Ask HN: Why firms don't train workers anymore • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask HN: Why firms don't train workers anymore

#41

Post by tsotha » Sun, Sep 19, 2010, 8:18 PM UTC

At one time there was a stigma to changing jobs too often. Well, that's still true, but whereas people look at you funny for changing jobs every few months in 2010, in 1970 people who changed jobs every four or five years were regarded with suspicion.

As a result, your employer was much more confident he could see a return on his training efforts. In 2010 we expect people to jump ship when they find a better situation - why would would I invest money in someone's career when they may be working for my competitor next week?

Re: Ask HN: Why firms don't train workers anymore

#42

Post by rphlx » Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 4:04 AM UTC

thaumaturgy wrote: post #10

I'm a more "traditional" type of employer -- I have technicians, they go to homes and businesses, they set things up and solve problems, and I don't mind hiring under-experienced techs so long as I think they're willing to learn. I have a pretty good hunch why a lot of businesses aren't interested in doing this anymore: there is an extreme amount of external pressure not to do it. If one of my techs doesn't know how…

You're going to make them tuck in their t-shirts? Seriously? Unless you are getting actual customer complaints, that just seems like a stupid power-tripping way to ruin morale.

Re: Ask HN: Why firms don't train workers anymore

#43

Post by quicksilver03 » Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 9:31 AM UTC

stevejobs wrote: post #9

fierarul wrote: post #5

Well, you assume that training actually produces results. It might well be that after spending considerable time and money on the new employee he's still not a very good match for the original tasks. Then you are stuck with a loss and an employee you can't fire (since, for example, the 'testing' period is something like 2-4 weeks -- this might depend on the country/state, etc.). Or, training does work but the investm…

Why do you fear an employee would leave you after you invested in training him? Unless you are particularly abrasive, most employees would look favorably at an employer who helps them advance in their job than one who doesn't invest anything at all.

In France some employers have a clause in the employment contract that prevents employees from leaving the company within X months of having been trained (called "dédit formation").

The definition of "training" varies quite widely, and also the actual enforcement of the clause can vary between companies. It happened once in one of my classes, the company had the trainees sign this particular clause and it made for a very interesting monday morning.

Re: Ask HN: Why firms don't train workers anymore

#44

Post by c00ki3s » Tue, Sep 21, 2010, 7:12 PM UTC

thaumaturgy wrote: post #10

I'm a more "traditional" type of employer -- I have technicians, they go to homes and businesses, they set things up and solve problems, and I don't mind hiring under-experienced techs so long as I think they're willing to learn. I have a pretty good hunch why a lot of businesses aren't interested in doing this anymore: there is an extreme amount of external pressure not to do it. If one of my techs doesn't know how…

Let me just say this: A tucked in tshirt looks bad. Shirt tucked is something else, but a tucked tshirt just doesn't look right. It's like trousers that are a little short. Not horrible, but just not right.