What's The Best Way To Retain Trained Employees? 361
Johnny Mnemonic asks: "I work for a small company that is considering spending a large chunk of resources on developing/training the team. This training will have the side effect of making us worth two to three times as much as we are paid now--and the honchos are afraid, reasonably, that after they spend the money on dev we will all jump ship. The fact that if we don't receive this training our company will be dead in two years escapes their notice. What do other places do to retain their help after a development/training cycle? Do they require the employees to learn it on their own hook, pay for it and then have the employees sign contracts for a period of time, or bite the bullet and pay for the training and either sweeten the share or expect some loss?"
"For those wanting more detail, we are currently a Mac Reseller and Support shop; admittedly fringe, but in our market there's plenty of work, and we continue to grow. However, we need to prepare for OS X--and although the consumer may never have to get to the CLI, we sure will. Receiving training on the CLI in OS X will make us de facto Unix sysadmins--and there's a lot more want ads for Unix sysadmins than Apple Product Professionals."
Re:I second that motion... (Score:2)
The one bad move my company made, was moving from free soda, to $0.25 soda. This made it so instead of grabbing a six pack and having soda for the day, I have to make six seperate trips. The amusing part of this is that in the time it takes to walk to the soda machines and back, they paid me about $2, and that's if I don't talk to anybody on the way.
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
Re:Sweeten the pot and hope for the best (Score:2)
This is a pet peeve, so I'm going to rant here.
Firstly, exit interviews are useless as data. To the employee who is leaving for a specific cause, chances are better than 50-50 they aren't going to tell you what that cause was. The wisdom on the street is to lie in your exit interview so that you don't burn any bridges.
Secondly, and more importantly, the exit interview is FAR TOO LATE to address the problem! By the time an exit interview happens, that employee has been disgruntled for between three months to a year (depending on their tolerance and the job market). If somebody leaves for reasons you could have fixed, that means you haven't been listening all along. To suddenly start listening on their last day is ironic and hypocritical.
--
RESPECT (Score:2)
This doesn't mean that individuals are allowed to disrupt work or disrupt teams. That's poison. But it does mean that if Jim doesn't want to fly on Sundays, it doesn't mean that Jim is your new Problem Child. Good employees will go the extra mile -- maybe they just won't go YOUR extra mile.
And so, if someone is good, your focus should first be on what you can do to enable them to do their good work on their terms. And if someone is not so good, your focus should be on what you can do to make them good. If they aren't good and can't be made good only THEN are they the Problem Child.
--
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:2)
make it a great company to work for (Score:2)
Pay a competitive wage.
Give workers flexibility.
Give your workers good tools and provide a comfortable work atmosphere. Each worker should have an office with a door that closes.
Make certain each worker has interesting, challenging projects to work on.
Recognize and promote talent.
This is a pretty tall order for an employer but if you do this, people will be beating down your door to get a job at your company. I know. I've worked for such a company for 3 years. I've been very lucky. But now, they want to go public and to do so they are taking steps to improve the appearance of profitability. Toward this end, many of the perks we've enjoyed are being eliminated. Guess what? Turnover has spiked. By eliminating perks, they are giving people an incentive to investigate whether they can get a better deal somewhere else.
Now, if you're running a company and you don't want to provide all this stuff but at the same time you recognize that turnover will kill you, there is another option. Hire older workers. They have considerably less job mobility.
Re:Triple your value? Hahahaha (Score:2)
So, can I claim to be a "Unix Admin" because I've used/installed Red Hat and Mandrake for the last year plus, and acutally set up a FTP and telenet server on it so that myself and my friends can access stuff at work from my home network?
You can claim anything you want! Backing it up is another matter. All you have to do there is know enough that the PHB can't follow a technical discussion with you.
There are actually 'unix' shops out there where the serious 'professional' admins have done chmod -R 777 / to get rid of those pesky permission problems! Management doesn't know the difference because all of their admins are like that.
I find that the number of 'professionals' of that calibre in any given field makes a good index of labor shortage. Of course, as soon as supply meets demand, a bunch of these people will end up either in other lines of work, helpless desk (where they will continue to annoy competant coworkers), or as low level managers (based on the Peter Principle).
Fortunatly, it appears that you are taking the high road and will likely make the cut.
Re:Triple your value? Hahahaha (Score:2)
How they achieve this triplification of market value is another thing entirely. In my experience, people who know and use Unix are worth more than Window drones, mostly because you have to know what you're doing in order to use Unix to any larger degree.
Additionally, you are offending a lot of people by underestimating the unixishness of MacOS X.
--Bud
Re:Sweeten the pot and hope for the best (Score:2)
If the company NEEDS to have this training done, get it done and offer accomodations up front. Either way the company is going to have to pay for the talent either way. Maybe, like ask employees what makes them stay. Yes, prepackaged research can help but it might not catch the interests of your crew particular crew.
If it's money, offer it. Give them the little perks before training, pay for the training & give them the salary the way through, pay 2x the old salary (or 3x yearly minus training costs, whichever is higher) starting after the training finishes for a year then pay them market rate after that.
If the PHB's are still jittery, still offer that but ask them to sign a contract.
Re:Triple your value? Hahahaha (Score:2)
My point is you could be the world expert at administrating an OS-X system and it means NOTHING in the real world -- its not administrated, configured, secured or used the same way other Unix systems are. Any trained monkey can use a command line interface, that doesn't triple your workplace value. You get value as a system administrator by knowing how to properly manage, secure and administrate single servers and collections of servers.
There isn't another Unix in existance that is configured the way OS-X is. Saying otherwise demonstrates that you haven't spent a lot of time using it or even looking at it.
Ability to know what you're doing isn't that rare of a commodity in the workplace, contrary to what a lot of wannabe system administrators like to think. They have a belief that having fooled around with a few Unix variants as a hobby translates into real adminstration skills, which won't work in anything but the worst companies. Who wants to work for a compnay like that anyway?
The original poster has the same issue. He thinks that simply learning to use OS-X and do some very basic administrative talks via a CLI will make him a valuable system administrator. This just screams ignorance and a lack of understanding of the responsibilities of being a system administrator.
Pre-Linux that sort of attitude wasn't nearly as common. People who called themselves system administrators knew what they were doing in a lot of depth, not because they installed the system on their PC or took a week long training course.
Thats not a bad thing for the industry, since it drives the salaries of truely qualified individuals MUCH higher, but its bad for tech in general because that sort of lack of experience is what leads to system downtime, security breaches and other issues like that.
So maybe I offended some ignorant people with my post, but those people calling themselves unix administrators offends me.
Anyone who says time is money... (Score:2)
Why is 3 weeks of holiday per year considered generous? It's ridiculous. Half of that will disappear in random little things (take a day off to do errands, a couple of long weekends to go hiking, etc). One thing that companies here just don't seem to get is that time off is really nice. Give your employees 6 weeks off. DON'T pay them extra if they go a year without using it: force them to take it. Make sure that they can work from noon 'til midnight, or whatever hours they want. Making sure that your employees have plenty of time to enjoy the best part of their lives is virtually unheard of in the US, but once they're used to it, other companies will have a very hard time luring them away.
Retention as Beekeeping (Score:2)
Re:Here's our approach (we were burned once) (Score:2)
The employee in question was a very smart person with a good amount of upside. She was being paid a reasonable amount of money for her current skill level and job requirements. She was doing well at the job, and, though she was not perfect (who is?), she was beginning to learn the more advanced skills she needed in order to progress at our company. She'd been in her fairly junior position for about a year, and had gotten two raises in that time.
Obviously, she thought she was ready, and the new employer did as well. One of the reasons that she was perceived as ready, though, was the new certification that we had paid to put her through. I expect she will adapt well and be worth every penny they give her as time goes by. But this particular person was not paid badly to begin with. We were paying a very good salary (given her age, relative skills, and background), paying for her college education, and her MCSE training. She then took the education we bought her that was intended to be for the benefit of both parties, and got another job. I'm not bitter about it - more power to her.
So there's the trade-off. An MCSE is seen as a career-enhancing certification. Personally, I value experience higher, but given the market (especially the NT sysadmin market), it's silly for everyone to hold as little value to the certification as I do (I remember far too many paper MCSE and CNE's over the years that couldn't figure out how to fix a loose connection if there was a big neon sign pointing to it, but I digress...), though - and there are things and skills to be gained for the employee by sitting in a class with other professionals that make it worthwhile.
But that training costs thousands of dollars. Is it unreasonable to expect that an employee stays long enough to let the employer gain some benefit from their investment? I like to think not. Requiring a year's commitment isn't ridiculous, and we're still sending employees for training - it's not holding anyone back. I wouldn't dream of letting us go in the opposite direction some companies do when trained people leave abruptly - cutting off all support for training whatsoever. That's ridiculous.
The carrot we offer the employee is free training and certification - potentially the equivalent of another $10K or so, and tax-free. And we'll pay for further certifications and updates on an ongoing basis. The stick is making them stick around for a year after getting the certification. If they don't let us gain benefit from the classes we pay for, what's the point of paying for it? Suggesting that the employee should simply get training, no strings attached, and have the employer pay is completely one-sided as well - for the employee's benefit. Ideally, we all need to meet in the middle.
- -Josh Turiel
Here's our approach (we were burned once) (Score:2)
Anyhow, I sent two people through MCSE training - one in spring of 1999, and one in the fall of last year through winter. The first one who went was a fairly senior employee with loads of experience who already is commanding a pretty high salary. The other was a smart, but much less experienced person with a lower job level and salary accordingly (about right for her experience level, though, and she was getting regular raises). The experienced employee is still with us - the junior employee left a couple of months ago to go to a communications company at a substantial increase in pay.
Did I think she was ready for the job she took? No, not yet. Certification is nice as a checklist item, and the training process is useful, but you need real-world experience, too - and she didn't really have enough for the role yet. I expect she'll ultimately do very well there because she's a fast learner, but based on her current skills I couldn't have offered her equivalent pay to stay. However, she was being paid reasonably well, and did leave only a few months after completing MCSE training.
The bottom line for us out of this affair was that our company will still pay for education, but we have now added a 1-year requirement - they have to stay for at least a year after taking their final test for any sort of certification. We aren't counting the sort of periodic training that we send people to that isn't on a certification track, simply because those sort of classes aren't really resume checklist items.
Is it a little disappointing to add this policy? Yes - I liked the old way of just paying for everything, unconditionally. But one thing the prospective trainee doesn't realize sometimes is that companies that do train their employees are paying for it - in money spent and in time given up. We do this hoping that we can use the skills the employee gains to benefit the company. If they turn that training into another job immediately, then it's unfair to the company that just paid for the classes. The bargain we now require is "we'll pay you reasonably and pay for your advancement - but you have to promise us that you'll let us get some benefit from our investments".
- -Josh Turiel
Re:Stock Options? (Score:2)
I think stock options are still important, just not overwhelmingly so.
I work at a very rare company; the "Realistic Startup". We are actually working to become profitable within the next two years (and are well on track to do this). The options are important, but they are treated as extra money; the salary still must be competitive.
It is my opinion that the stock market is returning to a realistic market valuation of tech companies, that it is not "bottoming out". Given this, expect to cash in your stocks for a down payment on a house, rather than the millions that people assumed they could get, but were never promised.
What a shitty boss you are! (Score:2)
Employees who put up with bosses like you and jobs like yours are not good creative quality employees. They are self-losers to tolerate that kind of bullshit.
Furthermore, such contracts aren't legal. Fat chance getting anything out of an employee who quits short of that one year mark. Again, any employee who believes that kind of threat isn't a good worker to start with.
Cracking the whip may work on slaves, but people who stay at a job voluntarily are much more productive and pro-active.
I bet most of your employees spend their time looking for ways to shift blame and responsibility, either up or sideways. Any problem comes up, they dodge and weave, duck and cover. Any one with initiative has long since left.
--
Exactly right -- one course .NE. veteran admin (Score:2)
Maybe yon newbie could fake his way into such a job for triple pay, but it wouldn't last long.
Think about it in pure econmics terms -- if mere coursework tripled pay, world and dog would be lining up for it. How long would it stay secret? The mere fact that it hasn't happened should be proof enough it's not going to happen.
--
Re:A very good argument to back State-paid educati (Score:2)
Maybe in your world. In mine it's to protect me from external enemies and those seeking power through coercion, and not a hell of a lot more. All men are created equal, doesn't mean they stay that way.
Re:Sweeten the pot and hope for the best (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but if it weren't for the fact that my employer gives me money, I doubt I would take the trouble to go to work every day.
All the other stuff is nice and dandy, but money is the reason people work. Employees will NOT refuse a $90K job because they like the $30K job that comes with a ping pong table and a $10K performance based "bonus".
Re:I second that motion... (Score:2)
--
A very good argument to back State-paid education. (Score:2)
The role of the State is to make a level playing field for everybody, so no one is disadvantaged for being "nice". Since every company (cough) pays taxes, everyone will pay for the training, and everyone will benefit.
--
Americans are bred for stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Treat them as friends.. (Score:2)
Re:Sweeten the pot and hope for the best (Score:2)
To a very limited extent, this sort of thing works. Foosball, Playstations, etc. have an immediate effect on morale. However, it falls off quickly. In the kind of environment you're describing (typical startup) you've got tons of work to do, and are probably already short-handed. Adding these diversions will not help your ability to be productive if people are playing on them all the time.
I just recently left a company that had this philosophy. My pay was roughly half of what I'm worth in the real world, I had great healthcare that didn't cost me a dime, a very relaxed dress code (not naked was the code), free soda/coffee/spring water, etc. The perks were cool, but didn't make up for the fact that I was making about HALF of what I could make somewhere else. All of this stuff is nice, but each and every one of us is still at some level "coin operated".
I left that place. They're starting to tank now, so all of my stock (I was there long enough to exercise my options) makes a lovely wall hanging.
I seriously considered the idea of IC, to get the extra time off, but then I got an offer I couldn't refuse.. With my base plus commissions on what my sales guys sell, plus bonuses, I'm back at my market rate. It's a big company, has good benefits - in fact, just as good as the benefits I just left..
BTW - you say you're reluctant to go back to IC.. Why? That's what dice.com & headhunters are for. Work smarter...
--
Re:Sweeten the pot and hope for the best (Score:2)
You should work in academia -- it pays less, but has more perks (depending on where you are) than a typical company.
You generally start out with a lot more time off, and also get more holiday time at the university level. I'm currently making 75% of the salary I know I could get on the open market, but its nice to work in an environment that's as over-all casual (dress, attitude, schedules) as a university.
No 80-hour/week death marches, no bankruptcy (no stock options either), and I started with 4-5 weeks of vacation my first year (plus 2-3 weeks of sick leave, 1 week of "personal leave" and comp time). My friends might be making more money, but its nice to wake up and say "I'm gonna take off two weeks next month and go hiking" without worrying that its the only time you'll have all year, or that you'll come back to find your job is gone. I know I've still got another few weeks worth of time if I should want it...
---------------------------------------------
Re:I second that motion... (Score:2)
Where to put it? There is one refrigerator on the floor and we can't exactly just take it over with soda.
Who to do it? We're in the middle of Boston and most people take public transit. Lugging in a few cases of soda regularly is a bit of a pain.
If we try to get our own half-size fridge and hide it in a lab someplace, facilities will ultimately find and take it, I guarantee.
You buy a fridge and have it delivered by the place you buy it from. That is the drink fridge, and I don't know why "facilities" will take it, but tell them (and mean it) that its there officially and if they touch it they are fired.
WE have our drinks delivered by the local vending distributor so that we can get both coke and pepsi products, but if you use a LOT (we go through a dozen cases every other week) you can just call the pepsi or coke distributor and they will be happy to physically deliver 20 cases of coke products a week to your office (or tell you who will). It only costs us something like
---------------------------------------------
Pay them the Market Rate (Score:2)
Let's face it, there's not exactly a shortage of employers looking for Technology employees.
Certain aspects about your company may delay this. It is only a delay, however, until your employees find something tempting enough to leave.
Re:hahaha (Score:2)
I don't get it. What's the difference between administrating Darwin and other Unices?
I don't get it either... care to elaborate?
Re:Triple your value? Hahahaha (Score:2)
Well, I'm not personally offended, but I think there's hell of a lot of "UNIX" people out there that don't realise:
The Mac OSX CLI is a shell, just like any UNIX shell. If you want to run bash then you can, if csh is your thing then run that.
If you want to run vi or emacs, you can.
If you look at the file system structure then it follows the UNIX structure (/etc,/usr,/tmp,/var etc...)
The Mac OS-X kernel is based on BSD, that's pretty UNIXy to me! (1977 - CSRG?, 4.4BSD-Lite --> BSD/OS,FreeBSD,NetBSD,OpenBSD --> Mac OS X... ring any bells?)
What got me was the fact that Apple didn't have the foresight to supply a contrib CD with GNU tools.
UNIX has many different flavours: Solaris, HPUX, Linux (Yes, I consider Linux a UNIX), BSD (Free,Net & Open) + all those others each with it's own little foibles... add to that Mac OS-X.
Seen this all too often. (Score:2)
I know that, for the most part, all the geeks I work with will happily disclose their salary and compensation history with the company.
I have yet to see a potential employment contract that indicates I cannot do this.
ANd it's true.. one unhappy person can spread a vast amount of unrest!
I was in a similar situation a while ago. I was generally happy, but kind of suspected that a lot of other, less qualified people were gettin gpaid a lot more than me. It turned out to be true. What made matters worse, is that when I talked to all of these people, even those older than me, every single one of them was under the impression that I got paid a *lot* more than them, and they viewed me as a very senior and knowledgeable part of the staff. That's when I realized that, in no uncertain terms, I was getting the short end of the stick.
How they do it. (Score:2)
Just because you maintain the equipment does *not* imply a de-facto right to see documents not meant for your eyes, whether or not it's easy from a technical perspective. As far as the company is concerned, things like personell files are for the eyes of the authorized HR employees (or whoever) only.
Believe me. You *never* want your management to think you abuse your position and snoop around.
Also.. in many cases, it is appropriate, and I've actively encouraged this, to set up completely separate subnetworks for HR, where I know no passwords, no nothing. I train one of their people on the tasks they need to deal with, and ensure that I am not left alone with the HR data ever. Why? It both gives me a legal leg to stand on, should I get accused, and it builds trust within the company.
You are being narrow minded. (Score:2)
MCSE is not a liability on a resume, no matter what you may think. It depends on the rest of the resume, and what's there. If it's listed at the bottom, behind your other skills.. that's great. It's something else you've done. Certainly those 'I'm an MCSE so that's all I need on my resume' resumes go in the bin.
I think that's the point right there though.. about choice. I posted elsewhere about it.. but you are right. THere is a big difference between being given the option of training, and being told you must do the training.
That's all part of getting the details sorted out *before* you get into the job, though.
I was not clear. (Score:2)
This is farily simple. (Score:2)
Given that training will make you more 'valuable', your employer shoudl consider two things.
1) If you *are* more valuable, you should be appropriately compensated.
2) Make the payback for training costs (even if the money is loaned by the company), paid back over a set period of time (negotiate this). THis doesn't mean you have to actually be out money; consider it that you owe them money, and this debt automatically decreases over time. YOu are alwyas free to take another job if you pay them out. This should cover the full cost of training.
What are you talknig about? (Score:2)
And I don't throw time away. Without such a contract, what prevents an employee from doing many thousands of dollars in training, and then walking? Even if the contract only guarantees six months (which may be what the employer determins it takes to cover his costs of training, ie, he would otherwise have to bring in outside help), it is enough time for the employee's new skill to be judged, and a new contract to be issued.
Also.. and I have to say this... part of the problem is overvaluation, or undervaluation, of what people think they do, or what employer sthink they do. If one little course makes you worth 'twice as much', you must not know much in the first place, or perhaps you don't value what you currently do enough.
Excuse me. (Score:2)
I'm not saying you can't do it, but what about the course? how much of it teaches real unix concepts? How mac-centric is it? How much of what this course will teach is like traditinoal unix, or is it just using a cli to do custom apple things?
Do you think that someone who has taken a mac osx course is somehow magically competent to go admin a solaris network?
Re:What a shitty boss you are! (Score:2)
IN turn, you must give us a year of your work, at your current level.
What's unfair about that? That's *excellent*.
You are always free to take courses ON YOUR OWN, out of your own pocket, on your own time.
Ahh! I see the difference... please read. (Score:2)
If they OFFER it, but you are under no pressure to accept it, then it's perfectly fair.
See usenix a couple issues back (Score:2)
Sounds like you really get it.
Too bad more bosses don't.
The general gist of the story is that the cost of hiring replacement employees is far higher than any amount generally that would be spent keeping employees happy. BEers, lunches, goodies.... the total cost of these for the department woudl be dwarfed by teh cost of replacing even 1 or two employees.
Contracts are problematical (Score:2)
The only way that is going to work is if the company bites the bullet and pays a fair price for the new skills.
Re:Here's our approach (we were burned once) (Score:2)
It appears to me that the reason that she left is that she thought she was ready, and she found an employer that agreed. When you didn't agree, she had no choice but to leave. I don't know anybody who would stay under these circumstances.
I expect she'll ultimately do very well there because she's a fast learner
So you are saying that she could do the job after a break-in period? Maybe she really was ready for the new challenge.
The bottom line for us out of this affair was that our company will still pay for education, but we have now added a 1-year requirement
So now you will find that far fewer of your employees will consider taking additional training. Is that what you really want?
We do this hoping that we can use the skills the employee gains to benefit the company.
That's fine as far as it goes. But you are structuring this to be completely one-sided for the company's benefit. People do things out of their own self-interest, and if you don't offer a carrot to the employee too you aren't going to benefit from training programs.
Incorporation! (Score:2)
I pay no sales tax on company expenses, expenses are deducted from revenues and help lower taxable income, and income is split three ways: company, salary, dividends. Throw in 5-10K per year in RSP's and other placements, and you're all set. I do not come _near_ paying 50% taxes! You just have to know how to play the system!
Re:I second that motion... (Score:2)
- Our cafeteria offers free coffee, but it is only open in the morning, then lunch, then for an afternoon snack -- you can't get it whenever. Also, it's 6 floors (and an elevator change) away.
:(
- We've asked for our soda machine (75cents!) to be rigged so that we get free soda. Problem is that we're on a 20floor building and the facilities people argue that our machine would get raided by everyone else (at least partly, but probably not entirely true).
- We'd be happy to buy our own soda at CostCo and truck it in. Problems with that:
- Where to put it? There is one refrigerator on the floor and we can't exactly just take it over with soda.
- Who to do it? We're in the middle of Boston and most people take public transit. Lugging in a few cases of soda regularly is a bit of a pain.
- If we try to get our own half-size fridge and hide it in a lab someplace, facilities will ultimately find and take it, I guarantee.
I'm seriously considering getting a few of these babies [thinkgeek.com] from ThinkGeek and just putting them under people's desks (they look enough like machinery that I bet facilities wouldn't notice). They only hold a sixpack, though, so we'd have to get a bunch -- maybe one per shared office or something.Duane
P.S. - As a christmas gift I did get my team the caffeine sampler from ThinkGeek, so I'll be distributing that as soon as it arrives. Hey, it's something, right?
Make the job more challenging. (Score:2)
There are lots of ways. The problem described - how to keep people after they have learned a lot more and become more valuable - can be attacked by refering to the English management author, R. Meredith Belbin (see e.g. his company's home page [belbin.com]). (Belbin's ideas are interesting for a number of reasons: he has a team role theory that in my opinion is more sutiable for describing teams than the MBTI, and he has a tounge-in-cheek form in his writing that I think should appeal to Dilbert fans. He refers, for instance, to something called BS 9000. But I digress.)
Consider two dimensions characterizing an employee: 1. Eligibility (i.e. formal background for doing a job). Those who take the course in question will hopefully become eligible for the job. 2. Suitablity (i.e. the attitudes, habits, and other personality characteristics required). Brought together, one may discover sense into a pattern:
Eligible & suitable Disappointing Ideal candidates move to greener pastures
Eligible but unsuitable The real problems The poor fits are reluctant to move and become difficult
Ineligble but Suitable Surprise fits perform surprisingly well In the job by accident, contended and staying put
Ineligible and unsuitable No problem Total misfits leave of own accord
This in fact coinsides with the much more scientifically valid writings of Mihaly Csikszetmihalyi (look him up in your favorite web-bookstore, his most well-known work is called Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. His thesis is this:
In order for a task to be so interesting as to put the executor of the task into a state of flow (by some known as Deep Hack Mode), there must be an optimal mismatch between the skill that the task requires, and the skill that the executor possessess. This optimal mismatch is individual. Below this mismatch, the job is boring, above this mismatch, the job is frustrating.
So what might the employer do? Lots of things of course. Increasing wages and piling on gravy train benefits are obvious options (and should not automatically be ruled out by alternatives). But the employeer (any employer!) who wants to keep his or her staff should make sure that the job always requires a little bit more. After training, the employees match the task better. The employer better make sure the job doesn't match the employees too well!
Re:Example of not retaining employees (Score:2)
Hey! I make $5.25/hr!
Hmm...but I work at Subway so that kind of makes sense...
Heh, carry on.
The life of a Dependant Contractor (Score:2)
A DC is probably paid less than an IC who can negotiate well, but it is a great option for mediocre negotiators or people who don't want to incorporate, market, and handle paperwork themselves.
Yes, I am a DC.
More training (Score:2)
Training in technology only has a short term value: as an investment it depreciates just as fast as any other piece of computer technology. A company who poaches trained employees instead of doing its own training will leave those employees with outdated skills. Better to work for less in a company that makes a credible promise to keep your skills up to date. And the first step in making that promise is... provide training.
The second step is to put together a career development program which shows people how they will progress if they stay with you, and then make it real.
Paul.
Re:Excuse me. (Score:2)
Learning OS X CLI is as much qualification to be a Unix sys-admin as playing with Linux. In fact, for the technical nit-pickers out there, OS X is more of a Unix than Linux (because of BSD).
A voice from the past... (Score:2)
I don't understand all this fuss over retraining tamed employees. Why are we taming them in the first place? Doesn't anyone else think this is a dubious use of psychoactive drugs?
And one more thing. There's the question of retraining at all. If you hire these people to do what they're good at, why not let them keep doing it? You're throwing away years of...
[Whisper from off-screen]
Oh, "retaining trained" employees.... Nevermind.
Exit Interviews (Score:2)
Of course, people started leaving like mad. It was getting pretty bad for a while. Morale was low, other people were actually talking to headhunters when they called.
The official response: All exit interviews had to be forwarded to the VP Engineering and new questions had to be asked. No effort was made to preemptively keep people from leaving, they just asked people (who of course wouldn't answer truthfully) WHY they were leaving. How ridiculous!
Throwing Off the Yoke (Score:2)
There are two things that came from this policy.
First, was resentment. Most workers there saw this as an attempt to endenture them. My friend avoided training whenever possible. And when another company came along with an offer he decided to take - the old company was unable to match it. And they tried - they made a very excellent counter offer. But in the end, he remembered what KIND of company he was working for and was more than happy to leave it behind.
So how did he ditch the required pay-back? The new company's offer included an adjusted sign-on bonus that paid for his previous "debt".
Too a good techie, training is a motivator. It is valuable to the employee, and can also improve the effectiveness of the company. Makeing it a tool to lock in employees only creates resentment. This makes your valued people easier for another company with deep pockets, and also starving for good people, to raid.
Clarification (Score:2)
The perception created by this policy was the attempt to create a financial incentive to stay with the company for a specific time in exchange for training. Something along the lines of "I'd leave... but then I would owe them X dollars and I can't afford that." In this case (and in many others I've heard of), it didn't work that way. The new company had made its offer and then increased its offer to cover the buy-off of the employee's training. The employee got everything they were origionally offered and the raiding company got a valued employee. It was no barrier to the employee leaving.
So to recap... with today's shortage of good technical personnel, such a policy does not stop an employee from leaving. Its also very likely that such a policy generates resentment and provides a reason for an employee to leave.
Granted, the employer gets to retain their training funds - but that doesn't take into account for the lost time to find a new (scarce) qualified replacement and train them. Is it really a benifit to anyone involved?
You have your math backwards (Score:2)
He said it would triple their market value, i.e. Y=3X.
He didn't say what Y was. He didn't say what X was.
You clearly have an opinion as to what Y realistically could be. OK. Solve for X.
"Ouch."
Yeah, doing Mac support is not terribly lucrative right now.
Re:Remove the things that make people leave (Score:2)
Inform people when there are leavers
As a 'Talented Employee'.. (Score:2)
Second, make sure that they KNOW you appreciate their work. I currently work as a freelance employee for GameSpy Industries [gamespyindustries.com]. Because I don't live in California, I work from my home. And I can tell you right now, it is the best job that I've had. Not only is it working in an area that I have both a lot of knowledge in, and pure interest, but my contact with my boss(es). If I have an idea, I send one of them an ICQ msg, and we talk it over. If they have concerns, they let me know. I don't know if this is simply a bi-product of telecomutting, but the openness in communication really goes A LONG WAY.
------------
CitizenC
My name is not 'nospam,' but 'citizenc'.
Re:Training and Employee Retention (Score:2)
If the cost is in excess of what their last paycheck do you go after them? Do people strategically time their quitting so as to minimize the amount of money they lose. I'd bet you get a lot of people that don't bother with giving two weeks notice. If you have outstanding training costs then you would in essence be working for free.
I would only sign a contract like this if I have no other choice. To me it is like becoming an indentured servant.
My company doesn't train... (Score:2)
for the exact same reasons. They want us dumb and in their employ. Also, if they train us, they'd have to pay us more...
You will get what you pay for. (Score:2)
Think about contractors and other service-providers you've worked with in the past. If you've had much experience with them, then you've probaby seen some gung-ho folks who really know what they're doing and are eager to make sure you're happy. You've probably also seen some who don't know what they're doing, are very unhelpful, and just want you out of their hair. If you low-ball your technichal staff, they're going to get out of there, and you're going to be left with bad employees.
It's very true that money is NOT the only consideration, but it is easily the most persuasive. You will not succeed if your employees are grossly underpaid, and neither will you succeed if your employees are grossly underqualified. If the management at your company can't grasp this, maybe it's you who should be looking for another job.
A good argument to spend my money educating losers (Score:2)
possibly the most asinine thing I'll read today, but then again there are a lot of
the role of the state is to define some rights for people and protect those rights for everyone. it should be pretty obvious if -- say, youre alive, conscious, and observing (which I imagine you must not be) -- that the state has no real interest in creating a level playing field, nor should it.
Market Yourself - Tips for High Tech Consultants (Score:2)
I've been a consultant since April 1, 1998. I was hating life for years before that, but my life as a consultant is rapidly closing in on the longest job I've held with one company - my own.
Speaking as one company to another - here's everything I know about finding clients - or everything I knew at the time I wrote it, it could use some updating:
Market Yourself - Tips for High-Tech Consultants [goingware.com]
And for everyone to read - you ever deal with those pesky headhunters?
Important Note to Recruiters and Contract Agencies [goingware.com]
Michael D. Crawford
GoingWare Inc
If You Can't Pay You Shouldn't Play (Score:2)
Anyway, what I wanted to say was that high-tech is an expensive business and high-tech talent is hard to come by, the people who have the talent have to work long and hard to get the skills they possess and so they deserve to be richly rewarded.
If your business model does not allow you to pay your employees fairly and still remain profitable, you need to reevaluate your business model.
One suggestion might be to shut down your business and sell real estate or something.
Another suggestion would be to provide the training in command-line interfaces to your Mac OS X techs, and continue beyond that to cover Unix training of all sorts, so you can take on customers who are running "dot-com" web applications and are likely to be willing to pay more for service, and require it in higher quantities, than the typical home, education and small business consumer that is going to be using a Mac.
You should bring this question up in Apple's forums too - it's something Apple needs to address, because if end-users aren't going to be able to get their Macs serviced because all the techs have taken higher paying jobs doing something else, then Apple's not going to be able to sell Macs.
Michael D. Crawford
GoingWare Inc
Self-training is vitally important (Score:2)
While it is often in your employer's best interests to train you, and you should evaluate opportunities for training when selecting a new job, don't ever allow yourself to lapse into the belief that all of your training is your employer's responsibility.
At the very best, your employer will train you for what is required for you to perform your current job, or to allow your company to take on tasks that no one knows how to do yet. You won't be trained in things that will allow you to advance out of your current rank within the company, to find a better job at a new company - or importantly, to recover from losing your job.
Think you can't be fired? Well, maybe so. But your company could tank or lose enough money you have to be laid off. Always be prepared for this.
As a consultant, I keep canceled checks and receipts for technical books that I purchase for my own self-training. Most of my training comes from reading these books, websites on programming, participating in newsgroups on programming topics of interest to my work at hand or future work I'd like to do, and contributing to open source projects like the ZooLib [sourceforge.net] cross-platform application framework.
As a self-employed businessperson, I can deduct my technical books as a business expense, so I know how much I spend each year on my books. In 1999, I spent about $750 on technical books alone, in 1998 I spent about $250.
You should spend a significant amount of your free time when you're away from work doing self training. Otherwise you may find that your skills are regarded as out of date and you're not able to get a job, or you cannot get a job with pay appropriate to your level of experience - fifteen years of experience in a language no one uses anymore won't get you anywhere, but fifteen years of experience as a programmer where you've picked up a new language and a few new API's each year and you'll be very salable.
Also see my advice Study Fundamentals not APIs, OSes or Tools [goingware.com].
Michael D. Crawford
GoingWare Inc
Re:Stay... (Score:2)
Once I have completed training (and perhaps received certification) I am presumably a more valuable employee- and deserve to earn more money.
When a company "gives" you training, it doesn't benefit you unless you get an increase in pay at completion. If not, you are a more valuable employee to any employer, so start looking for a company that recognizes that.
IANAL, that being said-
Any non-compete contract that makes it impossible for you to earn a living (short of moving to another industry, or another state) is invalid.
An employer can put restrictions on stealing clients, on taking proprietary technology, but cannot enforce a non-compete that basically puts you out of work.
My company's approach (Score:2)
The second route is one that I have been using. Basically, the company will pay for any test that I want to take, and will even compensate me for books that I purchase as long as I leave them with the company when I am done with them. Since tests are only $100 on average and most of our employees take maybe 1 test a month, that works out well for them. If you want training, you are on your own. I am fortunate in this respect because my background experience and current client list provide me with more hands on experience than I could ever get in a classroom, and I am usually over qualified for the tests I take. I have been taking on average 2-3 tests a month and have become certified in an ungodly amount of things.
Point of all this being, I have become essential to several of the company's qualifications without signing any commitment agreements since the company has not payed for any training. If I were to leave, they would send off several techs to training in order to cover the gaps. The glory of the system is that it works out economically for the company.
So, if your company is not worried about turnover, and not concerned about individuals, then that is the easiest and most efficient way to go about it.
Although many markets in the North and in the West are in need of IT professionals and have amazing benefits, in the South East (Florida) it is a cutthroat market.
And, just for the record, I don't expect to break the 1.5-year tradition and have already begun a job search.
Don Pezet
MCSE+i, CCA, CCNA, Master ASE, Network+, A+, Blah, Blah, and Blah+
(Yes, I really have those)
Re:Legal action? (Score:2)
As far as contracts that don't allow you to leave at all, methinks that would not stand up in court. There may be repercussions from leaving, but certainly they can't legally force you to stay?
Re:Pay them more. (Score:2)
Plus, the bosses won't let the secrataries go to **FREE** computer training seminars given by the university, because, "we have an admin you can just ask him." ... so I spend 2 hours a day showing people how to attach shit in outlook and meanwhile we haven't backed up in 6 mos :)
One way of doing it... (Score:2)
1:) They paid for the course and subsequent exam.
2:) I agreed to stay with the company for at least 12 months afterwards.
The interesting bit was what would actually happen if and when I left the company; for example, if I left three months after the training, I would pay back 75% of the fees, if I left six months after the training, I would pay back 50% of the fees, etc, etc.
Of course, after the twelve months contract expires, I am free to do whatever I wish - in my employer's words, "We have had our moneys' worth after that anyway!".
"Hmmm... they have the Internet on computers now ?" - Homer Simpson
a contract is the way to go... (Score:2)
I work at Best Buy, a multi billion dollar company, as a tech. I make shit for money, and don't really do any "real" tech work beyond installing ram, but this is Best Buy's solution:
They will pay for your A+ test as long as you stay on for a year. Fair deal I say. Another major player that does it is gateway country - You get a computer when you get a job, but if you leave before a year's out, you have to pay the pro-rated balance.
So: My proposed solution is pay for the training, but make the emplyees sign a form that says if they jump ship in less than a year, or 2, or whatever, they have to pay a pro-rated ammount of the training cost, i.e. if the contract is 2 years, the training costs $1,000, and they ditch at 1 year, they owe you $500.
insert clever line here
Involuntary servitude (Score:2)
Don't get aggressive about that. It's a Federal felony.
18 USC 1584: Whoever knowingly and willfully holds to involuntary servitude or sells into any condition of involuntary servitude, any other person for any term, or brings within the United States any person so held, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
Employment contracts have run into this provision. Some states have tougher laws, too.
This is a watershed for the business too (Score:2)
owner and employer in a small internet company.
What staff cost in the big picture vs what they
bring in is always a big question. In a small
shop that leads very quickly to scale of operations,
business focus and my ability as manager to
keep it humming.
We've learned that you have to pay pretty much
the going rate in your area. **Then** you can
talk about quality of life and benefits,
flexibility and training, health club, AND
the challenges, etc....
Those extras will attract and keep the best people
but only if the pay is there. At least for top
level people, the challenge is critical too. Are
they going to learn management (OS-X or whatever
their personal goals)? The fit **must** be there
both for leaders and production staff.
That jibes pretty well with what the local
headhunters tell me too.
We're about to hire someone that will start at
twice what I make as owner. Personally I don't
have a problem with that; in theory at least I
own the shop. But it will create problems up
and down the line with everyone else - including
my wife.
Still, once I decided that mediocrity was not
going to cut it, only the best I could find would
do. So my challenge as manager will be to double
the scale, refine the business, and bring up the
level of the other staff (and clients). The
alternative is we won't get and keep good staff
and will ultimately go out of business.
If the owner of your business is really committed
to training and increasing your skills and value,
then he must also commit himself to doing **more**
with you. Doing that in a {stable|declining}
market, Mac services, is a tough nut.
Training and Employee Retention (Score:2)
Re:What a shitty boss you are! (Score:2)
Re:defact Unix admins? (Score:2)
Linux/Unix has the advantage that it usually works the way it was designed. If something goes wrong (which doesn't happen that often) it's easy to track down. The one problem with Linux/Unix is that most maintenence is far more difficult to administer. Dragging a Mac extension to the trash is easy - editing a
So I guess there are two ways to look at this. Unix/Linux is easier if you know how to troubleshoot problems and are comfortable with the command line/unix. MacOS is great for those who are scared of a command prompt. If something goes wrong with a Mac, one can generally fix it without documentation.
Two different systems - two different users. I really like what MacOSX is doing for bringing the two together.
Willy
forget it (Score:2)
If there is any significant amount of money involved, I would consider this inappropriate. If the company selects the training program, they pay for it; otherwise, there is too little incentive for them to make a good choice, and it opens up employees to all sorts of possibilities for abuse and fraud. If we are only talking a few thousand dollars, it should make no difference to the company anyway.
If the company trains you and adjust your salary and working conditions appropriately, you shouldn't be any more likely to leave after the training than before. If they don't, that should be their problem, not yours.
Triple your value? Hahahaha (Score:3)
Thats the way to get them to pay for the training -- educate them on the real lack of value that such training represents and point out to them that any of their employees that think that the addition of that skill set would significantly increase their value in the marketplace are so out of touch with reality that their loss probably won't be very significant anyway.
I don't want to be rude, but its not like they're paying for you to get Sun Certified or something.
What is the deal with training? (Score:3)
I have been given the opportunity several times to go to training, but the company puts my neck in a noose with a contract. No thank you, I would rather buy the O'Reilly book.
This is what really bothers me... most of this training stuff can be figured out if the person just spends a little time reading and thinking through matters. Being sent to a training session has all the appearance of learning something (just like college courses), but it doesn't compare with spending some time learning it yourself. This route does have some limitations, especially if you are learning a proprietary technology. In my company [spinweb.net] we solve that problem by adopting no proprietary technologies. Basically, if O'Reilly doesn't write a book about it (or they conceivably couldn't do so) then we don't adopt the technology. It is really that simple.
In his defense... (Score:3)
I hope anyway. Otherwise I'm going to put the fact that I installed Linux on my box at home down as sysadmin experience too. Cause I don't log in as root, I created another user for myslf. And I shut off ftpd to avoid security holes. That makes me a sysadmin too, right? In a resume sort of way?
sorry, got a little out of hand...
Here's some other examples (Score:3)
Buying a camo hat and shiny boots does not make you a soldier of fortune.
Buying a Mazda Miata does not make you an F1 champion.
Buying a golf ball does not make you Tiger Woods.
--
Re:Sweeten the pot and hope for the best (Score:3)
This is one of the big things that keeps me in contracting. I have a lot more leverage with clients for time off. If there is a slow period between projects, what do they care, let me have two weeks off, they do not have to pay me. Also, between contracts I can take as much time off as I want.
What I would love to see is more jobs (W2 employee) offered as hourly positions. Then time off just becomes a project management issue. December is going to be very slow? The project manager lets you take it off, if you are willing to forego the income (maybe this income loss was offset by extra hours earlier in the year).
A few ideas. (Score:3)
One: If they leave within a year, make them pay for the training.
It sounds mean, but it works. The company that I work for does the same thing. We consider it our invisible leash, but I think its fair. If they are going to spend thousands of dollars on me, they deserve something out of me. And I get to be trained on the latest and greatest things. Makes me happy, makes them happy. But don't make the leash last more than a year. Anything more than that might scare away candidates.
Two: Compensate them well.
In a technical company, us techs are the lifes blood of the company. Marketing, sales, legal, all very important people, but in this economy we have now, techs are very valued, and deserve to be paid for their skills. Its easy to get another salesman, they are a dime a dozen, but finding another perl guru might be a wee bit difficult. If you don't pay your tech's well, they will easily jump ship as soon as their invisible leash breaks, and take them and their skills YOU paid for to another company for more money. Plus more pay helps loyalty too. Stock options are nice too.
Three: Listen to your techs, and make them feel like real members of the company
I can't count how many times I've seen/heard techs give a honest and non flattering review of something only to be disregarded and ignored. Then when the project or the machine blows up, the techs get jumped on for not getting it to work correctly. And don't let saleman Bob define how things must work. An overview, perhaps, but not cramming specs down tech's throats. Give them some freedom and power to play (which is what makes them good techs) and you will be amazed. But don't let them go nuts either. Know when to put the breaks on things. Finaly, make them feel part of the team, not the stepchildren you have hidden in the server room.
Re:Legal action? (Score:3)
That being said, people with H1-B visas are in a bit of a pickle. I've never dealt with it (I'm a citizen), but my understanding is that the consequences of leaving the job are being deported. This could be turned into indentured servitude, if I understand the law correctly.
Any H1-B employees have a perspective on this?
Re:Pay them more. (Score:3)
Not to say money isn't a factor. While money can't buy you happiness, financial insecurity causes an aweful lot of greif and depression. If a company is unwilling or unable to pay for your skills, then it's their loss.
But their are other factors that affect whether or not people will stay once they are there.
That covers most of the bases. Money might bring people to a job, but people don't start looking for another job unless they are unhappy. Keeping with what I said before, too little money can cause unhappiness, so don't forget that too. (btw: I know, I know, I have been trolled, and I will try to have a nice day.)
Pay For Performance (Score:3)
The answer, of course, is pay-for-performance rather than pay-for-time.
Under pay-for-performance, people have an incentive to optimize their performance so they'll have more spare time to do things that the company shouldn't have to pay for. Things like spend more time with the kids, work on some cool hack they've been dreaming up, just defocus a bit to take in a larger view of life or *gasp* becoming more educated so they can further optimize their performance!
Call me old fashioned...
incentive (Score:3)
How about ripping the last 50 or so pages out of all the manuals and not giving them back until contracts have been signed? :-)
Re:Sweeten the pot and hope for the best (Score:3)
1.)Foosball tables, poool tables, video games, etc..
2.)Send everyone on a cruise! (My employer is oing this right now. Its a cheapo 4-day deal in Miami, but what a great morale booster.
3.)Buy lunch once a week.
4.)Offer 3 or 4 weeks of vacation. A little bit more than average.
5.)Open a satelite office in the 'burbs, or do work at home two days a weel.
6.)Free soda,coffee, bottled water.
7.)Stock options.
8.)Better than average healthcare.
9.)Ask your employees what they want most.
Okay, I'm out of ideas. Here's the scoop. I know right now that I could increase my income as a direct bill contractor by 50-60%. Why don't I?
Two reasons. First I have a family and two small children, and I want to spend time with them and not work myself nutty chasing down leads, so I guess thats less time. Two, I have great health care which helps with the kids. So I'm giving myself a break for a few years. (I have been an IC for the last 7 years.) It absolutely kills me to here management talk about high costs of free soda and vacation. The cost of replacing one employee is at least 25% of the annual salary of the position. Happy people don't leave. You can be cheaper onthe salary if you don't scrimp on the benefits.
One last thing to all you HR people. As an IC I would take 4-6 weeks off a year. I routinely make up for all those lost weeks and more in overtime. Every time I look for a job I mention desiring 4 weeks of vacation. I get looks like I am from mars. Its not a negotiable benefit, and no one seems to think its a reasonable request. If I ever found a company that offered 4 weeks of vacation to start I would be willing to make substantial allowances for that. I can't be the only one. Try offering more vacation!
Bug-Filled Management systems (Score:3)
- "Just in Time" inventory systems, for example, where you save money by not having a large warehouse, but get screwed over if there is a temporary shortage. The upside on shortages if that if you plan it right, you can charge more for product in high demand.
- The removing of many layers of middle management. The upside is the removing of many layers of deadwood. The downside is the loss of a place to send workers who can't be fired, but who are harmful to the company in a decision making position.
- There is also a trend to lack of company loyalty because of diminished investment by workers and management in the future of the company. The result is that now that there are fewer senior being grown internally. This not only applies to middle managers, but also to Technology Experts. Factually, people have to be imported form overseas. This does not ensure competancy, and may produce other problems because of cultural clashes, sometimes on a subtle level.
- Lack of Scalability due to lack of sufficient people at hand to have sufficient organization to grow.
The overall effect is to encourage a cannibalization of resources because it is cheaper in the short term to strip mine what you have, or to pillage your competition for resources. This is horribly short sighted, often encouraged by investment houses and others who scream for higher stock prices so they can make their profits, and the human cost be damned.It is far more difficult to breath life into an enterprise and to grow it into a stable expanding concern.
Despite all of the management schools in existance, and all of the courses and degrees offered, it is obvious the most of the content beyond the basic machanic of accounting is full of junk ideas.
The management systems of companies are buggy beyond belief. There are resource leaks all over the place. There is no effective garbage collection. There are system conflicts all over the place. Anyone who put together a system like this would not even have the competancy of a script kiddie.
The fundamental expertise required to establish a modern running business has to be at least the level of any experienced system guru out there. And it isn't.
Management science needs to become an actual science based in the real world, with real principles. Right now, management is based far more on individual talent and genius than any real standardized body of knowledge.
Heck, when was the last time you saw the idea of applying the techniques of quality assurance to management? and how would you do it?
Training Employees (Score:3)
Pay them more. (Score:3)
Wages are the bottom line for any employer-employee relationship. Anyone who says otherwise is deluding himself.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
Money is not important! (Score:4)
Flex time, where possible is good, and/or the ablity to "bank" time, then take it off later is good. Extra vacation time is another plus...a week paid vacation is worth $5,000/year less to me.
A lack of dress code is also a major plus...if they really wanted a GQ model, they could have hired one, along with their wardrobe...if they hire me, I am a Unix/Linux SysAdmin/Security person, not a GQ model. Having to wear a tie all the time will cost a company an extra $10,000/year to hire me. A suit does not make a person work better.
Give people input into the company!!!! When people feel engaged in the company, rather than just some cog grinding out product, they tend to become more interested in the company, and thus less likely to be headhunted.
Prevent "little empires" within a company, this is bad for the company anyways, and it builds cliques, and when a person feels excluded, ie., not part of the clique, they are more open to leaving.
..just a few ideas...
ttyl
Farrell
Agreed... (Score:4)
Money is nice, but it's not all. Right now I work in an environment where my boss respects me, I have no boss over my shoulder all the time, no strict timesheet to complete, no idiot co-workers to bog me down, and the freedom to arrive a bit late and take an occasional afternoon off. Besides, I don't have to wear a shirt and tie!
I make a pretty decent salary, and it's plenty to afford house, cars, snowmobiles, cottage, 2.3 kids, dog and cat. What more could I want? Greed breeds misery, if you ask me.
It's not always greener on the other side!
hahaha (Score:4)
Somehow I think it takes more than that to be a Unix sysadmin. :-)
Example of not retaining employees (Score:4)
The fact that I was quite obviously being given the short end of the wage deal was enough to make me consider the one-year-or-reimburse deal to be not nearly sweet enough. When I left after a year and a quarter (the second longest tenure of any of his employees, according to the bookkeeper), I was still getting paid the same very low wage.
So, basically, I suppose what I'm saying is that it is impossible to retain employees if you give them the distinct impression that you will not be fair to them. If you give them a fair deal, something like an "if you leave within a year, we get back some|all of the money we spent on your training" will look a whole lot more attractive, and pay the person running your entire ISP division a bit more than the new techie grunt.
Retail/support to sysadmin (Score:4)
I've been to some unix training classes before, one of them Sun's sysadmin training (part 1). And I can tell you that it will take a lot more than a 1 week class to make someone a sysadmin. Even if that classes is geared towards making sysadmins.
Unless Apple has some really great training - "I know kung-fu! AND Unix!".
Unless the original poser is implying that a 1 week training class automagically makes someone worth double what they were making. Regardless of what they learned in that class.
Prospective employeers give preferance to employees skilled in a version of Unix they are using. If the interview was for a job in an OSX shop, well I'd expect the guy with OSX training and experiance to get a higher offer than someone with training and experiance with Solaris, all things being equal. How many places out there are looking to hire Solaris admins? HPUX? Lots. It remains to be seem what the demand for OSX specific admins will be.
What's the difference between admining OSX and some other Unix? Maybe 10 - 20K a year.
That being said, if I would interviewing for admins I would prefer someone who had been messing around with Linux for a couple of years and really nailed the general unix questions to someone who had been to 2 or 3 classes in exactly the OS they would be working in on the job, but couldn't answer any general technical questions.
Lots of people out there that look good on paper but sound REALLY bad when you get them in the room with a couple of admins with 10 years experiance doing the technical questioning...
Comment removed (Score:5)
Sweeten the pot and hope for the best (Score:5)
People like to be challenged and appreciated. If it's really true that your people will be 3 times as valuable after the training, show it. Can you afford to pay them what you think they'd be worth in the market? That would be a good start. If you can't, look at retention bonuses. Everybody will say that it's not about the money, but honestly that depends on the scale. If you're paying $50k and somebody else offers $55k, then yeah, it's not about the money. But if you really mean that they could make $150k elsewhere, then you'll likely find that people take a serious look at those other offers.
But if the money is in the ballpark, then it's vital to keep the workplace interesting. The best consulting houses I know all run a common knowledge base that individuals feel they can feed off of, which is a nice feature. The best hackers know that they don't know everything, but they like the idea of having access to such a distributed knowledge base. Have regular events, too. Not just drinking at the local pub, either. Have offsites where you plan future projects. Give management responsibility to some of your more senior people. Make them feel that there's more to the job than just the Unix training they received.
I don't think that trying to lock people in will work. For starters, instead of sending the message that "The company wants you to improve as a person", you get "The company wants to use you to improve itself". And whether or not that's true in both cases, the thing is that people don't want to have it thrown in their face. Management is well aware that when Java people say they want to work on Enterprise Java Beans, it's to improve their own marketability -- it's not a far stretch to assume that people know that if a company sends you for training, they expect it to be profitable for them as a company. But trying to enforce that will just cause people to resent you, in which case you'll either lose them before the training, or else they'll take the training, grudgingly suffer the minimum contract period, and then definitely leave.
Remember, people do leave. There's nothing you can do about it, once someone has made up her mind. That's what exit interviews are for. If somebody leaves and tells you on the way out "Damnit I've been asking you for 9 months for a refrigerator for the developers", then you get an idea of how important those perks are.
In short, if you're talking about treating some people like the stars of the show, make sure that they feel like it. Let them walk around in their socks, even if there's a company dress code. Give them their own refrigerator if they don't already have one. In the long run these are tiny benefits that won't cost the company much at all. You have an advantage, your people are already there. Contrary to popular belief, the best people don't like to job hop. It's a pain in the neck to change insurance, move 401k money, etc... So you don't really have to compete with every job out there -- you just have to make sure that you work with what you've got and keep it nice for your talent.
Ask yourself this... (Score:5)
Then ask this of the people at your company.
Here are the reasons I think that people change jobs:
(1) Lack of respect. The scenario I've seen over and over again over the years is the ego tripping manager whose internal narrative is "I get things done despite the miserable cretins who work for me." The people you want to retain do not put up with nonsense like that.
(2) Lack of progress. No matter how brilliant the work you do is, if it goes into a productivity black hole, or if the company doesn't know how to make use of it, you're morale suffers. When your boss expects the impossible of you he's failed to put together a winning plan and is setting you up for the fall.
(3) Lack of financial stability. Not knowing if you're going to be in business next week is much worse on morale than not having the highest salaries in the industry. Repeat after me: overhead is evil. Overhiring is evil and unproductive.
(4) Lack of opportunity to do interesting stuff. The best people will want an opportunity to stretch their capabilities, both by working on novel projects and by professional development.
All these things are the ingredients of a winning team -- respect, clear and achievable goals, fiscal responsibilty, and creativity. I don't have problems with various gimmicks to raise employee motivation, but the best motivation of all is being part of a winning team.
Legal action? (Score:5)
IANAL, and have never worked for CompuCom.
matt
There's more to life than money... (Score:5)
First, having an open, honest relationship with your people is important. One of my guys came to me a couple of months ago, and told me that he was thinking of floating out a couple of resumees; I asked him if there was a problem with what he was doing, and he indicated that he wasn't learning as much as he wanted to. So, we discussed the matter openly and honestly and he has since decided to stay -- after I assigned him a good amount of his weekly time to do "technology discovery" -- basically, playtime where he is able to see if there are other appropriate technologies that we should be using (my department does web design and development). I offer my people flexible work times, even though that is not company policy. I keep them "in the loop" as far as company-wide and department-wide issues go. I make sure they are well-equipped, with fast machines and 21" monitors. I give them access to mentors outside of our department so that they can learn from more experienced people. I have convinced accounting to allow me to pay for technology-related and programming classes outside of the normal tuition-reimbursement channels, so that they can also take college classes. I buy them lunch once a month or so, and we have a couple of beers and bitch about stuff that we want to fix, and come up with plans on how to fix them.
Bottom line to me is, I have a group of people who are not the highest paid in the company (though I am working on that, too), yet I have one of the highest retention rates in a 900 person company. Remember, sometimes the less-tangible things can be as important as money.
Pete
Remove the things that make people leave (Score:5)
I find it extremely hard to define a whole set of things that want to make people stay. Most people are different and want different things from work; younger folks want money; older folks want time. But when companies institute policies that aggrevate employees they almost guarantee those people will leave.
Not all people are happy at work, it does not mean they wish to leave, nor does happiness guarantee that someone will be a lifer. 20 year olds might like foosball machines, but a 50 year old might prefer a quiet room where they can smoke.
It takes allsorts to run a company, but we also run companies through the use of quite small teams. Keeping teams effective generally ends up retaining those team members.
From a manager... (Score:5)
1. compensate people within the regional average for the skills they bring. (this rule MUST be followed first before others can work)
2. Make sure that the employee will do what that person was hired to do! (there is nothing worse than being hired as a network professional only to be stuck doing support work)
3. Spread interesting projects around, even if an employee doesn't have all the skills needed for a project, then team that person with someone who does. Make work a learning environment, that beats classroom training anyday!
4. Give honest praise when and where it is due. There is nothing worse than doing work that doesn't make a difference or doesn't receive recognition.
5. Listen to the people doing the work. They know about what they are doing and this gives them a chance to be a part of the business and learn more about business paired with IT.
6. Talk to your employees and be honest when ever you can. If there is something that you are not allowed to tell the employees, tell them that you can't say instead of lying.
7. Train when you have to, and compensate for new skills when they are being used.
8. Make room for employees to move within the organization. I would rather hire from within than hire outside the company, this benefits the company by retaining company knowledge and improves staff retention.
9. Make flex time available to people who want it. As long as the job gets done, what does it matter when the employees work? If they do a night shif for downtime projects, give them comp time instead of overtime if they want.
10. Small perks, take the staff out to lunch or drinks after work, expecially after rough projects or exceptional work done.
There are some other variations, of course, and many other twists that will work in substitution for the soft benefits. But the issue boils down to respect since these people are professionals.
IT people went to college, have to continuously study and relearn, they work long hours, and they work hard to be the best at what they do. Recognize their effort and make steps to appriciate this and show your respect when it is due.
But, that is just my opinionated opinion as a network manager with limited control over what I can do for my employees. (who have never left when I have managed or supervised wherever I have been).