Training - A Company or a Worker's Responsibility? 709
r0wan asks: "I'm currently working as a Microsoft Systems Administrator. Through a series of bungled management decisions, have found myself responsible for a Windows Server 2003 Active Directory network, that I know nothing about (the person who was sent for training was: not the Microsoft point person, as I was; and left the company, soon after the domain upgrade). It doesn't look as though training will be forthcoming, and I've just been moved from the lab, where I was training myself while simultaneously handling the domain. I've got the MCSA/MCSE Training Kit, but recently I've found
numerous errors, so many that I was sent a free Press Kit book, for submitting all of the errors I had found. Between management's reluctance to shell out for training, and being moved from the lab, I'm getting the distinct sense that training is something I'm expected to take care of, on my own time. Is this the de-facto standard within IT, and for all jobs within IT? If so, how do you Slashdot readers keep up with your continuing education, while still maintaining a personal life? Is it naive to try to leave my work at work?"
"I'm especially interested in hearing from the Slashdot readers of the female persuasion, as I have a husband, a dog, and a household to keep up with (no kids by choice, but I wouldn't have the time to take care of them, even if I wanted to). I also have the added responsibility of being the primary breadwinner. My free time is valuable in that it allows me to take care of that which I can't during the day (grocery shopping, dog responsibilities, cleaning, etc), and decompress/de-stress in order to prepare for the next day's work. I like tinkering with computers and learning new stuff, but I fear that if I'm expected train myself, outside of work, I may need to consider a different career.
Thanks in advance for the input."
The norm for the industry? (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact this Sunday I'll be off to Melbourne for another course of a week, the second admin course for HPOV Performance Insight [hp.com]. Without the training I can't imaigine being able to deploy and support this quite complex (and not overly intuitive) product, it would in fact be negligent to have me do so.
I'd reccommend taking your need for education to your managemnt quite firmly, and if they won't budge look elsewhere - not just because of this particular issue, but because such behaviour is indicative of a lack of management vision IMO. If they can't outlay some cash now to train for the future it doesn't sound like they'll have much of a future to worry about - at least not a very interesting high growth one.
Sounds like my job... (Score:5, Interesting)
Nobody told us how to map home folders, shared network drives, printers, set file permissions, or anything else. Everything I know was learned on my own, however, it was all researched on company time.
They've been pleased with the system so far. It's not too hard to learn.
why are you doing all the house work? (Score:1, Interesting)
If you're the primary breadwinner, why are you also responsible for all the household chores?
Check your laws. (Score:3, Interesting)
But the easy way out for some companies is to state that it is not a job-requirement.
3 points I want to make.
a) get out of there. it sounds like a poison place to work if they pull that kind of shit on you.
b) When you do go for your training, make sure you do ALL studying, preparing on WORK time, do not bring it home with you.
c) To answer your question; No it is not part of the IT climate. Like I said; get out of there.
Re:Sounds like my job... (Score:2, Interesting)
Without qualified administration you are going to do things that you will regret later on. No offense to you, but I've seen this situation played out a million times. Some person with slightly higher than average computer skills gets elected into an admin role, and makes a royal mess that has to be cleaned up later when your company finally breaks down and hires someone competant.
You don't need to consider a different career (Score:3, Interesting)
Some companies are terrific at sending their people to training. I used to work for one of those (IT outsourcer here). When we met with the end-users, they loved us, because we knew what the heck we were doing, and it showed in our work. Alas, due to a tragedy at the highest level, the company founders decided to dismantle the company and sell out.
My new employer is significantly more stingy with the training dollars.
Due to other factors we nearly lost the contract (could lose it still). But - the company has had to shell out a ton of money in an attempt to save the contract, and somewhere the light bulb went on: it isn't worth all this money, if the staff can't out-perform the competition.
So this year, they have paid for time and tuition for about eight people, where for the previous three years we got zilch. Heck - I got my CCNA, and two of us got their CCNP's. :-)
With all this training, and the professionalism that comes from knowing you are a subject-matter expert, morale is tremendously improved. And that is reflected in customer satisfaction.
If your employer won't train you, look for a place that doesn't run the joint like the Keystone Kops.
Re:The norm for the industry? (Score:0, Interesting)
Ahhh, memories... (Score:2, Interesting)
Best thing that ever happened to me.
Since then, I've been pushed off the turnip truck into new environments more times than I can recall. Each time, I have turned the hardship into an opportunity to become a Subject Matter Expert. Sure, I didn't get any extra money then for the off-hours time I devoted, but I made up for it later.
Re:Sounds like my job... (Score:2, Interesting)
One main problem is our windows licenses. They decided to get OEM licenses with beige-box homebuilt computers. One of the engineers' sons put them together. When we've had to reinstall, sometimes the licenses refuse to activate and I get stuck having to deal with a call to MS Tech Support to fix whatever the problem was. And, they went cheap as possible on the computers as well, so, we have hardware problems such as bad memory chips, bad motherboards, and other things. My boss has her networking degree, and is MS certified in something, but as I stated earlier, she comes to me with questions about how to do things on the system. I know it's sad, but with what my company is willing to do it is in the best state it can be. I try to clean up the messes other people make and document everything I do so that my boss or my replacement can understand the Active Directory groups that are set-up to do automatic mapping of drives, printers, and other network resources at login if changes ever have to be made.
As it is, things are running smoothly and my boss understands the AD system as it is set up, so since the company is small and the servers are working, the setup probably won't change at all for around 10 years until they bring in consultants to do the next network and server upgrade. Maybe they will leave better documentation on the systems in the future, rather than just saying "AD is easy, you just do this to add a user or group. Bye!"
From the across the desk (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Yes, you are supposed to teach yourself. When I hire, I look for folks who are always learning, all day, every day. "Training" means I have to pay good money to have you absent from work for a week every couple months so that you can come back and spout off about the way X-Corp says it should be done instead of the way that would actually integrate into the system I spent years building. No thanks!
If you need a reference book, I'll buy it for you. If you want to take some night courses in computer science so that you can get a better grounding in the fundamentals then I'll help out in whatever way I can. Just don't waste my time or yours with these so-called training courses.
2. I expect that you'll spend a certain amount of time at work experimenting and gathering knowledge about the software and hardware you use to make my systems run. That's part of the job. You don't have to know everything ahead of time, you just have to know how to figure it out.
If you were a consultant it would be different. I'll pay a consultant twice what I pay you because I expect him to already have the answers when he hits my door. If HE doesn't know, he won't be invited back and if its bad enough he won't be paid. You, as an employee, have more leeway.
3. I expect that you'll spend a certain amount of time at home using similar technologies in the pursuit of your own hobbies. I expect that you'll learn things there that you apply to work just as you learn things at work that you'll apply to your hobbies.
Its not about taking your work home with you; its about getting paid to do work that you enjoy. This work I do was my hobby before it became my career. I enjoy it immensely and I want people around me who feel the same way. If you're just here for the paycheck then I hired the wrong guy. You won't deliver the standard of quality I want because when push comes to shove you just don't care.
Now, if you're like four out of five people out there then having read this you think I'm full of shit. And that's OK. There are plenty of suck jobs out there that will pay you well enough to drive a nice car and vacation at the beach. I wish you all the best in life and may you find your bliss.
But if you're the one out of five that finds the job worth working for its own sake then I want you working with me.
Re:But who does it really benefit? (Score:3, Interesting)
BTW - the article contains an inaccuracy:
They're not "errors" - they're "features!"A good compromise (Score:2, Interesting)
That being said, I was given no "lab time" as Cliff implied. All studying and training was to be done at home. I purchased my own cheap server through Dell, installed Server2k3 on it, and created my own home domain, to which I attached a few boxes. I was continually pressured to advance and achieve, and to be more like my boss, whose home network put the average proffessional installation to shame. This continual pressure to give up my own time to advance is what eventually prompted me to leave the company.
Training materials and testing is expensive. My company gave me all of the financial help with training it could, but expected me to do all of myself and on my own time. Even though I left because of it, I still have to say that the arrangement seems more than fair.
P.S. Cliff, would you like to buy a used Dell server? Cheap!
Oddly enough... (Score:5, Interesting)
In the last 15 to 20 years I've seen the following VERY disturbing trend here in the USA.
People here do not leave their work at work. We work EXCESSIVE hours and are expected to kill ourselves, damage our health and wound our minds to "be more productive" or "increase productivity". (Ever since I left IT, I sleep more, I have more restful sleep, and I'm not at the edge of becoming homicidal.)
In Europe, even the eastern side, people left their work at work. I recall my mother telling me stories when I started hating the working world I encountered here. "Yep, I remember how we used to have it back home, it wasn't as bad as it seemed, now that I think about it. At least we had assured work, nobody got laid off, everyone had assured (and delivered, without need for lawsuits) pensions and retirement, and when they walked out the door at the end of the day, and off the premises, the coat of "labor" wore off, and it was time to enjoy life.
(Nevermind that she left for work at 0700, came back around 1600 in the afternoon, that would be, 4 o'clock for those who cannot read 24 hr clocks.)
I don't know, but now that I look back at it, the commies weren't nearly as abusive in the work place (corruption was rampant, but at LEAST one could actually get ahead based on their skills, if those skills were formidable, here, its very hard because your healthcare is assured by massive expenses, and the healthcare is rarely there when needed, because most people do not want to "get into expenses", I should know, I've been there... or perhaps "they can't find the time" (I've spent weeks trying to plot a day off to go get a filling for a tooth...)
~D
PS - I'm not praising communism, but I am saying that there are some merits to limiting the amount of power CEO's and CoB's have. Perhaps even making them "the people"... it wouldn't hurt to make those dirty bastards have to EARN a living. They bleed the same as we do, perhaps they should put something back into society before they see another dime.
Re:He's discovering reality. Isn't it cute? (Score:5, Interesting)
While I do not agree with your parent's post, I think the answer to your question is to not work for a corporation. If you are working for someone else then you are making them rich. It is almost guaranteed that you arent being paid what you are worth, because then where is the profit for your employer?
The only way to make what you are worth is to go into business for yourself. If you cannot hack it, then you were never worth that much in the first place. I program small niche software, and make sure that there is some reason for the customers to have to keep paying (like updates). After launching and dealing with initial patching, it can run by itself with just the cost of a tech support guy making $10 an hour. Sell only 50 copies a month of a $100 program and you are making $5k a month, with only $2k going to employees. Keeping releasing a new peice of software every couple of years and you are soon a very rich man. And this does not count updates or tech support fees. Just find some way to make someone else's life easier and they will pay you for it.
Sure you are paying your employees alot less than they are making for you, but that is life. If they were smart enough to actually do something with their life other than working for someone else, then they would branch off and start their own company. If they arent smart enough, then I am doing them a favor by employing them and helping them feed themselves. Most of my employees are only treading water while finishing school or saving up some money to work on something they really want to do; and I wouldnt have it any other way.
--
be free, train yourself (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Oddly enough... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's where the responsibility lies... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Oddly enough... (Score:2, Interesting)
Plus, only an IDIOT would see the USSR shedding dead weight as "winning the cold war", if you haven't read up on it lately, the USSR is sitting on arguably more of EVERY natural resource than we are... they have oil, lumber, mineral deposits and a working industry. They didn't lose the war, and what they can't produce, they have allies willing to sell to them, and both India and China view them with a lot less hostility than they do us.
While on the subject, the cold war was a money drain meant to keep sucking up the GDP of an otherwise prosperous nation (US). Can you comprehend what those resources might've been used for if not for nationalistic flag waving fools like yourself believing in the regime? At least in the eastern block , people weren't as gullible to think that politicians were kind gentle folks who were only out to help the people... (but at least, to some extent, nobody I knew was left homeless, and their family was there for them when needed).
But who am I kidding, I have an expert world traveller such as yourself to educate me on how "we won the cold war" and how "we are the greatest country in the world" (and we are, well, as long as China and Japan keep buying up our treasury notes to keep our fiat money economy floating, before they get tired of it and let us become the biggest third world country out there.)
You really should read the Art of War (and I don't mean the movie), I mean that fine little literary piece by Sun Tzu.
"All warfare is based on deception." ~Sun Tzu
You might want to keep this one in mind, because right now, the only ones deceived in this whole set of farces (Cold War, War on Drugs, War on Terror, etc) is the american PEOPLE.
I predicted a lot of what happened in Iraq to the letter. I even predicted that Bush would use 9/11 as a pretext to attack several unrelated nations and that there would be enough gullibles here to support him. My family called me a cook, now they look at me and ask "how did you know"...
How? I read, I listen, I learn and I THINK!!
~D
Of course. Capitalism no longer has competition (Score:5, Interesting)
With that competitive threat removed, capitalism can be as nasty as it wants to be. Because it has monopoly power now.
Re:He's discovering reality. Isn't it cute? (Score:3, Interesting)
There is another subtle bonus to your business philosophy:
Every single one of my employees has sent business my way either after they got a job making more money somewhere else after finishing school, or after starting their own non cpmpeting but relevant business.
Forming these networks of hard working, self reliant people is key. The best way to do that is to give them the eye to their own bootstrap.
Re:Oddly enough... (Score:5, Interesting)
The business world is a pyramid, isn't that what the economics and MBA classes always teach? A large number of people have to be at the bottom so others can climb up.
Not everyone can climb up, otherwise the system wouldn't work. So who gets left at the bottom? Do those who don't get the breaks and can't climb up the ladder deserve their conditions and life? Should they be left to a lesser life because in every competition someone must lose, no matter how good the competitors?
That's a very simplistic answer that doesn't actually solve the problem, that someone is always going to have to take these crap jobs. And unless it's a job seeker's market (which last time I checked it wasn't, particularly with increasing outsources), the employees left at the bottom are not in a position to make such demands for better treatment. That is why unions were formed.
So, rather then being confrontational through organizations such as unions, why can we not proactively correct the system so all workers, including those at the bottom of the pyramid, get the respect and decent working conditions they deserve?
Absolutely. (Score:3, Interesting)
The company sees it as easier and less expensive to hire workers, burn them out, refuse to pay for new education, and hire those who have paid for their own training.
Disgusting, but true. The bright side of this phenomenon is that word tends to get around, and after 2-3 years, finds itself tacitly 'blacklisted' among IT workers in that city.
Re:Of course. Capitalism no longer has competition (Score:2, Interesting)
I heard people in former East Germany are mad as hell about all the benefits being torn down one by one. I'm living in the Netherlands and it is going downhill here - partly thanks to the European free market liberal ideology.
It is time for a revolution.
Re:Hehe, keep your words in mind kid :) (Score:3, Interesting)
Which ties back into the original subject rather neatly, I think. If your employer pays for you to learn new stuff, good for you - take advantage of it. If not, oh well. Either way, you'd be well advised to take every opportunity to learn new things, even stupid things like Windows administration, and if that means doing it on your own time, so be it. The alternative is to risk waking up some morning and finding yourself out of work and unemployable because nobody wants the sorts of skills you have any more.
Another aspect of her statement (Score:5, Interesting)
If she said the same to her employer/manager I am not suprised she didn't get training.
Training is expensive. Not just the training costs themselves but also because it usually removes the person from work.
Now who would you choose for training? Female A: claims she has a life outside of work, probably going to have a baby anytime now or Male B: Work is his life, can't have babies.
Gee, that is a thoughie. Oh the baby argument is sexist but I am telling you what it is like in the real world. One woman in a company of thousands pulls the being absent for years trick and every woman in the company and every woman in companies where the male managers know a guy in another company where it happened will be tainted with the brush of being unreliable.
Common perception is that women see work as something to do until they get kids. You put them in a position where they are critical and they will just disappear for months. True? Sorta, while I never met any "highlevel" females who did this it sure can mess up a company when the "lowlevel" secretary decides that she has had it and is going to take care of her own baby and no a bunch of middle aged babies. Offcourse the fact that this female was underpaid, undervalued is never mentioned. Just maternity leave is risky. Every male knows this. Sorry.
Then stating also that you value your private life is not a good thing. I am male and even I can't get away with that one. Companies investing thousands of dollars in a person want to be sure they get a willing slave in return. Doesn't matter if that person is going to leave right after completing the training what matters is perception.
And finally the biggest killer in getting training? Just being to damn valuable. I actually been told I couldn't get trained because they couldn't get me the time off needed from projects. So the guys who were "unemployed" got the the training while the guy who was earning the salaries by being outsourced had to buy his own books. Oh and ended up having to be the teacher to the guys just having received a 20.000 guilder training. Grrrr.
Whenever an employer starts talking about training your bullshit meter should spring into the red. I have had several "offers" and it never works out. In the rare occasions where it actually reaches a "planned" stage there is always some project that I am suddenly needed on because the guy that was on it and received lots and lots of training can't hack it. Or left for greener pastures with his shiny new diploma.
Those who can, do. Those who can't get trained and leave the company.
As for the whole butter trap, can you blame men for trying it? Call us sexist pigs if you want, just also remember to call us master and serve us. Resistance is futile. We are male, you will serve us.
If you think it is wrong, just realise that no matter how fucked up men are, women are worse. Just examine yourselve (if your female) what you want in a male partner and then check how many of your wishes contradict themselves. Strong, yet caring. Able to express his emotions but not a cry baby. And the biggest one, "he musn't mind me earning more then him" vs "he better earn a good income". No women respects a man with a low paycheck. The only way for a woman to get the man she wants is to have a harem or someone with a split personality.
Re:Raised some good points (Score:2, Interesting)
It may be necessary to move to a more considerate/understanding employer, but I don't this alone would justify that. Make a business case that fully explains the benefits of the training, including discussion of improved ability to solve problems, avoid downtime, etc. It's not necessary to put numbers on things, and I wouldn't do so unless you can be very confident that you are accurate but conservative. Even one unsubstantiated claim or unreasonable statement can get the whole proposal thrown out. Identify the costs, including an estimate of the value for your time (talk to the cost accounting people to get your fully loaded cost / day, which is the right figure to use).
If you are fortunate enough to go on the training, keep track of the times you use something you learned there, and how much time it saved, or what it avoided. In six months or so, you might be able to document you have saved so many hours of your time, time of others, etc. and put a dollar figure on that. Also not intangibles, such as reduced downtime or whatever. Assuming the benefits are significantly greater than the costs, give the calculation to your boss to let him/her know that you were both right in deciding to send you on the training.
An interesting article on IT Training ROI is on cio.com. [cio.com] I can't seem to find quickly a good website explaining calculation of training ROI. If you want me to go through the steps, email me [mailto].
2 Possible Mindsets... both apply (Score:2, Interesting)
- Asset/Investment therefore a constituant of the value of the business.
- Expense/Commodity item therefore they provide a service to the business as a cost.
Within any organisation both types of employee exist.
Business's strive to commoditize employees by simplifying and documenting processes, this allows the business to be more flexible about its workforce because employees can be replaced with other employees/outsource etc. that provide the same service to the business at either less cost or less risk. A business that can replace employees easily is more flexible and therfore can grow faster and manage expenses better. People in commodity positions will probably only get training if its proven to be more cost effective for the company to train the person than it is to replace them. General thought is that providing training for people in commodity positions on standard skills isn't good for retention of those people because they are just better equipped to work elsewhere.
Most businesses at some level have some categories of valuable knowledge such as visionaries and thought leaders. These people are investments for the business, they command high salaries and actually define the shape of the organisation. In knowledge industries there can be quite a lot of people in this category and the businesses USP is based around these people. As a result such people are an investment for the business with real asset value. Just in the same way as maintaining your house helps retain and increase its value, companies will usually invest in training these assets in order to keep them at maximum effectiveness.
In short if you are a commdity, accept it and keep yourself at maximum value. If you are an asset demand training if you think you can demonstrate that it will provide value to the business.
Training and knowledge acquisition (Score:3, Interesting)
From my point of view the thing that really matters when deciding which job to go after or which offer to take is how marketable will your skills be when you have to change jobs in a few years? I would rather take a low paying job that say, gives me Oracle or Java development skills than a very high paying job that offers knowledge few companies want. I have always followed this principle and have yet to live to regret it unlike some of my classmates from university who followed the money and are now stuck in difficult to get out of niches in the job market.
The thing that really burns about training is that alot of companies don't do it any more because the people that they do take the trouble to train are frequently poached by other organizations right after they are fully trained and be cause there are no legal safeguards against such poaching. To a certain extent I can understand this, your company sinks a significant sum into training somebody say as an MCSE (or the even more expensive Oracle and Cisco certificates) and then has to watch the guy go to some other company the day he gets his qualifications. Why isn't it possible, for example, to allow companies to make training contracts, stipulating for example lower pay during the training period when the worker is only of limited value, followed by a suitable pay rise when he is finished and then binding him/her to the job for a period afterwards so the employer is insured against poachers? Possibly not the best solution but surely something can be done. It sucks that there really are companies out there whose training policy is simply to leech off (what they doubtless regard as) the 'morons', ie. firms and companies that are still socially responsible enough to offer their employees training programs. Another thing I often hear corporate types whine about is that it should really be the employees and not the companies who pay for things like MCSE, Cisco or Oracle certifications which is a nice thought and I would probably do so if the well stocked portfolio of such certificates that these same corporate slimers then argue I should pay for out of my own pocket didn't cost an arm and a leg. I don't suppose they have taken a look at what those training courses complete with lectures actually cost?
Re:Training and knowledge acquisition (Score:3, Interesting)
Who says it isn't possible? I don't know of anyone who does, but I can't think why it should be out of the question. It could be done by agreeing to a non-compete clause for a specified period, for instance, so you couldn't be poached by a competitor. You can't actually force someone to work if they don't want to, but you can give them a disincentive to quitting.
Re:Oddly enough... (Score:2, Interesting)
Double edged sword here. The driving economic factor was to stay ahead of the other. Without a common goal, do you really think the economy would have expaned to have such a large GDP?
they have oil, lumber, mineral deposits and a working industry.
Somewhat true, however they have no infrastructure to pull those resources out of the harsh environments that they reside in.
And to support your cause, we do have a form of communism/socialism, but we call it welfare.
Unfair Dismissal (Score:3, Interesting)
In England, firing someone for being unable to do a job to which they have been moved without training might (IANAL) count as unfair dismissal. You could take your ex-employer to an Employment Tribunal.
Take the bull by the horns (Score:2, Interesting)
Worst case, post your resume on Dice/Monster/... and quietly look elsewhere. And don't take another position without talking to employees of that company who work in your area (admin). They'll tell you what it's like to work there so you don't get a nasty surprise.
Some people are afraid to express concerns to their managers because it may hurt their image. But, if you allow this kind of problem to fester, it will surely lead to worse problems. Good managers will try their best to address the problem and appreciate your trust in talking to them. Bad ones will not and that is another reason to have the talk. You need to find out if it is worth staying in your current position. An honest discussion will tell you all you need to know.
Most admins I've dealt with are over-worked, so quality of life issues make your choice of careers problematic. The places where I've seen admins who keep sane hours are: very large aerospace firms (tied very closely to the government) and the federal government. Anywhere else, they're usually over-worked.
Good Luck.
Re:Of course. Capitalism no longer has competition (Score:3, Interesting)
Go to the head of the class, you hit a key point. I wouldn't say that is the only problem, but it is a key problem which explains the rapid deterioration of the American working/living standards.
Does anyone -- besides Animats -- remember what Gorbachev told Reagan in their mid-80s meeting in Iceland? Gorby told Ronny that he was going to do an "evil" thing to him, that he was going to "deprive him of an enemy". The mass media immediately dismissed Gorbachev's line as blather.
Of course, we have a new enemy now, "terrorism", so the military-industrial complex's profits are safe.
But sadly, now that the average American is working longer hours per year than even the Japanese, as we watch our labor unions be eliminated, as we see pensions and health care increasingly eliminated as job benefits, and as we see an all-out attack by capital on American workers, the average American is just now waking up to realize exactly what Gorbachev meant.
Re:Does you husband do anything?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, if you only would answer the second question^_^.....