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?"
Check your contract (Score:1, Interesting)
What does it say in your employment contract?
Oh, you're an at-will employee [wikipedia.org]? Never mind.
Re:Deppends... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, except for the very narrow types of indentured servitude prohibited, at least in U.S., by U.S. Constitution.
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. Without those contracts and the world being full of unscrupulous individuals as it is, good luck running a free market economy.
Re:Where in the world? (Score:4, Interesting)
Depends on which state. In an "at will" state, they could dismiss you, but it wouldn't be "for cause". That is, the former employee would be able to file for unemployment, since it is a change in the position the employee was hired into.
Re:Oh dear (Score:2, Interesting)
Here in Germany it's sensible (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless there's something in the contract explicitly putting all the burden on the guy needing certs (nearly impossible and unenforceable), the company pays to maintain. If you think that's bullshit, remember that the company itself profits from that maintenance and a n experienced worker.
Makes you more employable (Score:4, Interesting)
Depending (as others have said) on how well your government requires companies to treat their serfs, you may have some protection or you may have to lodge your disapproval with the usual two word response: "I quit". However, bear in mind that the reason for walking out (that your employer was asking you to become better qualified) will get a dim reception from any interviewers. Better to make the effort, get the certification and then start looking for something better. Now that you have another string to your bow.
Re:Oh dear (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm studying for MS Certification (don't shun me) - the company basically said "We need a .Net developer, go do the exam, take Friday Afternoons to study, We'll give you a pay rise at the end too"
Re:Greener pastures (Score:3, Interesting)
Employment vs. freelancing (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing I don't understand is why people continue to be employees once you start crossing those lines.
Employment is a two-way relationship. The employer takes on the risks while the employee gets a fixed income, the employer provides the work environment and carries the other costs, but in return the employer gets to keep any profits beyond the agreed fixed payments.
In industries like manufacturing, transportation or services (of the electricity/gas/water/etc. kind) there is no way any one person could do things on their own. Here, an employment relationship as part of a larger organisation has the additional advantage of being practical, where co-ordinating hundreds or thousands of freelance workers with individual commercial arrangements might be too much of an administrative burden.
However, in creative or knowledge-based industries such as programming, sales, marketing or training, that is no barrier. It is relatively easy for one person, or a small group of people, to set out on their own and provide the same services that they could as employees of someone else's business. For larger projects, there are few overheads in dividing up the project and assigning each part to an individual or small team; this is, after all, what would probably happen in a large company doing everything in-house anyway.
In these industries, the workers gain relatively little benefit from an employer's physical resources and scale, yet they will still wind up leaving most of the money they generate for the employer. The only reason for such people to accept an employment relationship in these industries is the risk trade-off: an employer takes on the risk and all the general costs of running the show, but in return the employee only takes a fixed salary even if the business makes a lot of profit.
In the US, AIUI, there is relatively little employee protection in some states anyway because of "at will" employment and limited legal rights for employees. So the only thing left is providing a ready-made work environment and covering the associated costs and administrative burdens.
Once employees start having to sort out their own equipment anyway... Well, why would they still be employees instead of going freelance, forming their own business (perhaps with a few others with complementary skills) where they will directly take a share of the profits, or signing up as contractors (and with contractors' rates) instead of as employees?
Why do "computer people" think they're special? (Score:3, Interesting)
My next-door neighbour is a Master Electrician on staff at the local university (a very progressive employer). He is expected to keep his certification up to date, purchase new code books, etc., to keep ticket his valid. Additionally, he is responsible for the fire alarms and has to re-certify every 3 years (and this year was a MAJOR change). The university pays for his fire alarm certification test, but he is expected to study on his own time (and he spent, by my estimate, 20 hours a week for 3 weeks doing so).
A lot of non-executive computer guys -- network administrators, system operators, repair technicians -- seem to think they are different from the other trades because they work on computers. That's BS! That's like claiming patentability of X because you added "on the internet".
Hit the nail on the head... (Score:3, Interesting)
In the US, well, nothing would surprise me. Labour laws seem incredibly weak from the employee side.
You are correct on that observation. Over the past 30 years (plus change) the US has veered increasingly conservative in all practices that can in any way be remotely tied to a dollar (which is pretty well everything). This means that the labor unions have lost most of the membership - and power - that they enjoyed decades ago. You may have heard that Toyota recently closed their only UAW-staffed vehicle assembly plant in this country, in spite of its stellar performance.
We have been fed BS about "labor=communism" for so long that a staggering number of people here believe it and vote on it. Notice that the "health care reform bill" that recently passed did not fix any of the major problems and people are screaming bloody apocalyptic murder.
So yes, in a nutshell, worker's rights just have a tendency to get in the way of profit. And nowadays it is considered "un-American" to do such a thing, so most worker's rights have gone out the window.
Re:Oh dear (Score:2, Interesting)
The really messed up part was that they claimed that people would be responsible for their previous training costs even if the district fired them within that 3 year window. It turned out that they tried it a few times, and ended up getting smacked down in court every time. The clause was still in the contract, but by the time I worked for them, they never attempted to enforce it any more.
Re:Oh dear (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
I believe you're engaging in a straw man argument. Just because you envision a problem could happen, I challenge you to cite an example where it did happen or stats showing that it routinely happens. Don't shoot down good ideas with hypotheticals unless you have real data. 'kthanxby
Re:Deppends... (Score:2, Interesting)
Just wanted to share my personal experience with NDAs/non-competes.
Personally, I have always rejected non-compete contracts almost out right.
NDAs however I have no problems with.
Once that time comes up in the interview process, I state that being a professional I would not take their insider data to anywhere outside the company. As I would not expect that much trust right away, I have no problems signing an NDA (And I do read+sign them right as they are placed in front of me without question, or at least my questions are asked after I sign. Ive never yet had a concern I needed to ask about ahead of time.)
Not-compete however I will state as soon in that part of the process as I can, to avoid wasting time.
Most times there is never an issue with that, and I was hired anyway.
The two times I remember where the company was leaning hard against me that it was required for employment and making an issue out of it, I offer my alternate.
I will agree to a modified version of the non-compete:
The max duration of the contract can not be over 24 months. It can be less but not more, the non-compete automatically expires for both of us after that time.
My salary must continue to be paid for the entire time after employment is terminated that you wish the non-compete to be active. You can stop payments at any time, but a payment over 30 days late with zero contact will void the agreement.
The rate of pay must be equal to the highest base pay rate I held in the past 13 months prior to termination.
aka if I make $80k/yr, then suddenly get a pay cut down to $70k for 3 months, and another pay cut after just before being fired, then the 80k/yr is the price of non-compete.
This gives me a good year to decide if I want to leave and lock in my normal pay rate, or stay for the year and accept the lower rate for that time plus after termination. Lowering my salary to $1/year and firing me 2 seconds after the change will not aid them in any way either.
This leaves the choice of how long they don't want me working for competition fully in control with their checkbook.
One employer accepted those terms. They chose to retain me on a non-compete status for 6 months after I was laid off, then choose to end the agreement by not paying for the remaining 1.5 years.
I refrained from working in my field at all for that time they paid my non-compete rate, and had a job a month or so after they terminated it.
As it was not something they got for free, they had to calculate if it was worth the cost to them or not each month. They felt only 6 months of time was required, which they paid for in full. We both came out ahead.
For what it's worth, only one place out right rejected any modifications to the employee contract (Not just non-compete changes, but anything) and they choose not to hire me. Win for me at least, as I would not want to work at a company like that anyway. Probably a win for them too I assume.
Re:Oh dear (Score:3, Interesting)
A certification is proof of expertise that you can show without your present employer having to know you're looking for work
Does anyone really still believe that a certificate is proof of anything other than having paid some money for a piece of paper? A few might have genuinely demanding standards applied in the test, but IME most of them are just an excuse so CYA managers who can't judge real skill levels and the value of different candidates' past experiences can point to something to justify hiring someone who didn't work out.
Re:Oh dear (Score:3, Interesting)
I hired on with a company in the Boston area a few years ago, and a significant benefit was full tuition to pursue my Masters in CS at one of the Boston Universities part time (after work, weekends, etc.) Same GPA stipulation you mentioned.
Anyways, it took me four years but I graduated - shiny new MS/CS in hand. Two months later the project I was working on finished and I found out I was being laid off (with about 100 other people that wave.) My only question - "About that $30,000 you guys invested in my education ... ?" Answer : "Nope, you're all set. Have a great life."
That was a year ago. I'd go back and work for them in a heartbeat if they called, but in the mean time I'm working out in the real world making about twice what I was making working for them.
Re:Where in the world? (Score:3, Interesting)
In the US, well, nothing would surprise me. Labour laws seem incredibly weak from the employee side.
The US is composed of 50 States, each of which has their own labor laws. The United States isn't a single country, it's a collection of States. That's... United.
Saying, "I'm in the US" is not even close to sufficient-- I would wager the labor law differences between California and Texas are more substantial than the labor law differences between the UK and France. (To give a related EU example.)
Re:Microsoft Certifications (Score:3, Interesting)
I would never hire anyone with an MS** certification as they are particularly braindead and responsible for some of the most stupid decisions in any IT organization and responsible for the bad name that most IT departments have when it comes down to costs and ROI.
I run my IT department with maybe 10% of my yearly budget spent on software licensing (most of which is MATLAB and Microsoft Office). There are other departments with very similar end-user requirements where compulsory Microsoft and Oracle software licensing accounts for 50% of their budgets (the other 50% being personnel and hardware) and their total budget at least 300% as large as mine. The difference I put back in hardware. Where most other end-users have to be content with Core2Duo's as their high-end machines, I can afford to give my engineers/scientists dual quad core machines and next week dual hex core workstations.
Re:Oh dear (Score:3, Interesting)
*management job titles comes with lots of uncompensated overtime
One solution related to me (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if anyone (say, in business school) has "done the math" to find out what the actual cost/benefit is of employer-paid training is and what the cost is of being too generous.
A CIO I used to work for said the solution he came up with at a previous employer sounded expensive (which made it tough to sell) but actually solved the problem of too much and not enough employee education.
He said previously they had problems with mandatory education requirements. Employees picked training with classes taught only during business hours and scheduled them at the worst possible times in terms of business scheduling, which often put the company in the position of canceling their training. This became a lather, rinse repeat situation; one employee didn't complete any training for 3 years and it couldn't be held against him as the company made him cancel training & certification tests every time.
The "solution" became company-paid training & certification where the company agreed to cover the costs and a bonus for completion. Once it became a situation where there was no employee cost *and* a financial benefit to completion, miraculously employees figured out how to schedule and complete it in less disruptive ways.
He said it was a tough sell to the board at first but after two years the time spent at courses actually went down, the scheduling caused less chaos and required fewer fill-in temps/contractors and there was a noticeable (if immeasurable) improvement in projects -- in other words, people were actually learning something and putting it to use.