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

 

[ZillionM]

Hi lz5pl,

As everybody here is saying, best economic way is to contract your employees with obligations they need to fulfil after they finished some course.
Best management way is to make an agreement with them and try to involve them as much as you can in projects they're working on. Make them feel important and let them feel they're doing important stuff. I think that is not a problem for you, because you sound like they really do
Anyway, that’s what I would do..


Because that is exactly the opposite of what I'm experiencing
I get the courses and all but I know I can earn more (although I’m not doing bad now) but I’m staying where I am because I’m still learning.
I’m not very appreciated here, no one is really, except the boss who already has more cash than he deserves, and the ones crawling up some dark area all the time..

Anyway, what I’m trying to tell is that you should make them want to stay. And that, when they got a job offered, they feel they miss a great opportunity if they took it.

Greets ZillionM

 

[GTstartup]

A company pays employees for the work they do. If they are trained, they can do the work better. If you train them and they quit... too bad, the cost of doing business.

Did you reimburse them for the training and education they brought to your company when they hired on? No? Did they make you sign a contract that said, "I will bring my education ad training to your company but you must agree to keep me employed for 1 year"?

Then why make them pay (in possible lost oportunities and probably fixed salary) for training your company requires?

 

[MacGyverS2000]

A company pays employees for the work they do. If they are trained, they can do the work better. If you train them and they quit... too bad, the cost of doing business.

You might change your tune if every employee who worked for you milked your pocketbook of everything they could for training and education (T&E) and left for another company. If that happens enough times, your business folds. I do NOT consider that "the cost of doing business".

Did you reimburse them for the training and education they brought to your company when they hired on?

Yes, you do... when you hire them for a specific salary you are placing a value upon their pre-existing T&E. Some companies value it more than others. No one has a God-given right to walk into a company and say "pay me"... employees offer their T&E for a salary range. If they increase their T&E on their own means, they can command a higher salary in the free market. If they increase their T&E through the business' means, the business is due an increase in their "salary".

Did they make you sign a contract that said, "I will bring my education ad training to your company but you must agree to keep me employed for 1 year"?

Of course not, their T&E was implicitly implied by them applying for the job with specific requirements. You offered them a higher salary than someone with less T&E.

Then why make them pay (in possible lost oportunities and probably fixed salary) for training your company requires?

They're not being made to pay, they're being offered a choice. If the employees wish to spend their own time and money getting the specified T&E, they would expect a larger salary, even if they move to another company. On the flip side, if the company pays for it, the company should expect to receive a larger "salary" in the form of increased efficiency (more clients, etc.), a salary that is denied them permanently if the employee leaves. the only fair way to even out that playing field is to form a tighter bond between employee payback and employer payback in the form of a contract.

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[GTstartup]

I agree that a company makes a pay offer based on previously obtained training and experience. What it doesn't do is contract with it's new hires a defined length of guaranteed employment (exceptions exist, I know).

A worker spends 10's of thousands of dollars obtaining an education. When he hires on to a company, he may turn down many other oportunities.

When the worker starts he has not received a dime yet in compensation for his training, nor none is guaranteed. Only after a period of time does he receive some extra compensation for his training and education in the form of a weekly paycheck. However, he runs the risk of getting let go after a week. Normally that's his loss - his cost of doing business, so to speak.

In the same way an employer takes a risk when increasing the employees training. It's two sides of the same coin.

And yes, it's the cost of doing business for the company too.

First time my company sends me to training and makes me guarantee to pay it back if I quit it's adios for me.

 

[GTstartup]

To elaborate a little.

Let's say the OPs company hires an engineer and this engineer already has taken this SCADA course at his own expense. Lets assume that this engineer will most likely get a better compensation package than if he did not have this training (unlikely).

In taking this job offer how much is the engineer guaranteed?...Zero. He could be laid off the next day. Any other options he may have had may have evaporated. When he hired on he took this risk.

Training employees also entails risk. How you mitigate this risk is by fostering a place where people want to work, not by contracts. Who wants an employee that is only there serving out his time so he can quit without having to write a check?

I do sympathize with small business owners and I do understand that this situation could put a company out of business. But we are not talking about a Master's Degree here. We are talking about a two week course.

 

[39minuteman]

I had similiar contractual obligations on my first job in company based in Eastern Europe.

I received some training at the begining of my employment, but I had to sign that I would stay in company for next 3 years or pay roughly 1 year salary.

I considered then, as I consider now, this as very bad and unfair practice, because main objective was not to save company money but to prevent people from moving to better payed jobs.

You said that not every advice is applicable on this region due to specific mentality. I would say that main difference is not in mentality, but in choice. Engineers in Western Europe/USA have much more opportunities for work and would never accept such terms.

I don't know if all this is applicable on your business and I don't want to imply that you treat your employees unfairly. But, if you want to have healthy and respetable company, then you should start to work on mutual respect and trust. It's a much better way.

 

[MacGyverS2000]

...because main objective was not to save company money but to prevent people from moving to better payed jobs.

And how did you come to this conclusion? Did you speak with the person who put the requirement in place? Did you question the practice to upper management?

The most likely answer is 'no', as I doubt either the rule writer nor management would ever make such a claim. I have no doubt it turned out to be a definite side benefit, but no one starts such a rule with that in mind. Employees can see right through that ruse and will leave.

Everyone keeps saying such a contract prevents them from accepting a better paying job, but it does no such thing. You are 100% free to accept a higher paying job at any time, but in doing so you must reimburse the company their cost in training you. This would be no different than you paying for the T&E in the first place. If anything, it benefits you. Someone else foots the bill for the training, and you have a paying job in the meantime. If a year goes by and nothing better has appeared, well, you still have the T&E and you still have a paying job... if they laid you off, you now have the T&E free of charge.


Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[ajack1]

The one thing that is very obvious from this thread is the big difference in attitude between those who pick up a monthly pay cheque and those of us who write them out.

 

[39minuteman]

And how did you come to this conclusion? Did you speak with the person who put the requirement in place? Did you question the practice to upper management?

This is based on fact that this company had several offices across the Europe, but only office in Eastern Europe had such “unique” terms. Further, this “training” lasted only week or two, it was held by company engineers (not by expensive 3rd party expert) and it was more an introduction lecture about company procedures then training in specific software or skills.

My point is that I don’t mind if company offers me training and wants to protect investment with some kind of reimbursement clause. We don't need to argue about this. However, problem arises when:
1. This training is not optional, but is more TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT offer.

2. Reimbursement cost is not based on real market value of received training, but could high as half of employee’s annual salary or even more, which makes very hard or impossible for employee to repay.

In such case, employer is in unique position to dictate salary and terms of employment for next several years which is not fair. The fact is that many companies in Eastern Europe practice such unfair arrangements.

As I said before, I don’t say that OP has in mind this kind of arrangement. I was just aggravated with initial statement that there is difference in mentality between people from Eastern Europe and rest of the world.

Yes, there are some differences in cultural, but not in professional sense. Fair offer in UK or Germany is fair in Bulgaria too. Unfair offer is unfair in every country in the world.

It’s not a question if engineer from Eastern Europe would prefer more or less to sign additional reimbursement clause, but if he or she has a second option. Many of them don’t have.

 

[slavag]

Lz5pl.
I understand you as well. I don't know if possible recommend something and do something. Guys, I know exactly prices of those training+hotel+.... For small company send two young eng to those training is big problem. It's expensive not only for Eastern Europe. And after this 'Lz5pl need found projects, isn't simple.
Regards.
Slava

 

[MacGyverS2000]

This is based on fact that this company had several offices across the Europe, but only office in Eastern Europe had such “unique” terms. Further, this “training” lasted only week or two, it was held by company engineers (not by expensive 3rd party expert) and it was more an introduction lecture about company procedures then training in specific software or skills.

You are right to put the word training in quotes, as I would hardly call this training... more like an orientation to the way things are done at that particular company. As such, I don't believe it's a valid comparison to the true T&E discussed in this thread. To use such an orientation as a way to force people into signing an exclusivity contract or be released is beyond questionable in most circles, and in many locations I would imagine is also tantamount to slavery (and therefore illegal if challenged in a court of law). If it was taught by engineers already on the payroll and every new engineer was required to take it, I hardly see how they can use it as a requirement for contracts (though I'm sure there are plenty of areas around the world where the legality of signed contracts is neither questioned nor acted upon).

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[lz5pl]

39minuteman, I am really sorry that somebody have been insulted from my statement that there is a difference in mentality between different regions. I do believe this, even from my experience with people in various countries in Africa, Middle East, West Europe and East Europe. I see this just as a matter of fact, not something bad. We have a nice proverb: There is no two identical fingers even on the same hand.
In some societies people rely more on written contracts, in other - one word given is enough, in some - you cannot rely on anything. That's why I made that stipulation, just to point out that some good advice from US-colleague may not be applicable in my case. Simple example: Our first opinion (and most frequent case with other companies here) was similar to several advices from the forum - the trainee to reimburse part of the cost in case of living the company before predefined time. But in reality there is no practical way for me to put this in force in case he refuse to pay. We should go to the court and although such contract will be perfectly legal, the case will be extended for several years until positive result for me. That's the reality and that's why we finally decided not to ask for formal contracts.

If you re-read carefully my previous posts you can see that I try to keep exactly this way of common understanding and respect with my employees. If not so I just wouldn't care what they will say. I know such companies here - with "accept it or leave" choice.
I am also East European engineer and it wouldn't even come in my mind to bring low East European engineers in comparison with these from any other country!


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

 

[MRM]

Given your circumstances (no work specific to SCADA yet), we would not be sending two of our younger engineers to a training seminar with that kind of a price tag. Some of the managers would get the training first and then give the young engineers what they need to know to assist in the work (if it comes in, that is).

Instead, we would find some other way to show the engineers we value them; perhaps by sending them to small $2,000 training seminars first. Give them a chance to show you they're a good risk for your business dollars first.

 

[atlas06]

In order to compete in this tech age, a company must train continuously, as a result, a small overhead fee should be incorporated in every project (say 1% of total fee)

from an employee perspective, any time we have a new project with substantial fees, I go through our library (books and software) and try to get one or two books, or one new software for the department and charge it to the project. It has worked well for us.

Training should be charged to one or more projects in my opinion. No need for all the legal tangle. Pass the cost on to the custumers, every other industry does it.

 

[slavag]

Atlas06. It's really good and right recommendation!!!!
Star to you and to MRM too.

 

[lz5pl]

Thank you for last posts, gentlemen. I was a bit busy and traveling around, so didn't reply immediately.

MRM , the first idea of my partner was exactly the same - that I should go on the trainings and after that to train young colleagues. This way the knowledge remains in the company even somebody of them decides to leave. The only problem could be (besides that I am quite busy) if it will be required that only people with training certificates to work on commissioning works later. I like field work, but it is difficult for me to be away from the company for longer time.
Anyway, probably we will proceed exactly that way as a more secure.

atlas06, thank you for the idea, this is a good point and we will use it in future projects. Up to now we never thought about that because all our personnel was trained by me on the basis on my previous trainings and field experience. By the way, as macgyvers2000 pointed out - "if they laid you off, you now have the T&E free of charge." - it happens exactly like that with me - my previous employer closed engineering business and layed everybody out, but he cannot take back my knowledge and experience, which were my benefits when started my own business.



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

 

[abusementpark]

lz5pl,

Since you own a small company, you should be taking advantage of the situation and trying to form deeper, more personal relationships with your employees than would be allowed in a larger company. This is one the primary benefits I have found working in a smaller company. I am very close to the owners and they do their best to make me feel less like an employee and more like a "team member". How often to you go out for an impromptu lunch with some of your younger engineers? Do you allow yourself to joke around occasionally with them? If you can successfully instill this atmosphere it will more like a second home to them. Some may disagree, but this is how it works at the small firm at work for.

That being said, if you are holding these kind of relationships you should a pretty good idea about whether or not your employee would be likely to leave. Being in a small firm, you can get a better idea of where they are in life with family and what not. Also, are there any places in the same geographic region ( ie where they wouldn't have to move) where they may have a more attractive offer. Are you also doing your homework as far as current industry standards for salary and benefits? I know in my region and in my field, the entry-level pay has increased by 10% in the past year or so.

 

[ajack1]

The problem with that is often us small company owners cannot match the big boys with pay and perks, however much we want to.

I would guess most of us try to compensate for this by being more flexible and creating more of a “family feel”, however well you feel you know someone or how happy they seem on the outside, large pay rises are always an understandable attraction. To pay for them to be in a stronger position for them to walk out on you still hurts.

 

[lz5pl]

abusementpark, your point is exactly what I also think is the correct way of relationships in a small company. I changed my position from employee to employer just 2 years ago. I still haven't forgotten how people feel from the other side. More - I work also sometimes with our guys on field work and it happens that I intentionally do less qualified (and therefore more boring) portion of the work to give them opportunity to play with our expensive toys. Well, I supervise them, but I try not to go in micromanagement.
Family-type relations are still not possible, as I am the only married in the company ! All of them are just graduated and for one of them I was consultant of his BSEE and after that MSEE diploma projects. I do my best to keep friendly relations.

I had a good chance when started my career to have very good head of team. He was my mentor in profession and life-related questions. I try to follow him as far as I can.

Yes, I know who are my competitors and in fact I don't afraid much that some of our employees will go to them. We do our best to build may be not the biggest company, but one with the most qualified services. Salaries are more or less similar, relations in our company I suppose are the most familiar and we try to take more qualified, therefore more interesting job. Our country is small and the job market is not so big. As ajack1 pointed out our biggest problem are Big Boys - we cannot compete with them not only in salaries, but mostly in career perspectives. But we should live with that...


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