Companies that let you go after training you or allowing you to gain experience

techie2018

I've seen so many companies that will bring people on as contracters for 3 months to a year. In that time frame many contractors increase their knowledge ten fold. I find it weird though companies would invest that amount of time in someone to train them up only to let them go.

Anyway else notice that with the resolving door of contractors. Why do companies waste valuable resources like that. You would think after a company trained someone they would do everything they could to keep that person.

sillymcnasty

Companies have busy months where they need an extra set of hands but don't want to shell out for benefits, holidays, insurance, 401k, etc. After they're done with them, kick em to the curb. That's my assumption.

techie2018

That would make sense if someone was coming in to bag groceries or something. The problem is it take most folks around 6 months to get up to speed and be useful in IT. Especially if it's high level engineering.

TechGuru80

Are you sure the contracting or recruiting company isn’t paying? I have a friend that got a contract gig and had a SANS/GIAC training in the actual contract.

Also, without having to pay benefits it probably isn’t a losing deal and they get somebody with a specific set of skills.

DatabaseHead

sillymcnasty wrote: »

Companies have busy months where they need an extra set of hands but don't want to shell out for benefits, holidays, insurance, 401k, etc. After they're done with them, kick em to the curb. That's my assumption.

That's what I have witnessed and managed under. Last place I worked you would see 1 year contracts being offered and when budgets started to squeeze or the performance of the company would start to drop, they would get let go.

Most of the time it was the weak - average performers, they usually retain the strong performers.

In fact while the "cuts" were taking place the strong contractors are being extended offers....

This is from my perspective.

EnderWiggin

If they're bringing on a group of contractors to do something like help desk, it doesn't take long to get them up to speed. If they're doing something high level, they typically hire contractors that already have the skillset, so they only have to teach them their specific process, which doesn't take long either.

mbarrett

What makes you think the skills are so valuable? Try asking for a raise, and see how far you get.

kiki162

Many popular tech companies provide training money separate from educational benefits. I've talked with several people that are on or have done contract work and provide training for SANS and anything else relevant to their job.

In your instance, could be contact related, policy related, etc. Could also be the person didn't have any useful skills beyond what they hired them for, or weren't performing well at their job. I've seen too many people in IT go after the bare minimum for certs, and do virtually nothing to expand their skills set. Usually, those are the first to go. Could also be complete ignorance on the company's part too. Sounds all a bit like "seasonal hiring" to me.

RHEL

I'm not a contractor, but my company will have sent me to 5-6 total weeks of paid training this year alone. As some 1 week classes can be upwards of $5,000 for the course alone (plus travel, lodging, meals), you can see how quickly this adds up.

Are they risking me taking all of this knowledge and running? Sure. They're also taking a risk that investing in me and making me as knowledgeable as I can be will benefit the company and inspire me to stick around.

DatabaseHead

RHEL wrote: »

I'm not a contractor, but my company will have sent me to 5-6 total weeks of paid training this year alone. As some 1 week classes can be upwards of $5,000 for the course alone (plus travel, lodging, meals), you can see how quickly this adds up.

Are they risking me taking all of this knowledge and running? Sure. They're also taking a risk that investing in me and making me as knowledgeable as I can be will benefit the company and inspire me to stick around.

I was always leery giving out titles and training. For this very reason, employee defection, of course if it was mission critical and added value to the team then sure....

I usually offset the lack of training and titles with dollars. The employee wouldn't develop any other skills except the ones we were paying for them to use, but would be paid above market rate, which usually made them happy. My turnover was very low with this strategy. Of course the dead weight wouldn't get bonuses etc.... They would end up leaving.

Some other "positives" I focused on: Treating my employees really well, they always follow back up on LinkedIn and let me know that I was there best manager or one of the best, which always makes me feel great.

I would also give them time off even when not asked. If employee X was getting killed on a project and I saw some burn out setting in, I would give them a tap on the shoulder and tell them to take off.

IMO this was the best strategy for keeping my employees happy and not having them defect.... Sorry to get off topic OP.

josephandre

That is strange. It’s typically been my experience that most companies tie training and/or tuition to some sort of commitment length. IE remain here for a year or be on the hook for the cost.

techie2018

I think most of you guys missed my point. I'm not really talking about paid training. I'm meant on the job training. I've seen companies hire people that didn't really have the skillset the job required coming in the door. They allow that person to learn almost all the skills on the job for a year. Basically because the person didn't have the skillset walking in the door they were a high paid intern for a year. However after that year of on the job training a lot of these guys became really good especially considering their lack of experience. And yet the company let them walk. And the company would start the process all over again.

Danielm7

Many/most companies separate training and education. Like they might send you to vendor training, but if you want to go to college that's different and you sign up to stay a year after or pay for it when you leave.

EnderWiggin

techie2018 wrote: »

I think most of you guys missed my point. I'm not really talking about paid training. I'm meant on the job training. I've seen companies hire people that didn't really have the skillset the job required coming in the door. They allow that person to learn almost all the skills on the job for a year. Basically because the person didn't have the skillset walking in the door they were a high paid intern for a year. However after that year of on the job training a lot of these guys became really good especially considering their lack of experience. And yet the company let them walk. And the company would start the process all over again.

I think the better question is "Why do they hire unqualified people?"

josephandre

And when you say "let them walk" are you saying fired them? Lost them to another job? Not really sure what you're talking about honestly

thomas_

Maybe the company’s strategy is to hire unskilled labor and train them up. They might find it cheaper in the long run to just have a revolving door of employees. They might be able to pay unskilled employees lower than skilled employees and find that they are able to get a result acceptable to them out of the employee. Maybe they can’t afford or aren’t willing to pay employees more?

EANx

EnderWiggin wrote: »

I think the better question is "Why do they hire unqualified people?"

Employers get beat up for having strict hiring standard and employers get beat up for hiring people with potential and training them up.

sillymcnasty

I just looked at the benefits of my job. I was a contractor for a year, and am being hired for 75k. My benefits add up to make the total package well into the six figures. Health/vision/dental, 3 weeks vacation, 5 sick days, 2 personal days, up to 5,000 in class reimbursement, 6% 401k matching, stock options, yearly bonus. They even offer 3,000 dollars to help you adopt a child!

I think the cost of re-training is minimal when compared to keeping people full time.