Conditions for training of employees 11

[lz5pl]

Our company is going to send two of our young engineers on training courses. Price of these trainings is quite high for us (let say comparable with their salary for a half year), but we are ready to spend these money for improving qualification of these guys and also to show them that we appreciate their work and value them for our future.
The problem is that they could leave the company after training (well, probably they will do it some day anyway, but please, not tomorrow ) and our investment will be wasted.

My question is: What is the typical practice for such cases in your company? If your personnel is required to sign some contract to work for the company at least fixed time after the training, or some other way of compensation? Whose property are received certificates - of the personal or of the company?

If possible please indicate from which country or region is your experience - US/Canada, West Europe, East Europe, Asia, etc. Reason is that the mentality in different area is also different and not every advice is applicable in every country. Our company is in East Europe.

http://www.triel.bg

------------------------
It may be like this in theory and practice, but in real life it is completely different.
The favourite sentence of my army sergeant

 

[GregLocock]

My experience in Western Europe, and Australia, is that the training and certificate belongs to the trainee, and if you are foolish enough not to recognise the increased value of a trained employee then that is your problem.



Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[TheTick]

What kind of training costs half a year's salary? Makes one believe you are either paying your employees too little or your trainer too much.

 

[MacGyverS2000]

Greg, I believe the OP recognizes the benefit to training employees, and that doesn't really appear to be in question. I can certainly sympathize with him, as spending any appreciable amount of money on something only to watch it walk out the door the following day is a kick in the pants.

lz, you may want to be a little more specific on the training costs we're talking about here... half a year's salary for a $20k/year employee is vastly different than one who's paid $100k/year. Your own conscience will have to be the guide here as it's not set in stone, but I imagine a contract would be a prudent measure. My experience is coming from the US, and it is pretty typical for corporations to pay for relocation expenses for engineers. Should they leave before a set time is up (often a year), the engineer is required to pay back the cost of the relocation (the nicer companies will prorate it). Years back I watched an officemate squirm considerably as it was requested he pay his relocation expenses back... he was leaving about two weeks short of a full year to start a PhD, so he really couldn't stick it out for another few weeks.

But don't make the contract all bad. If the employee is willing to stay for 3 years, he will receive a guaranteed pay increase of 'X%' every year, with a bonus at the end of the three years. If he leaves before then, he has to pay the training costs back, prorated. Figure out how long a trained employee would take to recoup the cost of that training, add 20% in time, and make that the contract length. Regardless of when the employee leaves, you know you'll be recouping the cost either in prorated fee returns or higher efficiency.


Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[JamesBarlow]

I'm with Greg on this one. Extra things, like training, are simply part of the overall compensation package given to an employee. It's something that is a benefit for both employee and employer and is a win win either way.

As I tell all the younger engineers, there are more important things in this world than just money so don't let that be the only factor in making decisions.

Things like training, tuition, and professional association dues, are all important benefits that help everyone involved. Putting strings on them will discourage people from using them and the employee will either leave to a better company or stay and eventually you will have people who are falling behind on current issues.

 

[kelowna]

The other side of the argument is that I guess you are paying the training of these engineers because YOU need them to have the knowledge/qualification.

 

[PatBethea]

At one company I worked for, they wanted to send me to PRO/E training somewhere. The cost of the trip and training was going to be several thousand dollars. Before sending me, they wanted me to sign a contract that stated if I left within two years of completing the training, I would have to pay back a pro-rated portion (pro-rated over the two years). I had already decided I was leaving before that two years was up, so I declined to sign and they sent someone else instead.

I've heard of similar arrangements elsewhere. I've also seen this type of arrangement when a company agrees to pay for a degree program. It seems fair to me - the company is helping the employee, the employee is gaining knowledge/skills which in turn help the company. If the employee would rather opt out, that's his option.

 

[csd72]

Pat,

Thats the type of deal that many expats have to sign before they transfer overseas.

lz,

I can see where you are coming from. It would be pretty low of the employees to leave immediately after you have given them this training, but it could happen. It depends how poorly you are paying them.

 

[looslib]

For most training courses lasting up to 5 days, like CAD training, there shouldn't be any requirement stated. The employee will come back and be more productive immediately, so the payback is very short for the company.

One place I worked sent 1 engineer to school for a year to get their masters degree. In this case, the company did make them sign a 2 year stay contract after the degree was awarded.


"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli

 

[msquared48]

I agree with Greg...

Also one other thought - the extra training should decrease the overall liability of the firm, possibly resulting in lower insurance premiums.

Mike McCann
McCann Engineering

 

[lz5pl]

GregLocock, TheTick, I intentionally pointed out that there are region-specific aspects in this question. As macgyvers2000 wrote, 10 000 USD for two-week training have different value when good salary in your country is 20000 USD and when is 100000 USD.

I really value these guys and don't like to take some steps to force them to stay in the company (other story is that actually by law they can leave any time with one month notification). I don't pay them less than my competitors and work in our company is more interesting than in competitors). But when say competitors I mean companies on our level. We cannot compete in benefits with big guys like ABB or Siemens !

I myself have been on many trainings from my previous company and never have been asked to take any obligations. In my last year with them I stay on salary lower than average for the country just to complete one project - otherwise they would fail to energize the station. For me it was a matter of loyality (and it was paid by their refusal to pay me my last salary, but it is another story :-( !). But I am sure I cannot expect loyality from everybody. Young people start building their lifes now and they have more spendings even than me. I wouldn't blame them for leaving me (we even have talked about that with them), I just wonder how to ensure that in some moment some my project will not be left in the mud because somebody offered the guy 20% more.

The training in question is two-weeks course on SCADA systems. We are going to expand our commissioning activities in that field, in addition to relay protections testing. We have no real SCADA project at the moment, so this training is some kind of investement for the future. Therefore it is very important for me, but I cannot expect immediate return.

Re-reading all posts above and re-thinking over my own experience I am going to accept that some kind of gentleman agreement will be the best solution in this particular case.
I myself wouldn't feel comfortably if asked to singn some tigth contract and my loyality for the company probably will be shaken. With or withot contract I try to pay the best possible for me salaries for our market (definitely it is not California here!) and to keep friendly relations with my emploees. And will hope for the best!

Well, we also have a nice proverb here: There is no good deed left unpunished !

------------------------
It may be like this in theory and practice, but in real life it is completely different.
The favourite sentence of my army sergeant

 

[csd72]

Msquared48,

but what you say only applies if the employee stays with the firm, otherwise it is wasted money that another firm will benefit from, which is the crux of the issue.

I find the level of training in my industry to be very poor compared to my wifes (non technical) industry. I believe a large part of it is this fear of spending money on training employees only to have them join the competition.

So you are saying that the employee should reap all the benefits and the employer should pay all the costs (fees, lost time, and increased salary) sounds like a sure way to discourage employer paid training to me.

 

[PatBethea]

On this, CSD72, we are in complete agreement. Star for you.

 

[MacGyverS2000]

You cannot lock them into the job by way of contract, but you can make sure you get you recover any lost monies should they decide to leave... I would consider that prudent business sense, and THAT is what you need to consider at this point, not potentially crushed egos. Having the employees sign a contract such as what I mentioned above doesn't overstep your legal authority (they can still give one month's notice and leave), but it says if you leave, you will be responsible for anything I give you over and above your typical pay rate. Now, that "extra" may also be a help to your company in the long run if they stay, but it directly increases their marketability at your immediate expense... therefore, you should be able to recoup those expenses if they do not stay around long enough to implement any new training at your facility.

Making this a "gentleman's agreement" is bad business sense, and any decent employee will realize the trade-off being made, both for you and them. If they don't sign, you can conclude they don't feel their near-immediate futures lie with your company... they may stay another year or two, but if they don't, you haven't wasted company resources on training them.


Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[TheTick]

If you have a record of keeping promises, your employees will be more likely to keep faith with you. The reverse is also true.

 

[bvanhiel]

I, for one, would never agree to pay back "half a year's salary" if I left the company in exchange for a two week training seminar. I think it's a mistake to even ask.

Paying for my masters degree? Then maybe we can talk about me signing something.

-b

 

[lz5pl]

Thank you everybody for your suggestions. We with my partner will consider them to decide finally how to proceed .

Special thanks, macgyvers2000 for detailed comments - most of them are in-line with my understanding of the problem. I would like to be able to discuss them with you with couple of beers in front of us, but FL is too far ;-) from here !

I understand that for most of you from my first post I am looking like some fat capitalist exploiter of his poor employees -)), but the reality is different: we are making our money on the East and training is on the West. That's why it costs relatively so much. It is better to do things the opposite way, but ...

http://www.triel.bg

------------------------
It may be like this in theory and practice, but in real life it is completely different.
The favourite sentence of my army sergeant

 

[csd72]

lz5pl,

You are definately not exploiting your employees by seeking a return on your investment, in fact I wouldnt understand why you would spend the money on training otherwise.

I think some of the posters have no idea what it is like to have to put your own money on the line for things like this.

 

[strguy11]

Our company handbook spells out that if an employee leaves within a year of the "investment" that the employee is required to pay it back. My understanding is that as long as this is clearly spelled out in a handbook prior to the training, it should be legal. The employer is making the investment, and it is not wrong for them to want to see a return on this.

The danger you have is that if you currently dont have a policy like this in place, it may be difficult for you to start a new one before the training, and the added danger that the employees think you dont trust them, if you made the policy before they took the training. Assuming the training is an added value for both them and the firm, I would have a discussion with them about the costs, and how you are making an investment in them, and how you value them as an employee, so that they wont think about leaving.

 

[lz5pl]

I would have a discussion with them about the costs, and how you are making an investment in them, and how you value them as an employee, so that they wont think about leaving.
==================
strguy11, that's exactly what we did last week with them. They asked for few days to think before to accept or not the proposal.
We are small company and haven't so elaborated company policy documents. Also the situation in our country is such, that if somebody leaves in violation of his contract, maximum we can do is to stop his last salary. If we go in the court, it will take a couple of years, and probably will costs a lot of nerves.



------------------------
It may be like this in theory and practice, but in real life it is completely different.
The favourite sentence of my army sergeant