4 ms·

This is not possible in France, by law. While I love our labor law (with all is atrocities as well), this is one of these points I would challenge. When you in

This is not possible in France, by law. While I love our labor law (with all is atrocities as well), this is one of these points I would challenge. When you invest Xk€ in specialized trying just to have someone quit right after that it is quite annoying. This is money which build have gone into training for other members of the team that stay. Having this money paid back by the company that hires them could be a solution (with plenty of issues of is own)

ivan_gammel 3y ago
If training is voluntary and pay back in case of termination by employee is agreed in the contract, sure. Otherwise there's no reason why a company is ok to accept the risk of money loss due to the employee being hit by a bus, but not ok to accept the risk of failure to retain that person.
- diogenes4 3y ago
  > If training is voluntary and pay back in case of termination by employee is agreed in the contract, sure. It's insane how willing american culture is to waive what should be rights if they're signed away. Really, the primary right available to you is the right to be railroaded by contract.
  - constantly 3y ago
    You’re not living up to your moniker’s namesake with this comment. As a general matter, people in fact should have enough agency to be able to evaluate a situation and decide to sign away certain protections. There are many exceptions to this, but signing away one’s ability to freely leave a job without consequence in exchange for upskilling at their employer’s expense falls squarely into the principle above.
    - fzeroracer 3y ago
      The funny thing is, we know the outcome of your line of thinking. Eventually it becomes normalized and part of every contract. That's why we had to stamp out non-competes because otherwise companies would gladly collude to make it so there is no choice.
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      Have you read contracts, terms of services? You don't acually need to. I'll summarize 100% of those documents for you right now in an easy to understand post with no legalese. > you own nothing > the company owns everything > you have no rights > you promise not to try and exercise any right you think you have > you agree to binding arbitration with the firm we pay, just in case you ever get it in your silly little head that you do have rights > you cannot do anything the company doesn't like > the company can do anything it wants whether you like it or not > the company is not responsible for anything ever > the company makes absolutely no guarantees about anything > however you are liable for everything that you do that we do not approve of That's what happens when you can alienate people from their rights via contract: alienation turns into legal boilerplate present in every single one of those documents. The only possible reason for a company not to do this is ignorance or legal liability.
      - BrandoElFollito 3y ago
        Contracts are good, they are a proof of mutual engagement. Contracts that enforce only one position are not good - this is why we have string labour laws. A contract in France cannot have anything that is outside the labour law. They are completely generic.
        matheusmoreira 3y ago
        I'm not arguing against the existence of contracts. I'm arguing against the position that people should have the "ability" to waive away their own rights. Such an "ability" inevitably leads to the boilerplate situation I described above. My country's laws work the same way as what you described. I've had lawyers straight up laugh when I presented them some of these abusive contracts. This "waive your rights" business seems to be an american thing.
        BrandoElFollito 3y ago
        This is why I am not suggesting that people waive their rights - this should be completely forbidden because it will be used against them (and in France it is not possible for you to waive your rights, that part of the contract just does not exist in the eye of the law) What I suggested is to have another company take the burden of the training that happened right before someone left.
  - ivan_gammel 3y ago
    How American culture is related to my comment?
- HPsquared 3y ago
  If an employee has training, they're more attractive to other employers. Not the case with buses.
  - 26fingies 3y ago
    well then stop being a shitty employer if you have a problem with people moving on after you train them up. i thought we were into the free market here.
    - erik_seaberg 3y ago
      It’s a free-rider problem. How can you compete with me when only you bear training costs while only I benefit from the worker’s skill? A key question is whether the training is actually worth what’s being charged for it.
      - 26fingies 3y ago
        is it though? you’re training people so they can be competent at the job they’ve been hired for and then they what take their skills and go do the same thing at a different company? Why would they do that when they already have a job at your company? There must be a reason for them to be leaving in sufficient numbers to cause you problems…
        em-bee 3y ago
        maybe if i don't suffer the cost of training juniors then i can offer a higher salary?
        erik_seaberg 3y ago
        Or maybe I have all the customers because I can afford to sell at lower margins.
        em-bee 3y ago
Buttons840 3y ago
People's right to move to better jobs (by their own judgement) is more important than a business's right to never lose money. In fact, businesses don't have a right to never lose money at all. A business can fail, that's okay, it's an important part of our economy that businesses fail. Let them take their loss, and let them fail if they can't find a way to succeed that doesn't involve financial slavery.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  You seem to think this only benefits the employer. Financially viable on-the-job training benefits employee opportunities as well. E.g. if $CORP pays for my MBA, I think it's reasonable to commit to labor or payment.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - fatfingerd 3y ago
    Sounds absurd and abusive to me. Companies should feel pressure to have good perks such as useful education that could be used elsewhere and if they can't retain people they certainly don't deserve a kick back for sucking. I don't want to play in a job market with parasitic companies full of indentured servants who are afraid to demand the wage correspond to their role.
    - paulddraper 3y ago
      Sounds like a system that will make upward mobility difficult.
  - hotnfresh 3y ago
    Not a fan of moving back toward indenture systems, personally.
    - paulddraper 3y ago
      Any explanation why or just preference?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 3y ago
People quit due to toxic management culture, not to triple their salaries with a shitty training program. What you propose will end up with employees refusing to be trained because they have a low salary (I know that, I’m French). A previous job wanted me to pay for my own training when I got a promotion. They told me they would reimburse me later, which was an insult on top of the miserable salary I had. I quit later because why would I work with someone who can’t even take care of their employees?
- BrandoElFollito 3y ago
  > People quit due to toxic management culture, not to triple their salaries with a shitty training program. > What you propose will end up with employees refusing to be trained because they have a low salary (I know that, I’m French It certainly depends where you work. A GIAC training in information security is a few thousand euros. Cybersec people are well paid and do not have problems to find a good job. They quit for various reasons (not only salaries, also remote work, freelancing and other similar stuff) Your situation does not reflect everyone's. > A previous job wanted me to pay for my own training when I got a promotion. They told me they would reimburse me later, which was an insult on top of the miserable salary I had. I quit later because why would I work with someone who can’t even take care of their employees? That's a good reason to quit, yes. I do not see what your point is, though. Finally, as I said in my last sentence - a probably fair deal would be for the receiving company to pay some kind of pro-rata.
orwin 3y ago
I mean, the company can use the fact that they paid for your training to void the money on your CPF for the year. And if the training is really expensive, they can propose you to pay the formation with your CPF, for a discounted price (I got a cybersec formation for half the price, paid in full by my CPF last year. This year they pay for my AWS architect certificate)
- BrandoElFollito 3y ago
  > the company can use the fact that they paid for your training to void the money on your CPF for the year can they? I did not know that. Are you sure of this? The law seems to clearly say no: https://www.editions-tissot.fr/droit-travail/content.aspx?idSGML=a34164ee-4f84-469e-9060-67ba810d73f1&codeSpace=FPR&op=1&codeCategory=PME&chapitre=C1&pageNumber=5&section=P05C1F100 https://www.editions-tissot.fr/droit-travail/content.aspx?id...

ivan_gammel 3y ago

If training is voluntary and pay back in case of termination by employee is agreed in the contract, sure. Otherwise there's no reason why a company is ok to accept the risk of money loss due to the employee being hit by a bus, but not ok to accept the risk of failure to retain that person.

diogenes4 3y ago
> If training is voluntary and pay back in case of termination by employee is agreed in the contract, sure. It's insane how willing american culture is to waive what should be rights if they're signed away. Really, the primary right available to you is the right to be railroaded by contract.
- constantly 3y ago
  You’re not living up to your moniker’s namesake with this comment. As a general matter, people in fact should have enough agency to be able to evaluate a situation and decide to sign away certain protections. There are many exceptions to this, but signing away one’s ability to freely leave a job without consequence in exchange for upskilling at their employer’s expense falls squarely into the principle above.
  - fzeroracer 3y ago
    The funny thing is, we know the outcome of your line of thinking. Eventually it becomes normalized and part of every contract. That's why we had to stamp out non-competes because otherwise companies would gladly collude to make it so there is no choice.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    Have you read contracts, terms of services? You don't acually need to. I'll summarize 100% of those documents for you right now in an easy to understand post with no legalese. > you own nothing > the company owns everything > you have no rights > you promise not to try and exercise any right you think you have > you agree to binding arbitration with the firm we pay, just in case you ever get it in your silly little head that you do have rights > you cannot do anything the company doesn't like > the company can do anything it wants whether you like it or not > the company is not responsible for anything ever > the company makes absolutely no guarantees about anything > however you are liable for everything that you do that we do not approve of That's what happens when you can alienate people from their rights via contract: alienation turns into legal boilerplate present in every single one of those documents. The only possible reason for a company not to do this is ignorance or legal liability.
    - BrandoElFollito 3y ago
      Contracts are good, they are a proof of mutual engagement. Contracts that enforce only one position are not good - this is why we have string labour laws. A contract in France cannot have anything that is outside the labour law. They are completely generic.
      - matheusmoreira 3y ago
        I'm not arguing against the existence of contracts. I'm arguing against the position that people should have the "ability" to waive away their own rights. Such an "ability" inevitably leads to the boilerplate situation I described above. My country's laws work the same way as what you described. I've had lawyers straight up laugh when I presented them some of these abusive contracts. This "waive your rights" business seems to be an american thing.
        BrandoElFollito 3y ago
        This is why I am not suggesting that people waive their rights - this should be completely forbidden because it will be used against them (and in France it is not possible for you to waive your rights, that part of the contract just does not exist in the eye of the law) What I suggested is to have another company take the burden of the training that happened right before someone left.
- ivan_gammel 3y ago
  How American culture is related to my comment?
HPsquared 3y ago
If an employee has training, they're more attractive to other employers. Not the case with buses.
- 26fingies 3y ago
  well then stop being a shitty employer if you have a problem with people moving on after you train them up. i thought we were into the free market here.
  - erik_seaberg 3y ago
    It’s a free-rider problem. How can you compete with me when only you bear training costs while only I benefit from the worker’s skill? A key question is whether the training is actually worth what’s being charged for it.
    - 26fingies 3y ago
      is it though? you’re training people so they can be competent at the job they’ve been hired for and then they what take their skills and go do the same thing at a different company? Why would they do that when they already have a job at your company? There must be a reason for them to be leaving in sufficient numbers to cause you problems…
      - em-bee 3y ago
        maybe if i don't suffer the cost of training juniors then i can offer a higher salary?
        erik_seaberg 3y ago
        Or maybe I have all the customers because I can afford to sell at lower margins.
        em-bee 3y ago

Buttons840 3y ago

People's right to move to better jobs (by their own judgement) is more important than a business's right to never lose money. In fact, businesses don't have a right to never lose money at all. A business can fail, that's okay, it's an important part of our economy that businesses fail. Let them take their loss, and let them fail if they can't find a way to succeed that doesn't involve financial slavery.

paulddraper 3y ago
You seem to think this only benefits the employer. Financially viable on-the-job training benefits employee opportunities as well. E.g. if $CORP pays for my MBA, I think it's reasonable to commit to labor or payment.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- fatfingerd 3y ago
  Sounds absurd and abusive to me. Companies should feel pressure to have good perks such as useful education that could be used elsewhere and if they can't retain people they certainly don't deserve a kick back for sucking. I don't want to play in a job market with parasitic companies full of indentured servants who are afraid to demand the wage correspond to their role.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    Sounds like a system that will make upward mobility difficult.
- hotnfresh 3y ago
  Not a fan of moving back toward indenture systems, personally.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    Any explanation why or just preference?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 3y ago

People quit due to toxic management culture, not to triple their salaries with a shitty training program. What you propose will end up with employees refusing to be trained because they have a low salary (I know that, I’m French). A previous job wanted me to pay for my own training when I got a promotion. They told me they would reimburse me later, which was an insult on top of the miserable salary I had. I quit later because why would I work with someone who can’t even take care of their employees?

BrandoElFollito 3y ago
> People quit due to toxic management culture, not to triple their salaries with a shitty training program. > What you propose will end up with employees refusing to be trained because they have a low salary (I know that, I’m French It certainly depends where you work. A GIAC training in information security is a few thousand euros. Cybersec people are well paid and do not have problems to find a good job. They quit for various reasons (not only salaries, also remote work, freelancing and other similar stuff) Your situation does not reflect everyone's. > A previous job wanted me to pay for my own training when I got a promotion. They told me they would reimburse me later, which was an insult on top of the miserable salary I had. I quit later because why would I work with someone who can’t even take care of their employees? That's a good reason to quit, yes. I do not see what your point is, though. Finally, as I said in my last sentence - a probably fair deal would be for the receiving company to pay some kind of pro-rata.

orwin 3y ago

I mean, the company can use the fact that they paid for your training to void the money on your CPF for the year. And if the training is really expensive, they can propose you to pay the formation with your CPF, for a discounted price (I got a cybersec formation for half the price, paid in full by my CPF last year. This year they pay for my AWS architect certificate)

BrandoElFollito 3y ago
> the company can use the fact that they paid for your training to void the money on your CPF for the year can they? I did not know that. Are you sure of this? The law seems to clearly say no: https://www.editions-tissot.fr/droit-travail/content.aspx?idSGML=a34164ee-4f84-469e-9060-67ba810d73f1&codeSpace=FPR&op=1&codeCategory=PME&chapitre=C1&pageNumber=5&section=P05C1F100 https://www.editions-tissot.fr/droit-travail/content.aspx?id...