Studying For Certification Exams On Company Time? 281
An anonymous reader writes "Companies sometimes require employees to hold or obtain certifications — for example in order to achieve Cisco certified partner status. Some companies pay for employees' exams and encourage employees to study on company time. Others expect employees to obtain mandated certifications on their personal time and dime. Should companies be able to require employees to obtain a certification, but refuse to pay for it, under threat of losing their job to a certified individual? Should it be or is it even legal to demand this of employees, especially if such a certification was not required at the time of hire?"
Oh dear (Score:5, Insightful)
They can do anything they want. If you wanna try suing them for unfair dismissal, refer to your local laws (or consult a lawyer). But if you think you're being unfairly treated stand up for yourself.
Deppends... (Score:1, Insightful)
..On what the expectations were at when the employee was hired. If they changed policies after an employee was hired, they should pay for it. But when someone is being hired it could go either way; and would depend on how they (the company) decided to do it. At that point if you (the employee) don't like their terms they can move on to the next applicant.
Depends... (Score:5, Insightful)
on the contract you have.
In a fire-at-will situation you're pretty much screwed anyway, so that's not really relevant. In other situations however, an employer basically agrees to a contract stipulating that in exchange for an employee with qualifications X and labor Y said company will pay out Z in compensation. If the company then decides that X is no longer sufficient, that is basically a one-sided change to a contract. So at least in most european countries, the company can not *force* an employee to improve his skillset on his own time and dime, unless that has been stipulated beforehand. On the other hand, unless the contract is for an undetermined time period (which pretty much makes it a pain in the ass to fire someone) the company is under no obligation to prolong the contract once it runs out.
Speaking from personal experience, if my employer tells me to bend over, be their bitch and spend my own time and money to improve my skillset if we didn't agree beforehand that would be part of the deal, I'm fully within my rights to give them the finger. On the other hand it is within my own interest to improve my skills, so if some sort of deal can be struck where both parties make an investment, it's a different story.
Companies will often loudly proclaim that in order to comply with new regulation or to be able to compete all employees will be forced to do X. That regulation or those market forces are irrelevant to me as an employee. The only party I have made a contract with is the company itself. On the other hand sticking to one's guns while the company goes down in flames might not be the best career choice either ;-)
Re:Deppends... (Score:5, Insightful)
So indentured servitude is OK so long as it's mentioned in advance?
Greener pastures (Score:4, Insightful)
"Should it be or is it even legal to demand this of employees, especially if such a certification was not required at the time of hire?"
The legality is probably contingent on whatever paper you signed when you took the job. In most states mandatory drug testing is legal, so I'm guessing knowledge testing isn't going to be something you could make many successful objections to.
But if the company is forcing you to foot the bill for things they think add to your work value, you might want to skedaddle anyway. I mean, at that point, what do you think the chances are of you ever getting a raise? Find someone less stingy to work for and build a career that will actually carry some rewards.
However, one argument I can think of for why you should personally pay for the certification is that it's something you get to take with you when you leave the company.
Re:Deppends... (Score:1, Insightful)
In America it is
Re:Oh dear (Score:5, Insightful)
I think parent is stating reality, not his opinion.
I agree because most companies, in my experience, will do anything they want. Sometimes it's valid, sometimes you wish you weren't involved so you could laugh at the situation. If you're worried about an action that you think is unfair, you don't want to work there.
Think about it, if this place caused you to Ask Slashdot to determine its decency, it's not that decent :\
Good Question (Score:1, Insightful)
That's on you (Score:2, Insightful)
They already paid for your time in class and the expense FOR the class. Their obligation is done. You should be doing it for yourself. Don't expect it to all be handed to you.
Re:Where in the world? (Score:3, Insightful)
When you ask legal questions, it's polite to mention which country you're in.
If on Slashdot someone fails to mention what country they're in, you can be almost certain that they're in the US.
Re:Oh dear (Score:2, Insightful)
This isn't an "insightful" answer - some moderators need a lesson or three in reading comprehension. You've completely dodged the question. "They can do anything they want" is a useless statement, because of the ambiguity given by the subsequent statement.
Normally businesses are expected to behave within the law, so unless you make it clear that you think businesses can break the law, they cannot do anything they want. You use the cheap and easy logic of "they can get then sued for breaking the law", of course, but that's the wise ass attitude of someone more interested in playing semantic games instead of a substantial conversation.
In the context of your answer, the question would be "does the individual have the right to sue for unfair dismissal". A question which you spectacularly fail to answer, while at the same time trying to appear tough.
So you combine failing to answer the question, with moral indifference, with empty posturing. Pathetic, really.
Re:Where in the world? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh dear (Score:5, Insightful)
And you probably appreciate that and in return you're doing the certification. Everyone gets something they feel is valuable out of it. That's the way it's supposed to work.
Meanwhile, companies who expect staff to spend their own time and money on compulsory company-related activities that weren't part of the original deal are likely to find that, regardless of the legal position, the reality is high employee turnover, few staff having the qualities the company is looking for, and ultimately a less successful business. That is also the way it's supposed to work.
Re:Oh dear (Score:5, Insightful)
So let's take this to the next level. How do you keep an employee from taking that training you just paid for and leaving for what the employee sees as greener pastures? How do you get a return on the huge investment you just dumped into that employee? That is the real issue on why many companies won't expend the dime on training. They can always negotiate salary and worst case scenario have to let the employee go who demands too much. It is far easier requiring a certified new hire than to go to the expense of training someone who will only leave after they are trained.
I see continuing education as an employee responsibility. It goes with wanting to better yourself in your chosen profession. If you don't care enough to keep on top of it, why should the company? After all, it is YOUR career, not theirs.
Re:Oh dear (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you keep an employee from taking that training you just paid for and leaving for what the employee sees as greener pastures?
Over here (in the UK), it seems common to agree that if an employee leaves within, say, six months of taking company-funded training, then they pay back a proportion of the cost depending on how early they leave. It doesn't lock anyone into anything but guarantees that a company either gets some return on its investment or gets its money back.
It is far easier requiring a certified new hire than to go to the expense of training someone who will only leave after they are trained.
Well, I don't accept your premise, but even if I did, why would someone suddenly want to leave just because they completed one training course? If an employer has that little appeal to their staff, they have bigger problems than just whether to run a training course or not...
Re:Oh dear (Score:1, Insightful)
Because in the US we don't have collective bargaining agreements or employment contracts. We work like slaves to our corporate masters and in return they royally screw up the economy and lay us off and then hire people in other countries for less money and no benefits. I am fortunately not one of these individuals but had I not had the foresight to jump ship at the right time, I would have been.
Re:Oh dear (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm surprised this isn't a standard clause in the USA as well, because it solves most of the issues in this area.
It creates whole new classes of problem, where an employee is motivated to do poor work in order to get fired so that they don't have to pay for their training. And since they can be dismissed for a whole host of reasons, then there is ample opportunity for a court battle over who foots the bill.
Re:Oh dear (Score:4, Insightful)
By keeping your own pastures sufficiently green, of course. Nowadays there seem to be quite a few employers that still don't understand that at-will employment is a two-edged sword. They're quite happy to cut people loose at the drop of a hat when the quarterlies take a dip, but will then turn around and whine when people leave because they've been putting in 50-60 hour weeks for six months straight and the company won't hire more people, or haven't gotten a cost-of-living adjustment in their salary for 5 years, or other similar problem that leads the workers to believe the company doesn't value them. It's not difficult to keep employees, but you do have to be willing to do it instead of displaying the attitude of "don't let the door hit you on the way out" as a large number of companies do today. Loyalty isn't an entitlement - it has to be earned.
Most people don't just change jobs on a whim, but if you come out and demand that your employees spend a few thousand dollars just to keep their current job without offering some kind of incentive to do so, don't be surprised if they walk.
Re:Why do "computer people" think they're special? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, all us "computer people" were made DIFFERENT from the likes of Master Electricians when someone arbitrarily determined that we are exempt from overtime.
If I was getting paid for off-hours emergencies and long weeks and weekend project work, maybe it would be a valid comparison, but as it is now, its not.
Re:Oh dear (Score:3, Insightful)
"Most of the companies are part of mandatory collective bargaining agreements with a similar clause... I'm surprised this isn't a standard clause in the USA as well, because it solves most of the issues in this area."
In other words, unions make this possible. The USA has been victim to concerted anti-union propaganda for about 40 years, and most people are down on collective bargaining agreements. Hugely more so, IT workers. So, they're hung out to dry in ways like this.
Re:Oh dear (Score:3, Insightful)
It creates whole new classes of problem, where an employee is motivated to do poor work in order to get fired so that they don't have to pay for their training.
I'd find it difficult to believe that this is a real problem except in a tiny number of cases, since an employee taking this course of action would end up with some of the following:
a) A possible lawsuit from a company which has a lot more money than them ("they deliberately performed poorly to get fired and avoid the training payback").
b) A bad reference (or more likely c).
c) No reference at all and a difficult to explain gap in employment history.
All of which could be much more disadvantageous than just paying the money back.
Re:Oh dear (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you should read this:
http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/files/conferences/epunet/2005/docs/pdf/papers/brunello.pdf [essex.ac.uk]
One of the things stated in the paper is that when the labour market is very easy (everyone can pack up and move, and everyone will always accept a new job) then general training is very expensive to provide for an employer. The consequence being that only company-specific training is given, but regular training rarely if at all. See China for a good example.
However, when people change jobs a bit less, there is less risk for the employer to lose his investment. Apparently, the Dutch labour market is more flexible than the UK one, so employers demanded a bit more assurance on this item. This seems to be supported by other observations on the labour market as well.
Re:Why do "computer people" think they're special? (Score:2, Insightful)
It helps that he likely knew of those requirements when he applied for the job.
The question isn't really that interesting anyway, even if the person decides to fight the company and wins, some other battle will follow soon after, and so on. So the easiest thing is probably to bite the bullet until they can find another position working for an employer that respects their employees a little more.
Non-competes (Score:5, Insightful)
If you say "indentured servitude is not acceptable" for a very broad definition of "indentured servitude", you invalidate quite a lot of contracts, such as the noncompete clauses, nondisclosure agreements, etc. that are meant to reduce the unknowns of running a business.
Non-competes SHOULD be invalid unless the company is willing to pay the person a salary in compensation for the length of the non-compete duration i.e. they pay them NOT to work for the competition. Non-competes might reduce the unknowns of running a business but it also prevents an individual from working: if that is worth something to the business then they should be willing to pay, if not then why should the individual suffer on the whim of the company they once worked for?
Arguing that they accepted the contract at the start is nor reasonable either: employers generally have the upper hand and, particularly in hard economic times, can be very persuasive. For example we would not allow employment contracts requiring a full, frontal lobotomy if an employee left a company would we? Although I don't doubt some companies in the US might jump at the chance were legal!