Hacker News Reader

Comment by scrapcode | Hacker News Reader

I am about two years removed from my last career where I spent just short of a decade in a strong union, so my mind naturally snaps towards finding ways that things are not in the employees best interest. In this case - I cannot even conjure up a single reason when this is a benefit to the individual. The argument could potentially be made if there were some world-class proprietary training to the likes of Xerox's old sales training, etc. - but even then, the quality of the training is kept in check by the quality of employees that it attracts. There's a mutual benefit there that is balanced by creating a kick-ass workplace.

The requirement of industry credentials is only slightly better in my opinion but at least they are transferable, e.g., Sec+, CCNA, etc.

View on HN

I'm a bit conflicted on this. It seems to me that higher education is completely broken in the US. Every white collar job requires it, not because you'll learn skills that are needed for the job, but because they've found college grads are more likely to be competent. Apprenticeships are the most obvious solution to the "lemon worker" problem, since companies can decide after the training is done whether they want to keep them. But if the company is losing money during the training they'll just hire the educated prospect unless there's some way to get that money back.

Obviously forcing established employees to pay for unneeded training is just taking advantage of the power employers have in the relationship, but I can see where training that workers pay for can be useful.

Because much like most of a unions touted benefits, the cost is hidden or diffuse.

If you ban the capacity to do this, then the role stops existing.

I guess my issue is this: why is the burden on me, the employee, when you cannot figure out at what rate you're losing employees after training, what it is costing you, and why you're losing them?

Just like the marketing 'department' of a startup SaaS calculates a Cost Per Customer, figure out what your on-boarding process is costing the company and adjust your salaries across the board to be competitive in that arena. If you're not being competitive - figure out why. Maybe you'll save more money in the long run by providing better leadership training that motivates employees to stay longer, effectively making your cost of on-boarding training worth it. Or, here's a shocker, maybe that training just sucks and you shouldn't put your employees through it anyways.

And if you cannot find a way to be competitive whilst doing so, just like employers have learned to be with health, life, pension, and leave benefits, then your company will sink. There are many professions that many seek employment solely because they don't have the capital to invest into themselves and their training. Why should one open themselves to the burden of both, if there's an alternative?

> I guess my issue is this: why is the burden on me, the employee, when you cannot figure out at what rate you're losing employees after training, what it is costing you, and why you're losing them?

It is not - the choice is on you to pick this employer or another one.

If the role can't exist without indentured servitude, it sounds like the role shouldn't exist at all.

Sounds like a good plan - you can pay out of your own pocket to fire all these people that have jobs that don't fit your quality standards.

> I cannot even conjure up a single reason when this is a benefit to the individual.

I find no individual value in meetings, but I still accept participation a lot of the time as it appears that others derive benefit from my contributions. Perhaps direct individual benefit misses the forest for the trees? Clearly there is some kind of benefit found else nobody would accept and we wouldn't be there to talk about it.

For a lot of workplace training I’ve had, the only beneficiary must be the HR department that can use this compliance data to get a better deal on corporate insurance having everyone reading certain laws. Or in theory they are reading those laws, everyone I know clicks through these HR slideshows at light speed.

HR may be the only direct beneficiary, but if you don't receive something out of the deal, why would you do it? You, of course, wouldn't.

The indirect benefits aren't always obvious, of course. Perhaps someone in HR is your friend and they being happy from having a less complicated job allows for you to gain a stronger friendship, and so you don't mind helping them out to your ultimate benefit.

Who knows what is specifically motiving people, but we do know that not even the greatest saint can successfully push himself to do something that is completely free of benefit.

I think it's entirely reasonable to ask about the benefit to the individual if there are individual costs

Time has shown over and over again that an individual will not enter into an agreement without a perceived benefit.

You can ask to see if the benefit is a strong enough one for you to make the same agreement, but that doesn't mean a whole lot. No two people are the same. Everyone has different goals and desires.

Well yes of course. For example in the early middle ages millions of dirt farmers took oath of bondage after a bad harvest. Because otherwise his family would starve.

For sure. There is likely no greater benefit that one can derive than avoiding starvation.

Although there isn't much of a modern day parallel there given that citizenry of the US have already agreed to afford each other that benefit for an exchange in kind. Individuals need not worry about additional transactions deriving a hunger resolving benefit.

In my experience the benefit found through training is often so that the employer can check a box that reduces their liability. I have certainly worked for some pretty shoddy employers, but if the employer was interested in you getting something out of it, why not let you as an individual or a group decide what that training is?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com