5 ms·
Training people sucks because people have no loyalty. I've trained up a bunch of people, six months later they quit to move somewhere else, unless they suck the
by rr808 3y ago
Training people sucks because people have no loyalty. I've trained up a bunch of people, six months later they quit to move somewhere else, unless they suck then they likely stick around.
- ElevenLathe 3y agoHave you tried offering a competitive salary in addition to the training?
- belltaco 3y agoThe company the already trained worker is jumping to doesn't have to bear the cost of the training or paying the salary for 6 months like their company already did, so they can always pay better.
- ElevenLathe 3y agoThe training company can pay below-market while they are doing the training, but will obviously need to up the pay to market rate once the worker is trained.
- belltaco 3y agoPaying below market is still a cost with no guarantee that the worker will stay on. It's more advantageous to hire someone who was already trained in such a manner at a different company.
- ElevenLathe 3y agoIf a trained worker is worth X, an untrained one Y, and the cost of training is Z (including the lost productivity of the employee in training and any other workers needed to help train them), then you should be willing to pay (Y - Z) to the untrained employee. This is the same as asking them to pay for their own training. If they complete the training and then immediately quit, you still got a fair deal. If they work for less than (Y - Z) then you actually make out on the deal (you essentially got them to pay you more for the training than it cost you to provide). Now you have a trained employee that is willing to work for X (because that is how much they are now worth). You can insist on soaking them even more (by continuing to pay them below X) and watch them walk out and get a fair deal elsewhere, or pay them X and have them stay. Either way, you're whole. What am I missing?
- rr808 3y ago> you should be willing to pay (Y - Z) to the untrained employee. This is logical, but in reality Y - Z is usually negative. Traditionally people hired graduates and they stuck around and probably did get paid less than they could elsewhere because no one traditionally quit less than 2 years in their first job. It could be that the last 5 years really were just a crazy boom and people were jumping into pay rises very quickly. People could leave after 12 months work and get a job that used to require 5Y experience because there was such a shortage. Now the job market likely is back to normal so that route likely isn't available any more. In any case I'm kinda done training juniors.
- ElevenLathe 3y agoI get where you're coming from as "just an engineer" but it still seems like the market would clear at some point without needing to berate people for not having enough "loyalty" (which is rational, management are not loyal to us). Maybe the answer is contracts that are like "We train you for one year, then employ you below-market for two years. If you want to leave that's fine, but you (or your new employer) either owe us for the training or have to pay us market-rate for the remainder of your contract." I know similar things happen in MLB contracts, for example. This is one of those things where a sector-wide Hollywood-style (or MLBPA-style) union would make these kinds of negotiations much simpler. It would also help with the obvious employer-side abuses those kinds of contracts would enable. But once we start talking about union power, we're a ways away from just letting the market clear.
- rr808 3y agoI'm just a regular engineer, I dont set pay scales.