Ask Slashdot: Who Should Pay Costs To Attend Conferences? 182
An anonymous reader writes I wanted to get your opinion on who should pay the costs associated with attending conferences. In the past, I've covered costs associated with attending some local (in town) conferences, but despite claims to be willing to cover some costs associated with conferences, training, and certifications, my requests have been denied. The short version is I would like to attend a national conference, hosted in Las Vegas, and that while specific to a technology, it is what 90% of my day is related to so its directly work related. My employer has declined to pay some of the costs associated with the conference, but has said if I pay my way, they will pay for the training associated with it. Since this is a pretty hot technology, I'm very interested in getting certified and appreciate their offer.
I should add that I work for a public entity and due to some fairly public issues, we have enjoyed record levels of funding the past couple of years. We know that they cannot afford to continue so we're about to start a multi-year decrease in our budget. My current thoughts are: First, I was working for a company where we faced potential layoffs, getting as close as to within 24 hours of one. Even just having some job security is extremely appreciated. Second, I work in a WONDERFUL environment. They aren't clock punchers, its about getting the job done. We're not micromanaged and have freedom to try new things. For the public sector, I know those are rare things and I appreciate them. Third, I work on a very talented team. I am probably the weakest member, so for me its a perfect learning/growth opportunity. Finally, its not my employer saying the conference isn't important, its looking at the bottom line and that we are a public entity so its not like we can easily raise more money. Tough decisions must be made.
For this particular conference, I decided to try and save up my own money. Unfortunately, my personal life has gotten in the way, so I've resorted to begging. My problem with this is I hate begging, but what am I going to do for future conferences? So should I re-think my acceptance of my employers policy and start looking for a new job? Obviously, it is a personal decision, but I don't have a mentor or close friends to act as sounding boards, so I'd love to hear your thoughts.
I should add that I work for a public entity and due to some fairly public issues, we have enjoyed record levels of funding the past couple of years. We know that they cannot afford to continue so we're about to start a multi-year decrease in our budget. My current thoughts are: First, I was working for a company where we faced potential layoffs, getting as close as to within 24 hours of one. Even just having some job security is extremely appreciated. Second, I work in a WONDERFUL environment. They aren't clock punchers, its about getting the job done. We're not micromanaged and have freedom to try new things. For the public sector, I know those are rare things and I appreciate them. Third, I work on a very talented team. I am probably the weakest member, so for me its a perfect learning/growth opportunity. Finally, its not my employer saying the conference isn't important, its looking at the bottom line and that we are a public entity so its not like we can easily raise more money. Tough decisions must be made.
For this particular conference, I decided to try and save up my own money. Unfortunately, my personal life has gotten in the way, so I've resorted to begging. My problem with this is I hate begging, but what am I going to do for future conferences? So should I re-think my acceptance of my employers policy and start looking for a new job? Obviously, it is a personal decision, but I don't have a mentor or close friends to act as sounding boards, so I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Don't bother (Score:5, Insightful)
They're mostly a waste of time anyway everyone just strokes their own egos and you spend 2 days digesting information in an archaic inefficient way
lecture style
Re:Don't bother (Score:4, Insightful)
Because all information is available in a more modern, interactive source?
You put up with inefficiencies because it's sometimes available inefficiently or not at all.
Re:Don't bother (Score:5, Informative)
Hate to say it, but parent is almost completely correct.
There are some bennies to being on-site (hands-on labs with an expert on hand), but otherwise most conferences are just a big marketing push with a lot of hanger-on companies and startups vying for your attention on the main floor.
It wouldn't be so bad if the exhibitors had actual experts on hand to answer the tough questions w/o resorting to market-speak, but most of them don't, and are too busy evangelizing. If I wanted to get pounded with marketing-speak, I'd invite VARs to stop by at my office for that. If I want swag or bennies, there are plenty of local ones that local VARs are happy to give/throw (e.g. watching a Trailblazers game from a box seat while the VAR spends halftime talking to you about his product lines).
The last conference I went to was VMWorld in 1999, which had the hands-on labs and an opportunity to speak with the actual VMWare developers in an intimate setting about upcoming bits and existing problems (albeit the latter was restricted to certain big buyers/partners), but otherwise it seemed to be nothing more than a means to work over VPN interspersed with advertisement on-site, and more marketing disguised as after-hours drinking parties.
Seriously... They were fun as hell, and you used to learn a lot in the process, but the days of COMDEX and NetWorld are dead; you can thank the Internet for that.
Now classes or boot-camps? Different story, and still well worth going to depending on the technology and the depth offered. Conferences? Not so much.
Re: (Score:3)
correction - 2009, not 1999 (stupid nostalgia anyway...)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on the subject matter. I spent a couple days at DEFCON and managed to take in more info than I did at my regular job for the entire year. Personally, I consider this to be beneficial.
However, because I did go on my own dime and my own time, I didn't feel obligated to get as much out of the event and didn't think I really harmed anyone or anything other than quite a few brain cells and my liver.
If this were a conference where there were new things to learn and... the conference costs a bit more th
Re:Don't bother (Score:5, Insightful)
The last sentence is key - OP may be able to go if he makes it contingent on writing a report afterwards detailing what he's learned while he was there. I had an employer do that at the last NetWorld I went to.
Re: (Score:2)
Employer pays all the costs with per diem. As well, I never travel for the boss without a rental car. Seriously, no per diem, not car, I don't go.
Re: (Score:2)
The car depends on where I go... if it's Atlanta, I get a car or else. If It's SFO, I prefer to just hit BART and save the whole parking hassle.
Re: (Score:2)
I've only been to one conference in thirty years, and it was free and I drove there. I went to a trade show when unemployed also to get some job leads, but that was it. No one has ever offered to send me to a conference, and to be honest my coworkers rarely have gone to them (except for marketing types). But I'm a developer and engineer, we're expected to learn everything on our own. But I see many IT people going to these, which makes me think there's just a lot of vendor-sponsored indoctrination going
Stan Lee! (Score:2)
They're mostly a waste of time anyway everyone just strokes their own egos and you spend 2 days digesting information in an archaic inefficient way
lecture style
But dude! He gets to meet Stan Lee! THE Stan Lee!
You go to the lectures? What an idiot. (Score:2)
They're mostly a waste of time anyway everyone just strokes their own egos and you spend 2 days digesting information in an archaic inefficient way
You're doing it wrong.
The reason to go to the conferences is NOT the lectures (which these days are all on videos anyway) but to spend AS MUCH time as possible talking to either the people working for the company who produces the technology the conference is about, or people working heavily with said technology. You learn a LOT more that way and make great conta
Re: (Score:2)
thats my thought. Conferences up to 50 people havign a workshop are good, 200 are ok, 1000 or more are a waste of everybodies money.
I for my part digest talks in written form faster than anybody could listen, and my comprehension goes down if somebody talks.
Your employer (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies that want to retain talent need to shell out for training and conferences, especially if the budget isn't a concern for the time being. It's not as if they squirrel that money away for a rainy day. If the conference is as relevant to your work as you say and isn't insanely expensive, this should be a slam dunk.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Your employer (Score:5, Insightful)
The IT world is certainly competitive; however, ALL companies should see the internal benefits to training employees and working to ensure they do not leave. Companies with the mindset you laid out above are doing themselves a double disservice by not training their employees and leveraging the benefits and immediate returns provided by investments in their human capital. In some fields and with some resources, professional development is seen as a bigger happiness motivator and retention tool than more salary.
What you have outlined above is a company which is not interested in its people and only its immediate bottom line and one where it's clear its people should move on regardless of payscale and internal short-term opportunity provided.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I totally understand what they're doing and that's fine if they want to operate in that way. Its people just need to realize this and use the name and prestige its name on their resume brings when they hop to a smaller but potentially more enjoyable organization.
Re: (Score:2)
My company, while not a fortune 500 company has been known as an engineering training ground. Those who stay behind are generally not skilled enough or too attached to the area to leave.
I am going to go ahead and include myself in not skilled enough column. Then again, they do pay for college courses and I haven't had too much trouble in getting them to allow me to go to training courses, so they aren't entirely evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The IT world is certainly competitive; however, ALL companies should see the internal benefits to training employees and working to ensure they do not leave.
While your statement is surely true in many (and I daresay most) cases, the reality is that companies make money making cuts and not investments. Even if you expand by making market purchases, you are expected to cut X% of the acquisition in the process of integration. Boards may not approve acquisitions if you can not provide a plan for cutting along with your plan to purchase.
Companies with the mindset you laid out above are doing themselves a double disservice by not training their employees and leveraging the benefits and immediate returns provided by investments in their human capital. In some fields and with some resources, professional development is seen as a bigger happiness motivator and retention tool than more salary.
Companies today are not the same thing as companies of several decades ago. Companies today are seen as short term profits for s
Re: (Score:2)
While your statement is surely true in many (and I daresay most) cases, the reality is that companies make money making cuts and not investments.
False. That is the opposite of reality. Companies save money by making cuts, but they make money by making investments.
Re:Your employer (Score:5, Insightful)
I once worked at a Fortune 500 company in Silicon Valley that didn't want to train employees because they might get certified, leave for a competitor, and make two to three times what they're currently making. Never mind that most employees were training themselves on company time, getting certified on their own time, and leaving for a competitor to make big bucks. Most companies just don't want to pay for training anymore, much less send people off to conferences where they might network and get hired by a competitor.
CFO asks CEO: "What happens if we invest in developing our people and then they leave us?"
CEO: "What happens if we don't, and they stay?"
Re:Your employer (Score:4, Interesting)
CEO: "What happens if we don't, and they stay?"
CFO: "We get to keep a productive employee doing the things he's been doing well, without having to pay for his continuing education and a networking opportunity that may wind up drawing him away from us. I.e., we save money both by not paying exorbitant rates for professional conferences (who charge both the attendees and the exhibitors and thus make money from both ends of the candle), and by not having to go through the hiring process for his replacement. He's also easily replaceable and posting online that he's happy here, so the chances of having to find someone new are low and the cost of doing so is also relatively low. We may even be able to replace him with an H1B and pay less overall. "
The important question to ask is whether the conference will give you things relevant to what you are doing for your current company, or is it to gain new skills that will be useful someplace else.
Whether you expect your employer (the government) to pay for your education is your choice. You have a job you like, so unless you feel it is critical you go on their dime then you might want to keep the devil you know.
Re:Your employer (Score:5, Insightful)
CEO: "What happens if we don't, and they stay?"
CFO: "We get to keep a productive employee doing the things he's been doing well, without having to pay for his continuing education and a networking opportunity that may wind up drawing him away from us. I.e., we save money both by not paying exorbitant rates for professional conferences (who charge both the attendees and the exhibitors and thus make money from both ends of the candle), and by not having to go through the hiring process for his replacement. He's also easily replaceable and posting online that he's happy here, so the chances of having to find someone new are low and the cost of doing so is also relatively low. We may even be able to replace him with an H1B and pay less overall. "
This is what's wrong with the tech industry's HR practices - the failure to fully appreciate the value in those "resources" and (very much mistakenly) assuming that they are "easily replaceable". We spend a lot of time and money getting our staff up to speed on all the things they can't learn anywhere but by working here. Some of that is cultural, some of it is technical, all of it is valuable. So spending money on adding to their knowledge is a much better bet that throwing them away and hiring some inexperienced kid with the "skill of the week".
Re: (Score:2)
CFO: "We get to keep a productive employee doing the things he's been doing well, without having to pay for his continuing education and a networking opportunity that may wind up drawing him away from us. [...]
That only works until it's time for upgrades... then the company takes a massive hit in re-training time and lost productivity until their staff is up to speed.
Personally, if a company isn't willing to invest in me, then why the hell should I invest in it? Better to jump ship for a company that will invest in you than to sit on autopilot watching your skillset grow stale (and yes, for anyone not a developer it will grow stale, even if you train yourself or pay for your own training, because you'll never use
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, if a company isn't willing to invest in me, then why the hell should I invest in it?
Because they're paying you to?
(and yes, for anyone not a developer it will grow stale, even if you train yourself or pay for your own training, because you'll never use it in a practical work setting.
And having the company pay for training that you will never use in their practical work setting keeps you from going stale the same way? Or are you arguing that every company doing software development must switch to the lasted fad language and invest a large amount of money in converting the current systems so that the developers won't "go stale" by using the same tools that have gotten the company this far?
Now, don't get me wrong. There may be technical or other reasons t
Re: (Score:2)
CEO: "What happens if we don't, and they stay?"
CFO: "We get to keep a productive employee doing the things he's been doing well,
CTO: Unfortunately, the world is changing, and we need to change with it.
Oh, no CTO? Too bad, so sad. Thou shalt fail, o maker of buggy-whips. Enjoy this moment while it lasts.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, no CTO? Too bad, so sad. Thou shalt fail, o maker of buggy-whips. Enjoy this moment while it lasts.
You're equating the "buggy whip/automobile" quantum leap with the "C/C#/C++/Ruby/Perl/python/haskell/lisp/whatever" language wars? Or "cloud/client/distributed/centralized"? Or even "sql/nosql"?
Do you also believe that "on a computer" is sufficient to justify issuing a new patent for something? I mean, if what language is being used to develop a product is such a major sea change that a company would fail for not changing at the right time, then changing from "by hand" to "on a computer" must be orders of
Re: Your employer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And this tells you what you really should be doing – updating your resume and start looking for a new job.
You face a dilemma that can't be easily solved.
You want to work with cutting edge technology AND work in informal environment (i.e., no clock punching). This points to small companies, which means your environment may not be stable and things may be run on a shoestring.
Or you can work at a stable company that can afford to train (and thus retain) its staff. Which implies clock punching.
There are e
Taxes and Win-Win. (Score:2)
And one more point – Most places in the US pay for training because it is easier and more beneficial if the business can take the tax deduction. Employees might not be able to do so. Thinks like this get complicated fast so talk to somebody who knows taxes. In that sense it is a little like medical insurance – tax law favors this the corporation to pay for it. And I do see good training as a good benfit.
Re:Your employer (Score:5, Insightful)
Training is one thing, conferences are another. You can get trained without attending a conference. You seem to be replying with "well if you're employer wanted to keep me, this is what they'd have to do!" That's all fine and great... but what are they really obligated to do? They're obligated to pay for things they expect you to attend. If conferences aren't something they value, then they shouldn't have to pay. If you're prissy and demand lots of back scratching to stay in your job, then fine, they might want to pay for such things to keep you happy. But personally I'd prefer a higher wage and leave out the modern over-hyped version of a flee-market we now call a "conference" It's a waste of my time and often costs 10% of my sallary for me to attend. Wouldn't you prefer a 10% raise? ...and I literally tell my management that. I wont waist your money, so don't waste my time. Pay me more and I wont leave.
Re:Your employer (Score:4, Interesting)
You're going to the wrong conferences and for the wrong reasons. I go to a pretty well known one each year that I can and my employer gets huge returns on it. The value isn't from going to the training seminars - honestly, I know more about the subject than most of the presenters. The huge win is in identifying ecosystem trends ("oh, I guess we've collectively decided to follow this path now") and rubbing elbows with peers from other companies ("we had that problem, too, and this is how we solved it").
Conferences are probably inefficient at training, but that's not really what you'd want to attend one.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you're sending the entire team to a conference merely to get trained, can't you save money by having trainers come to the company for a week?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Often the conferences have sessions on lessons learned, best practices, etc that can really help. The *one* time I went to a conference I made sure to bring back lots of notes on the sessions and to spread them out to my co-workers. They didn't get to go to the conference, but they still got some benefit from it. If management sees that kind of thing, they might be more willing to send someone, maybe rotating the person that gets to go.
Re: (Score:2)
But personally I'd prefer a higher wage and leave out the modern over-hyped version of a flee-market we now call a "conference" It's a waste of my time and often costs 10% of my sallary for me to attend. Wouldn't you prefer a 10% raise? ...and I literally tell my management that. I wont waist your money, so don't waste my time. Pay me more and I wont leave.
The main reason why it makes more sense for your employer to pay for a conference instead of giving a raise is that the trip is tax deductible and you do not have to pay taxes on it either. The average real corporate tax rate is 12.1%, so that $10k conference only costs a profitable company about $8800. If they gave you the $8800 directly, after state, federal, FICA, and employment taxes that probably comes down to just under $5k.
So if you were to pay for the conference yourself, it would literally cost twi
Re: (Score:2)
The money from my employer that I will gladly waist is my per diem.
Re: (Score:2)
If the employer wanted him to go to the conference, th
Depends on Employer (Score:2)
Ultimately it should depend on what you negotiated or are able to negotiate with your employer. If it is training you really need, make a good case for it.
Training gets *very* expensive if you're doing a lot of it. It may or may not be necessary to your job as opposed to good for networking. I have seen cases where someone's training budget gets absolutely out-of-hand, and they are going to a dozen conferences or more a year when realistically, they need less than half of that to do their job as well (i.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to agree here. The submitter should talk to their boss again, and keep asking, trying to work out something acceptable. An agreement to stay at the job for some amount of time can alleviate fears of competitors hiring away fresh knowledge, for example. If the company's as small as is implied, that may be feasible.
I've rarely had requests approved on the first try, but changing companies because they didn't want to fund a weekend bender in Vegas is absurd. Make a case for your requests, and present it
Re: (Score:2)
Someone asked an ancient Roman poet:
Which wine do you prefer to drink?
His answer:
Wine, that someone else has paid for.
You could say the same for conferences. The last one I attended was on the Greek island of Samos. Everyone there was there because someone else was paying for it. I honestly didn't have the gall to ask my manager to approve a business trip to a Greek vacation island, so my colleague did it. Since the costs were booked to an EU project that I was working on, he approved it.
Bzzzzt:: wrong! (Score:3)
I haven't been modded troll in, like 40 hours, so I was feeling left out. Anyway...
You're employer is under no requirement to pay for training unless they have asked you to job which requires that training and they hired you knowing that you did not have those skills. Some companies provide training as a benefit - allowing you to increase your skill level in your field or even a related one on their dime because they feel that developing in house expertise is valuable and will pay dividends. If your company
Re: (Score:2)
As an engineer, I can tell you that not training is much, much more expensive.
The last training my employer sent me to, this past spring, cost them a bit under $3000 total. For that $3000, they can:
1) now brag that they have a Foo(tm) certified developer working on the project (quite possibly worth far more than that $3k by itself), and
2) I can now actually do some key parts of the project without wasting a month or three bootstr
Re: (Score:2)
You're employer is under no requirement to pay for training unless they have asked you to job which requires that training and they hired you knowing that you did not have those skills.
Ignorance, you're displaying it freely. Every job pretty much demands that you take on other duties as required. The world is a changing place, and jobs change with it or companies go away. As the world changes, training is needed.
Your (note lack of apostrophe) employer is under no requirement to pay for training unless they want to stay in business. Then they should probably think about paying for people to have the skills they need to succeed.
If your company is laying stone or something, this may not appl
"Your employer" is you and me in this case (Score:2)
They should be bearing the cost of the training and conferences.
By "they" you mean us right? because the OP specifically said this is a public sector job, so all the training is paid for with tax payer money.
self-employed insensitive clod! (Score:2)
most of the responses are "your employer" or "just pay it"...
i'm self-employed...or you could say i work for a company that's too small to afford conference trips
however, i had no idea i could *ask* for help attending a conference! people do this?
when i worked in Academia, the whole conference thing is all set out for you...it's almost a cottage industry
i'm ABD in Systems Science and I want to attend the Cybernetics conferences like the IEEE SMC [smc2014.org] and Weiner in the 21st Century [21stcenturywiener.org] but do not have the funds
It's all about the networking (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stay local (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't over think it - you can't afford to go, but they will pay for training. Find the training locally and forget the conference. Conferences are over-rated and while I wouldn't pay for my guys to attend a conference (especially Vegas), I always paid for training (and even exam costs when I had the budget for it - the last few years I could only cover training). If your job is as good as you say it is, you're a bit crazy thinking about leaving over a conference. A whole bunch of IT sucks hard out there, these days. Just my opinion and I hope this helps - it's what I would tell you if you worked for my office and came to me with this issue.
You Don't Go (Score:5, Insightful)
This is really pretty simple. If the funding isn't available to send you to a conference in Vegas -- You don't go. Or if you want to go you pick up the tab.
It seems that you can't afford to go and your employer doesn't see value in sending you.
Life sucks get a helmet.
Re: (Score:2)
This is really pretty simple. If the funding isn't available to send you to a conference in Vegas -- You don't go.
If it's so simple, why did you make such a sophomoric error? This is about the funding being available, but the decision not being made to spend it in this fashion.
It seems that you can't afford to go and your employer doesn't see value in sending you.
So which is it, do you understand that the funding is available, or don't you?
Enjoy the conference and enjoy the show (Score:2)
Your description of the work environment sounds great, and it's awesome you recognize and appreciate that. High pay comes with high stress, high responsibility, and worse working conditions. Lower pay comes with less stress, and better working conditions. You have that -- be happy!
Your employer can't pay for you to go to the conference. That they offered to pay for the training (if you get yourself there) is better than zero! Some would call it half-assed but it's all about that glass with water and ho
Your company's education budget (Score:2)
If you don't need other training or certification classes, and actually are learning from your conferences, have your manager use her education budget to send you.
If she doesn't have an education budget, why the hell not? Their investment in you is probably large enough to warrant it, and they'd BETTER be budgeting for it, vs. throwing the occasional wad of cash out there. You're cheaper to train up to a new internal position than to find someone new and start from scratch.
Provided you're not going to the S
Re: (Score:3)
You're cheaper to train up to a new internal position than to find someone new and start from scratch.
Training budgets at most Fortune 500 companies were cut at the behest of Wall Street years ago. If you want training, you need to pay for it yourself. Especially if you're responding to job descriptions that require five years of experience in a new technology that came out six months ago.
It's not a "should" (Score:5, Informative)
It's very employer dependent. Some employers will want to train you on vendor products, others will want to hire someone with experience as an already established expert and expect you to bring that knowledge with you.
The real question is: do you want to work for someone who would not pay to train you on the product they're expecting you to use? That's something you have to decide for yourself.
Summary of the summary (Score:2)
My employer won't pay for me to go to a conference
I can't afford to pay for it myself
Plus my personal life got in the way.
What should I do?
Re: (Score:2)
Get a new personal life, clearly.
You're likely not going to convince them (Score:4, Informative)
Since it is a public entity you'll likely run into a roadblock of what the law lets them pay for. Honestly it isn't much and the rules [ecfr.gov] are rather inflexible due to some abuses that regularly come up (a conference in Vegas is likely to be huge red flag after this [usatoday.com]).
It sucks, but it's one of the trade offs for working for a public entity.
Traning Costs (Score:2)
That being said, you're career is just that, you're career. If it's something you care about, you should be willing to invest some of your own money into making yourself as awesome at it as you can be. Without that willingness, you should consider doing something different. While things have changed in your personal situatio
Ask your accountant! (Score:2)
This is actually a question you might consider directing at your accountant. Specifically:
1. Some or all the conference costs may be tax deductible. Depending on your tax bracket this can end up being an instant 30% discount.
2. Corporate structures or other accounting tricks may allow you to change who your company pays (are you a W-2 employee? or do you have your own company?) This may again lead to favorable tax treatment for your conference, further reducing what you're actually paying.
Of course ta
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a tax (or any other sort of) attorney, but I would think that, once the original poster's employer has paid his conference fees, they will expect (require) him to travel to and attend the conference, even if he's paying for the travel himself.
Generally, travel to and from required work-related tasks that are not at your normal job site is tax deductible. So, yes, to the OP, buy your own tickets to Vegas, stay a few extra days after the conference and enjoy a vacation, and (after consulting with an
depends (Score:4, Insightful)
If your employer expects you to go, they should pay. If they don't care, you should. Anything your employer expects you to be doing, they should be paying for. It's as simple as that.
I, personally, find them worthless marketing scams. At best, all I get out of them is that someone is doing something new that I should google later. Other than that they seem to be sales pitch after sales pitch. I can't stand them and would never pay for an employee to attend. If there's training or something? Cool, I'd pay for that. But lets separate training from conferences. Most real training doesn't happen at conferences anyways.
That being said... if I were running the company that was doing that marketing scam at the conference... i.e. I wanted you to attend to drum up business, that's entirely different and I'd pay for you to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much This. If an employer sends you toa conference then they pay all costs just like any other work trip. If it's something you are opting to go to on your own (no matter how topical it may be) then it is completely in their discretion whether they want to cover any/all expenses *including whether it is PTO or not (Having to take vacation or not is a non-trivial difference here).
I've been paid to go to 3 conferences. The first, and most expensive, was specifically described as a "reward" for our l
Training Budget (Score:2)
Public and companies with government contracts are different than the private sector, and selling taxpayers on a conference in Las Vegas can be difficult.
In the private sector, companies should budget about 5% of annual salary for training. That includes time and expenses. Usually our approach is to make sure the employee has some skin in the game-- either pay part of the cost or take PTO to attend if it isn't after-hours.
As an employer, I am generally torn on the matter though; much of the benefit is to
Look at the whole picture (Score:2)
There is no "right" or "wrong" answer here. Typically employers pay these costs, but not all do at all times. My own employer has paid for me to attend conferences, but has also had dry times where it has been very difficult for anybody to travel to anything that isn't local.
You have to look the whole package. If you're skilled you could probably find another employer who would pay for you to attend the conference. On the other hand, maybe there is some other benefit that you currently receive which you
Conference Attendance and Funding (Score:3)
As someone who has repeatedly attended and presented at conferences in my field, I make it a point during negotiations for any new job to ensure these are funded fully but only if I am presenting; otherwise, I opt to share in the costs associated in attending with my employer.
Each and every company I have worked at in the past (and current) has a budget for training and professional development of its employees, some more than others; however, by making a case that I am giving back to a community of like-minded professionals and putting our name and brand out there during presentations, I have found this is an easy sell for companies for which I want to work.
I work extensively w/SAS and utilize a lot of the conference (SAS Global Forum/SUGI prior) materials in my day to day both for myself and our entire organization. By making it clear to my employers that I want to give back by presenting, I have opened organization's view on how the sharing of information benefits the business while benefiting the entire industry.
Make your determination and desires known when you sign on and, if that is not an option, make it clear to your management that you want to do the same thing. While I have received a variety of different types of pushback over the years for this view, they have all relented and ended up changing their world view when the benefits are presented as they are.
Conferences are not inexpensive (SAS Global Forum is usually around $3000 - $3500 for a single person encompassing travel, conference registration, lodging, meals, etc) but the ROI can be HUGE beyond that depending on the knowledge transfers that occur, the networking opportunities, and the new business development which I have seen from these conferences.
While I did not attend SASGF 2014 this year, it was solely due to my available time to develop a presentation topic, not because my company would not send me (this was my first missed attendance since I became involved in the SAS world) and I look forward to contributing to and learning from others in the future.
Best of luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Good points. During the hiring process, it's fair to ask about training and conferences policies. And, if there is one you care about attending (one or regularly), you should negotiate it prior to accepting the hiring agreement.
Generally, if the training or conference is more for your benefit than the company's, they will resist sending you on their dime. If they are expecting you to attend, then they are responsible for all costs. If, as you suggest, the benefits of attending through PR or exposure is
It should be your expense (Score:2)
Your employer probably gains nothing from you attending the conference. Whether you go or not, likely makes no difference to how much work they get per dollar of your paycheck.
Note my wishy-washy words "probably" and "likely." If you can provide an argument that a particular conference is an exception, then you have an argument to offer your employer, for how they will come out ahead by paying this money.
If it's a gray area (you have a valid argument, but it's somewhat weak) then splitting the cost with
There are lots of types of conferences. (Score:4, Interesting)
In my opinion, the larger conferences tend to be a complete waste of time -- they're basically a time for press releases by vendors who want to sell you something. You get the same thing with the mid-sized conferences in the D.C. area with the 'free for government employees' conferences.
My preference is towards mid-sized conferences (under 1000 attendees), where you actually have a chance to get to talk to people and do some networking ... of course, employers don't always like these, as part of the networking may be your finding another job elsewhere.
Really small workshops (20-200 attendees) are very educational, but they're so small that there's generally an expectation that they're more about collaboration and discussion. I've been to a few that were either 'by invitation only' (typically my boss is invited and sends me in his place; for one I talked my way into an invite; another required everyone to submit an abstract and they selected ~50 people to attend based on them). They tend to be strategy related -- what issues does the community need to be aware of & working on.
You also have the more 'academic' vs. 'practical' conferences in some fields ... the academics present on research but often end up missing what I believe are the really key questions that they need to be asking. Practical conferences can also be tiring, if you end up with talk after talk of people coming up with effectively the same solution to a given problem.
From the sounds of things, what you're looking for is training, not conferences. Some conferences do offer training either before, during or after the conference ... and for the pre- / post- stuff, you may not need to register for the main conference.
As for who pays ... it depends. At my work, training is handled seperately from conferences ... for conferences, I get reimbursed for my expenses (travel, hotel, food, registration). For training, I get registration back (provided it meets with their requirements for 'training', but not the rest of it unless it's 'company directed training' (they told me to go, vs. my asking to go). In many cases, I've worked with my manager to get listed as 'teleworking' during the conference, so they'll pay my salary while I'm there, but I pay the rest of the costs.
Why Las Vegas? (Score:2)
What is your goal? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why do you want to attend the conference?
If your goal is to be able to do a better job for your current employer, then the employer should pay.
If your goal is to become better at the kind of thing you do, then ideally your employer should recognize that value to them and pay, but if they don't recognize it, then you have to decide whether the personal growth is worth it for the personal cost... and perhaps seriously think about finding an employer who is less short-sighted.
If your goal is to have a bit of a vacation, save your money and go on vacation some place that's interesting to you. Perhaps even Las Vegas (though that wouldn't be my choice).
Let the conference organizers pay for you to atten (Score:2)
Greetings!
I'm a frequent speaker at Java, Python, and other conferences. I love to travel, and I use the conferences to scout for talent for the various ventures in which I'm involved. Since I love the travel, the conference participation, etc. but lack the budget to go everywhere I want to go on my own, I instead focus on writing articles for various publications. Several of my write ups resonate with the audiences for the publications with whom I work (e.g. DZone, InfoQ, etc.) and I get invited to pres
Re: (Score:2)
What I would recommend is to st
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed 100% with this advise.
I view speaking engagements the same way I view my publications: they by themselves don't pay much, even for an "on demand" speaker. The upside is in the prestige that translates into better job offers or better consulting opportunities.
You can write something in your resume like "I have excellent communication skills" or you can just list your management experience, speaking engagements, and publications. At that point people can be pretty sure that you can communicate bette
Depends why you are going (Score:2)
Just because it's relevant to your day job doesn't mean it's of any benefit to your company for you to go. If you want to go for your own interest you can't expect them to pay. It wouldn;t be unreasonable for them to insist you take annual leave for the time away from work too. If it's to learn things that will make you more efficient at your job and benefit your employer I'm sure they'd be willing to pay (assuming costs are sensible). Or if they want you to present something that is good PR for the company
There are upsides to paying your own way (Score:2)
Conferences are a great place to network with other employers. Maybe you wouldn't feel the same, but I kind of felt bad about talking to other potential employers while i was there on my current employer's dime. Sure i signed something saying if i left my company within a year, i'd pay them back. Still, it sort of
Conferences =/= training (Score:2)
I wanted to get your opinion on who should pay the costs associated with attending conferences. In the past, I've covered costs associated with attending some local (in town) conferences, but despite claims to be willing to cover some costs associated with conferences, training, and certifications, my requests have been denied.
Conferences =/= training. At least in general, they are more opportunities to socialize and listen to some speakers. That's it.
So you need to consider very carefully why you want to go to conferences, and why your employer should pay for it.
Very few, bleeding edge companies pay for conferences. Engineering companies OTH, tend to pay for graduate education, and some of them actually pay some type of work-related certifications. But in the end, save up and budget for your own certifications.
If you can'
This is how it should be (Score:3)
I work in a WONDERFUL environment. They aren't clock punchers, its about getting the job done. We're not micromanaged and have freedom to try new things.
That isn't a 'wonderful environment,' that's how it should be. If a company weren't like that, I would quit because I know I can do better.
A WONDERFUL company pays for lunches and has free drinks and a nap room. At a minimum.
Also, don't be afraid of layoffs. They are coming, even in the public sector (have you seen the size of the debts?) In this industry, job security comes from being able to find a job quickly, not from staying at a company a long time.
It's a stay or go question (Score:2)
My theory has always been that training my employer pays for is to make me a better employee. Training I pay for is to get me a better job. Both you and your employer should ask what the training is really going to do for you. If it's going to get you a new job, yes, every penny should come out of your pocket. If it's for the employer's benefit (and you aren't leaving for a reasonable period), then every penny should come from theirs.
you are responsible for your career (Score:2)
Negotiate conferences during your next review (Score:3)
You could say that you'd like to go to one national conference per year or every other year for the purposes of training and staying on top of industry trends. Or maybe rather than saying one conference, you'd like to them to be willing to spend a certain amount annually and anything beyond that would be on your dime.
The problem with traveling to many conferences is that they can be a very expensive way for a company to train employees vs an actual class or even setting aside a certain amount of time each week for employees to work on pet projects. I consider them something of a perk actually and if a company has cash flow issues, I would hope they'd be one of the first things to go.
If a company requires or clearly wants you to go to a conference or class, they should definitely pay. If you expect them to pay for training, they should have final say over which and how many conferences/classes you attend. There are grey areas of course. If I think a particular conference would be great for my career but doesn't have a particular application to my job, I'd not expect them to pay for that. If it's something I want for my career but also has some benefits to the company, then I would see if they'd pay, but would understand if they wouldn't and not leave the company if I were otherwise happy.
Conferences aren't all bad (Score:2)
Can you make the costs tax-deductible? (Score:4, Informative)
Since no one has mentioned this yet - I'm not sure if this applies in the U.S., but at least in Finland you can deduct profession-related (not necessarily work-related!) expenses from your income taxes.
This typically includes stuff like literature, computer equipment (if used for said income), and yes, even travel expenses. Of course the expenses have to be related to your profession - my education and entire professional history is from CS, so I cannot put e.g. gardening tools in there, but a trip to a conference related to your field can be easily put under training expenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't speak for other countries either but yes here in the States we can deduct any non-reimbursed employment expenses. The better you get at 'doing' your taxes it's amazing how much you can deem deductible :-)
Waste (Score:2)
Depends on the conference (Score:2)
training docs (Score:2)
.conf (Score:2)
It is a nice perk (Score:2)
When I go to conferences, I don't usually learn a lot. That said, I always pick up a few nuggets of information that are handy for my job. It is also nice to get away from the office for a few days or a week. I think some companies see that value. Sure, there are more economical ways to train/educate an employee. But knowing you are getting a somewhat paid vacation is one more nice reason to stay in your current position.
Perfect world (Score:3)
In a perfect world, your employer would jump at the chance to send you, give you full per diem and a room in the conference hotel, rental car, and an allowance for books and materials on sale at the conference.
But as Huey Lewis said, "Ain't no living in a perfect world."
I was fortunate to go to Black Hat and Defcon in Las Vegas for 11 years while I was at my previous (private sector) employer. They paid for all but the first time. For that one, I took leave, paid my own way, and then came back and demonstrated to them the value and knowledge I picked up (mainly by starting just about every sentence with "Well, in a talk at Black Hat..." I got laid off when the company was downsizing, ended up in a public sector agency, which sounds very similar to your situation (great people, interesting work, surprising lack of sticks inserted up people's butts). Same situation - I had to go on my own first, the next year they willingly paid for me to go.
Your employer is at least offering to pay for the training piece, which says that they see some value in this. And I know how hard it is to do things like this on a public sector salary (which is still about 40-50% of an equivalent private sector one). My advice: look for the bargains. Stay at a cheap casino (you can get into places like Excalibur for $40-50/night, sometimes lower) instead of the conference hotel. Walk and use the monorail to get around ($10/day). Eat fast food, or fill up on conference munchies - don't eat in the conference hotel or celebrity chef restaurants, but find the coffee shops and cheap buffets. And most of all, talk to your employer. Tell them you're willing to go on your own dime this time, but when you get back, you'll want to make the case for someone from your group going every year, fully paid.
There is no should. (Score:2)
Should is meaningless in this context.
Unless you have it written into your contract, they don't have to pay for this.
If they do - then you might consider that a valuable perk.
The value to you may be less than the ticket/travel/accommodation price (or even negative if you hate conferences and are required to go).
Ultimately - it just weighs into your assessment of whether you are getting a good deal at work, and whether you want to stay.
-how much do they pay
-how much holiday do you get
-how much are you learni
Three steps: (Score:3)
1) Quitting a great job because of a conference is a really bad idea. Get some perspective, man!
2) You can't really learn much (anything) from a conference. It just gives you a good idea of the stuff you should learn when you get home. Instead just read the conference abstracts and study the subject areas that look interesting. Have your work buy you 2 books on the subject matter and spend one work hour per day working through examples.
3) Enjoy the job that you otherwise love.
Who wants you to go? (Score:2)
they want = they pay. you want = you pay (Score:3)
My employer wants me to go to a conference in Vegas, DevLearn. Since it's something they want, they are paying.
I wanted to ho to a local conference on information security. Since it's something I wanted, I was willing to pay. My employer paid anyway because the bureaucracy says they should pay for one conference per year or whatever, but I have no problem paying for something I want to do for my own benefit.
If my employer wants me to fo it for their benefit, it's reasonable for them to pay for it.
I also decided to go back to school. I wanted to do that for myself, so I'm paying for it. My employer also gets some benefit, so they are paying part of it. Having an educated workforce paying more taxes helps the whole country, so the federal government is paying a small part via Pell grants. But mostly, it's something I want to do, for my own reasons, so I pay for it.
Justifying expenses properly.. (Score:2)
In order to justify expenses and hopefully get them covered by your employer - you need to present a business case. This means identifying what you plan to gain (realistically) and how that will benefit the employer, ultimately relating that to an efficiency or performance increase in some measurable way, which ultimately impacts the bottom line - the business decision your boss needs to make is: "Is this going to be profitable for us down the road..." and thinking that through deeply comes down to many fac
Training cruises are the best (Score:2)
Cost/benefit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He says, using the computer which is a direct result of WW2 code breaking technology, across the Internet, a direct descendant of Arpanet.