that will totally fund expensive degrees (JD, MBA, etc.) will have you sign a contract and you typically are required to stay on for X years after you finish the degree they paid for.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

> I imagine that companies can't just be used for free education. It is not free education if the employee is working for them business. All benefits are part of the compensation in exchange for the employees’ time.

DangitBobby 4y ago

The difference is Kim chose to go to Lawschool so she could become a lawyer, and the firm that hired her was helping her pay off her debt as part of her compensation. That situation is a little dystopian, but pretty different from what's happeming in the article. They are required by their work to get this training (so, employees are not choosing to do it) and sticking them with the bill.

jmartrican 4y ago
It was required that Kim got her law degree if she wanted to move out of the mail room.
- rhino369 4y ago
  That situation is pretty distinguishable from what happened in the article. A law degree's benefits mostly fall on Kim, it's not specific training for her job, it's a legal requirement for an attorney role, and it is fully usable in other attorney jobs. Most importantly, it's a truly optional deal to get Kim a promotion--not a requirement to keep the job you were already hired for. And most people pay for the degree themselves. That's not the same as a company specific trainings for people who are already licensed for the job. There is definitely some sort of gray area between education and on-the-job training, but Kim's case isn't in that area IMO.

AlwaysRock 4y ago

But loads of companies, dare I say every company, is already used for free education. Every single job I've been in taught me a set of skills which I used to find a significantly better job within a few years. They got me a little rough around the edges but otherwise productive for xx months and I got on the job training. Now any of those companies in the past could have said, "Hey we recognize that you've been here xx months and that your skills have increased. You can likely go get a job at another firm doing x and earning y. We want to offer you that here." But none of them have. At least not until I've gotten an offer elsewhere and decided to make that move already.

jmartrican 4y ago
Solid point. I would say that the point here is extra education that is paid for by the employer, not experience points from doing the job.

fckgw 4y ago

I've done tuition reimbursement programs at two jobs (One for bachelors, one for Masters). The businesses have two benefits to offering these programs: 1) The amount paid is a benefit to the employee but is not subject to payroll taxes. 2) The amount is also qualified as a business expense and can be calculated as such for tax purposes. So companies have serious tax benefits from offering these programs and generally end up being no-cost due to offsetting tax burden. Even if an employee leaves after earning their degree (mine have always had a 12-month payback period) the company still comes out on top.