3 ms·

> quit either don't hire somebody without the training. What is better for employees - to have the option to get training and have to stay at the company one y

• polygamous_bat 4y ago
  > What is better for employees - to have the option to get training and have to stay at the company one year, or to not have the option at all? What is better for employers, provide free training to cheaper employees, or choosing more expensive employees from a smaller pool of trained people?
  • throw123123123 4y ago
    It surely depends on the market!
• alistairSH 4y ago
  It would be best for employees if the training was suppled at employer cost and working conditions were such that they didn't need to quit. There was a similar story linked a few weeks ago. My comment then still applies. If the value of the training accrues primarily to the employer then the employer should be footing the cost with no strings attached. A common example is paying for a Masters degree or an industry certification. The value accrues primarily to the employee (or at least, the value is shared). The training is transferable. It's standardized. Etc. Requiring a pay-back period is reasonable here. The counter-example are training courses as described in the article. The employee was already certified/licensed in the field. The training offered no value to the employee. The employer should be paying for it (but isn't, because this is just an end-run around debt peonage laws).