5 ms·

The unstated counter-argument is that the employer will have to train inexperienced workers who will leave as soos as they become competent and experienced, or

The unstated counter-argument is that the employer will have to train inexperienced workers who will leave as soos as they become competent and experienced, or pay as much as you would for the experienced person in the first place. Myself, I'd rather train someone up in my process without them learning bad habits, even if that means they're pairing with me for 30 hours out of 40. That said, I'm an exception. Once upon a time, some companies hired new workers as QA, trained as QA, and those with the aptitude were moved into programming. I know that IBM still has an internship program that streams people into their system.

Retric 14y ago
If people leave after training then that's a retention problem and has nothing to do with how skilled they where when they started. And yes, giving a 22 year old tech worker a 25+% raise might seem crazy, but if you want to keep up with their increase in value you have to consider such things normal.
- imgabe 14y ago
  Yes, that's exactly the problem. Once you have that 2-3 years of experience, you're suddenly qualified for all of those jobs that want it, that were out of your reach when you just got out of school. Meanwhile, the 3% yearly raises have not kept up with what other employers are offering for someone with a little experience.
  - mgkimsal 14y ago
    What's even stranger is that that same company is probably offering a higher starting salary to someone with 2-4 years experience, but they won't adjust someone to that same salary if they start at 0 and get 2-4 years experience on the job. I've seen this firsthand, and heard similar stories from friends. Not all companies, certainly, but it seems common practice.
mratzloff 14y ago
That's because companies don't give them raises commensurate with their new experience. Each year for the first 2-3 years or so a new employee that's any good should be receiving large raises on top of their presumably modest starting salary. The problem is that companies think they can get away with keeping people anchored to those starting salaries. It doesn't work; morale suffers and they leave. Finding a young employee and turning him into one of your superstars is a really gratifying feeling. Watching him leave because obstinate business owners refuse to pay him what he is now worth is infuriating. I've experienced this several times in leadership roles and it is one of the many things that convinced me to start my own business.
- krschultz 14y ago
  That really is the crux of it. I got a 4.5% raise after my first year - not bad in this economy. I'll probably get similar this year. My girlfriend switched jobs after 18 months and got a 100% raise.
- wccrawford 14y ago
  Exactly. My first company did this for me, and I stayed and was loyal for 2 years beyond when they stopped treating me fairly. I'd still be there, happy and productive, if they had continued paying me what I was worth instead of claiming the economy wouldn't let me. Shortly after I left, they put out a job posting for 7 people, each at more than I would have accepted to stay. The job I left for was paying even more than that job posting, and I'm still here today. So why did they do that? Why treat me fairly initially, then stop? They didn't really gain much. I was unhappy for 2 years and my job performance suffered for it. They replaced me with people who didn't have my knowledge of their systems, and they paid them more. It was absolute insanity.
  - vonmoltke 14y ago
    My last company, which is used to having lifers working for them, operated under the assumption that if they kept an employee for the first five years out of college, they usually had them permanently. They assumed people like me[0] were rare. This attitude persists in spite of their issues with college hire retention over the past decade. Its possible the management at your first company had a similar attitude. [0] I left 5 months shy of my 10th service anniversary
graysnorf 14y ago
This is an excellent point, and perhaps an argument against at-will employment. Even if you had a candidate who was willing to commit to staying employed long enough to justify the time and expense of their training, in many US States they lack the legal power to agree to such a contract. Extrapolating from personal experience here as a programmer but it looks tough for a couple of reasons, one of which is pay. Employers tend to give very good starting salaries for experienced people, and very poor raises. So employees sign up inexperienced at low pay, get trained and get raises that put them below market rates, so their incentives tell them to do exactly the job hopping you describe.
- mhurron 14y ago
  Being in an at-will state does not remove the ability to have and enforce an employment contract.
tomjen3 14y ago
There is actually a system for dealing with that -- the apprentice system -- but that is mostly for trades.
juan_juarez 14y ago
Alternately, companies can just have policies in place to actually promote & give raises to people as their skills increase. If your HR procedures don't allow for somebody to get a 25% raise after a year, fire the HR - they're easier to replace than technical employees that understand your produce.

Retric 14y ago

If people leave after training then that's a retention problem and has nothing to do with how skilled they where when they started. And yes, giving a 22 year old tech worker a 25+% raise might seem crazy, but if you want to keep up with their increase in value you have to consider such things normal.

imgabe 14y ago
Yes, that's exactly the problem. Once you have that 2-3 years of experience, you're suddenly qualified for all of those jobs that want it, that were out of your reach when you just got out of school. Meanwhile, the 3% yearly raises have not kept up with what other employers are offering for someone with a little experience.
- mgkimsal 14y ago
  What's even stranger is that that same company is probably offering a higher starting salary to someone with 2-4 years experience, but they won't adjust someone to that same salary if they start at 0 and get 2-4 years experience on the job. I've seen this firsthand, and heard similar stories from friends. Not all companies, certainly, but it seems common practice.

mratzloff 14y ago

That's because companies don't give them raises commensurate with their new experience. Each year for the first 2-3 years or so a new employee that's any good should be receiving large raises on top of their presumably modest starting salary. The problem is that companies think they can get away with keeping people anchored to those starting salaries. It doesn't work; morale suffers and they leave. Finding a young employee and turning him into one of your superstars is a really gratifying feeling. Watching him leave because obstinate business owners refuse to pay him what he is now worth is infuriating. I've experienced this several times in leadership roles and it is one of the many things that convinced me to start my own business.

krschultz 14y ago
That really is the crux of it. I got a 4.5% raise after my first year - not bad in this economy. I'll probably get similar this year. My girlfriend switched jobs after 18 months and got a 100% raise.
wccrawford 14y ago
Exactly. My first company did this for me, and I stayed and was loyal for 2 years beyond when they stopped treating me fairly. I'd still be there, happy and productive, if they had continued paying me what I was worth instead of claiming the economy wouldn't let me. Shortly after I left, they put out a job posting for 7 people, each at more than I would have accepted to stay. The job I left for was paying even more than that job posting, and I'm still here today. So why did they do that? Why treat me fairly initially, then stop? They didn't really gain much. I was unhappy for 2 years and my job performance suffered for it. They replaced me with people who didn't have my knowledge of their systems, and they paid them more. It was absolute insanity.
- vonmoltke 14y ago
  My last company, which is used to having lifers working for them, operated under the assumption that if they kept an employee for the first five years out of college, they usually had them permanently. They assumed people like me[0] were rare. This attitude persists in spite of their issues with college hire retention over the past decade. Its possible the management at your first company had a similar attitude. [0] I left 5 months shy of my 10th service anniversary

graysnorf 14y ago

This is an excellent point, and perhaps an argument against at-will employment. Even if you had a candidate who was willing to commit to staying employed long enough to justify the time and expense of their training, in many US States they lack the legal power to agree to such a contract. Extrapolating from personal experience here as a programmer but it looks tough for a couple of reasons, one of which is pay. Employers tend to give very good starting salaries for experienced people, and very poor raises. So employees sign up inexperienced at low pay, get trained and get raises that put them below market rates, so their incentives tell them to do exactly the job hopping you describe.

mhurron 14y ago
Being in an at-will state does not remove the ability to have and enforce an employment contract.

tomjen3 14y ago

There is actually a system for dealing with that -- the apprentice system -- but that is mostly for trades.

juan_juarez 14y ago

Alternately, companies can just have policies in place to actually promote & give raises to people as their skills increase. If your HR procedures don't allow for somebody to get a 25% raise after a year, fire the HR - they're easier to replace than technical employees that understand your produce.