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.
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 :\
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: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:5, Informative)
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.
In the Netherlands, you can add a clause to any contract basically stating that when they are going on training, they will repay 100% if they leave in one year, 66% in 2, 33% in 3 and 0% after that (or any other declining rate that will hold up in court - 100% in 10 years will not hold up). Most of the companies are part of mandatory collective bargaining agreements with a similar clause.
So one of my friend has a new and shiny MBA - and he will have to fork over a serious amount of money if he decides to leave next year. If the new hiring company wants him bad enough, they'll pay it.
I'm surprised this isn't a standard clause in the USA as well, because it solves most of the issues in this area.
Re: (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: (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 refe
Re: (Score:2)
You're expecting people to behave rationally. Also, the pain of working for some employer who is dicking you around might outweigh the above motivations to remain, so it might actually be a logical choice to leave.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
In the Netherlands, you can add a clause to any contract basically stating that when they are going on training, they will repay 100% if they leave in one year, 66% in 2, 33% in 3 and 0% after that (or any other declining rate that will hold up in court - 100% in 10 years will not hold up).
I'm surprised this isn't a standard clause in the USA as well, because it solves most of the issues in this area.
This actually is how it's done at some places. I'm a contractor and have worked at some rather large companies in the Boston and Hartford areas. Based on conversations I've had with employees and on discussions related to being hired as an FTW at companies that DO pay for you to learn, for credit type classes you are reimbursed full tuition if the degree is job related but only if you keep a certain GPA. Part of the reimbursement contract stipulates that you will pay the company back is you leave the com
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The really messed up pa
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
*management job titles comes with lots of uncompensated ov
Re: (Score:2)
It is a standard clause in the USA as well. The GP doens't know what he's talking about.
At my last job, I was in exactly that situation. I was trained with the understanding that my training costs would be pro-rated for the next four quarters of a year.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
However most of the companies I have been with just set a limit, usually $3000-$4000 a year and don't require any time pay back.
Re: (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 b
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: (Score:2)
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?
Because training can be expensive? From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
So, the question you have to ask is: "Would someone work at a crappy place for 6 months if it would get them $10k in training?" I'm
Re: (Score:2)
But the training is only worth anything, from a purely financial perspective, if it tranlates into a higher income. If you provide training for someone but don't then bump their salary to match their new skills afterwards, sure, they might leave for someone who will, and that's why you have a clause in the contract to protect your investment. For a $10k training course, obviously a period of more than six months is reasonable before the employee can leave without giving anything back.
Of course, you'd have t
Re: (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: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: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
A tautological answer. You haven't answered his question, nor given him real advice to take in order to get the answers he wants. He isn't referring to what companies can do, will do, or have done--he's asking what they should do. Referring to local laws (or consulting a lawyer about said laws) will tell you what is, but a bit more work is required to find perspective on what ought to be.
Re: (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 cou
Does it matter? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, contracts aside, it's still the case that large corporations offer continuing education or tuition reimbursement as a matter of policy, and while I'd hope that the value of investing in an employee should be self-evident to any employer, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that such notions fall victim to cost-cutting measures taken during tough economic times.
Jobs in the IT field aren't considered professions (at least in the traditional sense), but it may offer some perspective to consider how other pr
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand sticking to one's guns while the company goes down in flames might not be the best career choice either ;-)
If the company would go bankrupt by paying for a Cisco certification, you'd better be polishing your resume anyway. If companies were rational, I would say that this is a bluff. The cost of going through a termination process, hiring process and lost productivity getting that person up to speed is huge and you never know what you'll get so firing an otherwise highly productive employee is insane. Still, under these circumstances companies often end up doing irrational things. And if there is a round of layo
Microsoft Certifications (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (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
in our company... (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Indeed, I've once heard a person explaining that with EMBAs for example, people taking the course will very often leave their company upon completing the course, as with their shiny new paper they could find better offers elsewhere.
So get the shiniest piece of paper you can get your hands on, then set sail for brighter pastures.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in the US, and in NJ which is a state with at-will employment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment). If you don't have a contract, I can easily see a company saying "we're changing this position to require XX certification. You're in the spot so we'll give you first crack but you need in in 3 months." And I think it would be legal.
I think it would be foolish for the company. But I don't think illegal.
Where in the world? (Score:5, Informative)
When you ask legal questions, it's polite to mention which country you're in.
In the UK, and probably the rest of the EU, I suspect this would not be reasonable grounds for dismissal.
In the US, well, nothing would surprise me. Labour laws seem incredibly weak from the employee side.
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: (Score:2)
Hmph. In practice, employers can darn near get away with murder, or seem to. Typically, they hoke up some pretext. An unverifiable, subjective one like "not a team player". Or they watch for the least little slip like "came to work late" even if it was by 30 seconds. They can always find something if they look hard enough. Yes, if you've kept meticulous documentation, you could probably sue, and some recommend keeping careful documentation just for that contingency. If you have skills that are in de
Re: (Score:2)
I'm working the UK and have a psuedo-relevant experience myself. I'm an Engineer and it is explicitly stated in my contract that I must work towards chartership (IChemE). The company pays for professional membership for all of its employees, but we're expected to study and work on it in our own time.
Re: (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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It really depends where you set your bar on your judgement.
Many think that in Europe all those extra rules and regulation makes it very difficult to run a business in that area of the world, so companies will move to other areas where they have more flexibility in their policies. Thus moving more work to other countries also making it harder for someone to start a company in the area. and before you go well things are "SO MUCH BETTER IN THE EU" I would like to bring up Grease. Who almost went bankrupt, as
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of the Employe vs. the Company stuff comes from our culture and education.
Just a few months ago the CEO of the company went to me laughing at a poem that his niece read to him that was given by her teacher. The poem was about how the office worker is a slave to the company and they are in a dead end job. And this is from a Teacher to a Student who is in 2nt grade. I was thinking how horrible that they are teaching kids this stuff. they are in essence brainwashing them to hate their jobs before they
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Europe has socialism with limited government.
That is true of everything, including economy and corporations. Nature abhors vacuum, so so
Re: (Score:2)
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 "lab
Re: (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.)
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.
"Required" Reading (Score:2)
> "Should companies be able to require employees..."
Yes. It's called at will employment. They can set any requirements they want. You can work there or not.
It might be instructive to engage in a little etymology (origin of words, not study of bugs, which starts eNty...)
A 'professional' is someone who professes to BE something, as opposed to an employee, worker or similar, who simply does something. A professional would seek training for their own betterment, company assistance aside. Even in cases where
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.
Consider other professions (Score:2)
That said, in the IT industry, if you are not continually working to expand your skillset/knowledgebase, you will very quickly find yourself unemployable. If your employer wants to provide guidance in what to study, that's not a bad thing - there are so many possible areas of study that some guidance is useful. Now, if their guidance would required you to s
Re: (Score:2)
MDs get colossal pay compared to most IT worker/professionals. Your comparison is not relevant. Companies who don't cover 100% of required I.T. training are screwing their employees over. A company must cover 100% of any new requirement that would cost me money. Especially for something as meaningless as the paper certifications, which have never helped me do my job and are only so the employer can achieve a designated "partner level" and get "back end money" from the vendors like HP, Cisco, Oracle/Sun
If they subsidize your cert... (Score:2)
then you owe them when you leave (maybe). Since I wouldn't want to work for a company that is as stingy as you describe, I'd be looking to get my cert and use it to find a better job. That being the case, I'd gladly pay for it myself, and thank them for 'forcing' me to better myself/leave.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad idea. Very bad. Possibly the worst one ever.
yes it should. if... (Score:2)
Most responses have answered the "is it even legal" part quite well. The "should it be" is basically the same though. If you agreed to something when signing up, well you agreed to it. Your pay should reflect your personal costs and time, if it doesn't, well perhaps now should review your decision.
It gets more complicated if it was not part of the contract you agreed to. Realistically, this is just what happens and you're left with the choice of accepting it, moving on or going to a tribunal or whatever
Depends how hard you want to push (Score:2)
IANL, but it seems to me that you'd have a pretty good case for constructive dismissal, if you wanted to push that hard. I can't see that it would be anything but counterproductive, but it would be there. The employer wants to materially change the job you hold and isn't prepared to provide the tools that would let you upgrade to the new standard.
On the other hand, as stated elsewhere, an employee would probably be much better off simply obtaining the certification and using the opportunity to look for
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".
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.
What makes sense? (Score:2)
If it is truly mandatory, I think the company should pay for at least a part of it.
If it is specific to your current job and employer, but is otherwise not useful to you the company should pay.
If it is general training that is more personal development, the company can consider paying, but they could fairly go either way.
The real question is if you're short term commodity staff, or a long term member of core staff. If they consider you part of their team, they should invest in you. If they consider you a r
Any reasonable employer... (Score:2)
Any reasonable employer supports education for its employees, within reason. There are, of course, abuses possible on both sides: employers who won't pay or offer any time on the job for studying, and employers who are generous and then get taken advantage of.
Basically you want - and should expect - is the middle ground. Both employer and employee benefit from a certification; both should chip in. My previous employer had a really nice policy here for MS certifications: they paid the exam fees and offered
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
sounds like working off the clock and other jobs t (Score:2)
sounds like working off the clock and other jobs try to pull the same stuff as well.
I have even see a job application I am prepared to work off the clock from time to time to increase my skills. and that was for a ice cream store.
Some places try to get out paying for time / gas if they say want you to go to other job site for a few days and this is not you main base.
Other want you to work from home / do paper work at home as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite. Studying and taking a cert leaves the employee with resources that are useful even after he moves to another employer.
A lot of places also require the employee to buy their own suit/uniform.
In these cases, I find it much harder to fault the employer for not footing the bill.
For your other examples, something there sounds pretty fishy though.
Just my thoughts on it. (Score:2)
Some companies bill direct time, rather than general overhead for your position. They can't have you on unbillable hours due to contract structure. In those companies, there may be times where you have to suck it up and read on your own time.
It helps if you remember that certifications are self-improvement. I understand the frustration of having to acquire something for your position outside of work hours, but it is something that will help you as a professional with or without the company. When you get you
certifications are tax deductible. (Score:3, Informative)
remember that and deduct them on your taxes.
if the company requires it, deduct it.
Training hours requirement (Score:2)
Does your company have a number of training hours required? I'm guessing no. My employer requires 40 hours of training. Some of this is mandatory all-hands training like ethics courses and administrative task training. The remainder of the time is spent on role-specific training. If you are doing .NET development, you take courses on .NET. The technical lead on a team is supposed to have input on your skills and which courses you should be taking.
Most of the time, I end up having to put down book read
You will be treated as you let yourself be treated (Score:2)
It really depends on how you handle it. It's actually fairly easy to get them to pay for it, if you stick to your guns and force them to see the logic. They are charging you money to keep your job. They aren't getting the money, but to you, they are not only forcing you to work for free on your own time getting the certification, but they are actually charging you for it. You lose that cash because of them. It wasn't what you agreed to, you agreed to a certain amount of work (measured in time, projects,
power (Score:2)
In these days it often has little to do with ethics or morality, but everything to do with bargaining power and leverage.
If a company can bully their workers into getting certified on their own time by threatening to turn their jobs over to already certified folks, then that is just what they will do.
Re:Deppends... (Score:5, Insightful)
So indentured servitude is OK so long as it's mentioned in advance?
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: (Score:2)
LOL @ noncompetes.
They can do what they like with those, they have no meaning.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to the people who have been effectively unable to work for years because of them, and racked up huge legal bills trying (unsuccessfully) to defeat them.
California is the only state in the US with a general prohibition on non-competes, and even that is not absolute for non-grunts.
Re: (Score:2)
Do non-competes/NDAs really help anyway? (Score:2)
I think I understand what you're saying, but perhaps your examples are unfortunate. I have seen little evidence that either non-competes or NDAs do bring any commercial benefits to a business.
Broad non-competes aren't enforceable in many jurisdictions anyway.
As for NDAs, they're rather like patents: the original idea might have been reasonable, but in practice they are mostly just a legal tool that the big guys use to hammer the little guys. Try getting any serious VC or angel investor to sign up to one bef
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!
Re: (Score:2)
There are job opportunities coming up for new jobs, or jobs that people have left every day. It's not necessary to have the jobs other people are already doing also available. You
Re: (Score:2)
Employers already have economic incentive to provide some stability. Experience counts for a lot more in job security than pieces of paper do, and they're not going to cut an existing employee just because someone with more pieces of paper comes along unless the employee is already performing poorly (in which case it's perfectly justified), or there's something else entirely going on under the hood (whether it's discrimination, misconduct on the part of the employee, etc.).
If you truly encounter an employer
Re: (Score:2)
There is a much simpler argument for not replacing people all the time, too: hiring is expensive. The total administrative cost of recruiting a single member of staff can easily be the equivalent of paying that staffer's salary for a year, once you include the costs for HR, legal, time lost by senior staff reading CVs and conducting interviews, agency/referral fees, the administrative burden of filing whatever employment/tax paperwork are required in your jurisdiction, inefficiency for maybe several months
Re:It's called competition (Score:5, Informative)
What next, you have to bring your own desk?
Actually, yes. Generally speaking, employers in the US may require workers to purchase their own equipment without reimbursement. The expenses are tax deductible for the workers, but that's about it.
Although rare in IT, there are a lot of jobs out there where this is, to one degree or another, routine. Employees that have to wear uniforms are a good example. Jobs that involve a lot of driving often require use of the employee's own car, and don't always provide reimbursement.
Re: (Score:2)
It can sound strange to anyone who isn't familiar with it, but it has some practical logic to it. If you have to buy your own equipment, you have greater incentive to protect and avoid damaging it. And to be fair to the employer, many of these jobs do not attract the world's most mature and responsible people.
At better employers, you may get a small, fixed allowance, perhaps for one or two uniforms every couple of years, for example. They may also offer reimbursement for replacement of items damaged in on-t
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?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Speaking as someone who's been doing the independent contractor thing in the US, it's not as rosy as people seem to think. Those "contractors' rates" are _not_ what a lot of people think they are:
* FICA (social security/medicare) taxes are "doubled" (as an employee, you only see 1/2 of the total withheld, as a contractor, you pay it all).
* You provide your own health insurance. If you can somehow get it on the group market (a few states actually have a legal minimum "group" size of 1), you could be looking
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I work freelance in the UK, and give or take our different systems of regulation and taxation, I have broadly similar concerns.
However, the bottom line is that I expect to make a similar amount of take-home income after costs and overheads this year as I did working as a full-time employee, maybe a bit more if things go well. Meanwhile, my working arrangements are much more pleasant in just about every respect: I make my own decisions, I can set up my work environment in whatever way I find most effec
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is certainly a difference approach to paying for treatment, which I'm sure does explain some of the discrepancy in overheads.
That said, for any contractor, there is still the question of insurance against lost income: if you're unlucky, you might have to reduce or stop work for an extended period due to illness, or your capacity might be reduced by a disability following an accident. Even little things like losing two weeks for jury duty can be a factor. There is also life insurance to look after the
Re: (Score:2)
Chef's and high end cooks are generally expected to bring their own knives. I'm fairly sure that is the case in Europe as well.
This is pretty common of mechanics as well. Often the set of tools they carry acts as a sort of resume.
Re: (Score:2)
As an amateur cook, this makes perfect sense to me. A good chef would never accept just any old knife that somebody told him to use. Along the same lines, a lot of carpenters own their own tools as well. As an office worker, desk supplies are largely interchangeable. I'm able to find something in the supply cabinet that's comfortable to use. In the kitchen, though, I've grown accustomed to certain tools and it would be inconvenient if I had to use an unfamiliar knife.
Re:It's called competition (Score:4, Funny)
Stop giving these people ideas, please.
Re: (Score:2)
"As long as your employer fires you and does not tell you why, you probably won't have much recourse"
Less involvement with the courts is better (Score:2)
My state, Virginia, has an at-will policy, and it works very well. Both employers and employees can come and go with minimal entanglement in the court system. This works to the benefit of both sides. If my employer makes what seems to me to be an improper requirement for employment (such as paying for my own certs), then I'm free to pick up and find greener pastures elsewhere. I don't have to worry about my employer suing me for breech of contract. Likewise, if my employer decides to restructure the co
Re: (Score:2)
...an at-will policy, and it works very well.
No, At-will is convenient for the employer, it rarely benefits the employee. It does limit the lawsuits on either side, but how many times can a company successfully sue an employee? Even when employment is not at will damages would rarely be able to exceed the employees wages and a companies legal fees would normally cost more than what a company would get back. The one benefit of at-will from an employee's point of view is that the few states that strictly enforce it (Georgia is one of these) nullify non
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Often times, things like this is the employer trying to get a senior level person while still paying them only a junior salary...
Getting you certified will not make you a senior level person. When I did corporate training, a lot of clients would specifically ask for a class to be customized so that a section was left out that is critical on the certification test. This way, they got trained employees that couldn't easily get certified without putting their own effort into it. Certification and training are not synonomous.
The whole attitude of "my boss got me these market-valuable certification and now he won't give me a huge rai
Re: (Score:2)
You may find it crazy but there is a university close to me of a somewhat reputable name that was recently hiring IT staff starting in the 40-50k USD range (35k is about the average household income in my area) that required A+ and if you didn't have an A+ they may hire you but you had to complete the A+ testing before the end
Re: (Score:2)
That can be said of most college degrees as well. Do you have a point to be made here?
And the department pow-wow idea is a good one. We do that in my department but what happens when there is no real team? What ensures that the techs who are at these meetings take anything away from it besides a free coffee?