5 ms·

Should a doctor who learned a lot about perfecting a surgery in one job not be able to apply that at a new job? They shouldn’t be able to steal equipment for ex

Should a doctor who learned a lot about perfecting a surgery in one job not be able to apply that at a new job? They shouldn’t be able to steal equipment for example, but learning through your career is exactly what you should do and is what makes you valuable.

mlyle 4y ago
There's some edge cases. E.g. a type rating for a business jet might cost $150k or more to obtain. If a firm pays for a type rating for a pilot, that pilot is immediately more valuable to every other employer with that jet. The optimal strategy from a game theoretical point of view would be to let another employer pay for the rating, and then pay the pilot say $40k/year more than the original employer could afford to pay. So reasonable terms that require repayment of pro-rata portion of genuine training, etc, for some small number of years can make sense.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  If that's a real issue, the firm can just not pay for type rating training, and pay a higher salary to keep the job desirable despite the higher bar of entry. Or, be honest about the whole deal and make it an overt loan to the pilot. That's how it works with my employer -- if I want to get trained in a specialty that benefits my employer, they will partially cover the cost and extend me a loan for the rest. If I leave employment before I've repaid the loan, I'm still on the hook to repay it -- but I have not been turned into an indentured servant.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > Or, be honest about the whole deal and make it an overt loan to the pilot. That's how it works with my employer -- if I want to get trained in a specialty that benefits my employer, they will partially cover the cost and extend me a loan for the rest. Sure-- these terms have to be disclosed to be binding. So you can say-- we'll pay for your type rating but if you voluntarily leave within 3 years you must pay back the pro-rata portion of the training. (This is better for the employee than a straight loan because if they are e.g. laid off they can just walk away).
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Type ratings are rarely significantly over $30K and can be as little as $10K for a second type on a simple jet.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > Type ratings are rarely significantly over $30K It's my understanding that the current cost of type ratings for G-IV/G-V are ~$120k.
- lovich 4y ago
  Wouldn’t the optimal strategy be to invest in the type rating _and_ increase the pilots salary by 40k/yr? You wouldn’t refuse to invest in new equipment that makes your employees more efficient just because they might learn a skill using it, why should explicit training not be evaluated the same way?
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > why should explicit training not be evaluated the same way? You spend $100k on the type rating + increase their pay to $n per year. Someone else poaches them for $n+1 per year and saves the $100k. Employers who poach instead of paying for training win in a market like this. The only way to prevent this is to make employees bear the cost of the training / investment in their skillset-- either explicitly (Go take out a loan and get a type rating!) or implicitly (Pay us back if you leave before N time). The latter can be more employee friendly, because it removes some of the risk from the employee's point of view.
    - lovich 4y ago
      Switching jobs suck, increase their pay by $n/yr to where they dont consider moving. If this is a massively high cost then its a very in demand skill set which is going to cost you no matter what. Half the reason Americans switch jobs so quickly after getting trained is because the company wants to increase the employee's compensation by $0/yr. When an employee knows they are more valuable getting paid $0/yr extra lets them know they are guaranteed to be leaving money on the table, vs increasing their salary by some amount which let's them know they are getting some sort of value out of their new skills. Its not like the training is free of effort or time investment on the employee's part either. US companies try to be so cut throat with their employee's and make sure they don't leave a dollar they could have extracted out of them. I don't get why they are surprised that when they've put zero effort into the relationship for decades, that the employees treat them the same. They need to put in some up front effort or collateral to prove there's loyalty there and behavior like, I will invest in a skill that takes time for you as an employee to learn, and is only worth it to you because it will let you command a higher salary, but I am not going to give you a higher salary, is the type of behavior that incentives jumping ship and makes the strategy of "poachers" viable. Also as an aside, I hate the term poaching. I'm entering into business relationships with other businesses when I change employment. When managers or companies use the term poaching its a little too on the nose with how they view me as their property.
- Tao3300 4y ago
  Or you could make sure your pilots actually like working for you.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    Many/perhaps most people, even if they really like their employer, will happily take a big share of a $150k windfall and move jobs.

mlyle 4y ago

There's some edge cases. E.g. a type rating for a business jet might cost $150k or more to obtain. If a firm pays for a type rating for a pilot, that pilot is immediately more valuable to every other employer with that jet. The optimal strategy from a game theoretical point of view would be to let another employer pay for the rating, and then pay the pilot say $40k/year more than the original employer could afford to pay. So reasonable terms that require repayment of pro-rata portion of genuine training, etc, for some small number of years can make sense.

JohnFen 4y ago
If that's a real issue, the firm can just not pay for type rating training, and pay a higher salary to keep the job desirable despite the higher bar of entry. Or, be honest about the whole deal and make it an overt loan to the pilot. That's how it works with my employer -- if I want to get trained in a specialty that benefits my employer, they will partially cover the cost and extend me a loan for the rest. If I leave employment before I've repaid the loan, I'm still on the hook to repay it -- but I have not been turned into an indentured servant.
- mlyle 4y ago
  > Or, be honest about the whole deal and make it an overt loan to the pilot. That's how it works with my employer -- if I want to get trained in a specialty that benefits my employer, they will partially cover the cost and extend me a loan for the rest. Sure-- these terms have to be disclosed to be binding. So you can say-- we'll pay for your type rating but if you voluntarily leave within 3 years you must pay back the pro-rata portion of the training. (This is better for the employee than a straight loan because if they are e.g. laid off they can just walk away).
sokoloff 4y ago
Type ratings are rarely significantly over $30K and can be as little as $10K for a second type on a simple jet.
- mlyle 4y ago
  > Type ratings are rarely significantly over $30K It's my understanding that the current cost of type ratings for G-IV/G-V are ~$120k.
lovich 4y ago
Wouldn’t the optimal strategy be to invest in the type rating _and_ increase the pilots salary by 40k/yr? You wouldn’t refuse to invest in new equipment that makes your employees more efficient just because they might learn a skill using it, why should explicit training not be evaluated the same way?
- mlyle 4y ago
  > why should explicit training not be evaluated the same way? You spend $100k on the type rating + increase their pay to $n per year. Someone else poaches them for $n+1 per year and saves the $100k. Employers who poach instead of paying for training win in a market like this. The only way to prevent this is to make employees bear the cost of the training / investment in their skillset-- either explicitly (Go take out a loan and get a type rating!) or implicitly (Pay us back if you leave before N time). The latter can be more employee friendly, because it removes some of the risk from the employee's point of view.
  - lovich 4y ago
    Switching jobs suck, increase their pay by $n/yr to where they dont consider moving. If this is a massively high cost then its a very in demand skill set which is going to cost you no matter what. Half the reason Americans switch jobs so quickly after getting trained is because the company wants to increase the employee's compensation by $0/yr. When an employee knows they are more valuable getting paid $0/yr extra lets them know they are guaranteed to be leaving money on the table, vs increasing their salary by some amount which let's them know they are getting some sort of value out of their new skills. Its not like the training is free of effort or time investment on the employee's part either. US companies try to be so cut throat with their employee's and make sure they don't leave a dollar they could have extracted out of them. I don't get why they are surprised that when they've put zero effort into the relationship for decades, that the employees treat them the same. They need to put in some up front effort or collateral to prove there's loyalty there and behavior like, I will invest in a skill that takes time for you as an employee to learn, and is only worth it to you because it will let you command a higher salary, but I am not going to give you a higher salary, is the type of behavior that incentives jumping ship and makes the strategy of "poachers" viable. Also as an aside, I hate the term poaching. I'm entering into business relationships with other businesses when I change employment. When managers or companies use the term poaching its a little too on the nose with how they view me as their property.
Tao3300 4y ago
Or you could make sure your pilots actually like working for you.
- mlyle 4y ago
  Many/perhaps most people, even if they really like their employer, will happily take a big share of a $150k windfall and move jobs.