My Bosses Response to Using Company Money for Certification\Training

We have a "suggestions" shared document for the 2014 budget.
Someone (not me if that matters) suggested training for certifications. And the suggesters justification for it was that we are highly dependent on vendors for a lot of things we could just be trained to do.
The manager responded with this

As much as I would like to get everyone certified, that might not be the best use of our budget. Our budget is supposed to create revenue for the company vs self-enrichment. (Not that that is a bad thing...)

I want to debate him about it. But I dont know where to begin.

On the other hand I am the only one here seeking certs on my own so it may be in my best interest that others don't certify.

Thoughts?

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

AwesomeGarrett

There's a lot of difference of opinion on this subject. Where I currently work they have been encouraging everybody in the NOC to get a CCNA. They got them PDF's and even CBT nuggets but they will not reimburse for the exams, thus no one has even read past the OSI model.

I've been working in this NOC for 14 months, when they brought me on I just got my CCNA. So.........

It's best to not even bother arguing with management about it, just stick to your goals and keep getting better at what you do.

ajs1976

focus on the benefits to the business. more efficient and productive staff. Less relying on vendors. etc.

eansdad

Better response then what we got. We were told that if they paid for training and certs then we would leave.

olaHalo

eansdad wrote: »

Better response then what we got. We were told that if they paid for training and certs then we would leave.

I think that is the real reason too.

AwesomeGarrett

It's just us here, so wouldn't you? I finished my CCNP recently but I'm trying to really hammer that down and pick up a few things before moving on. There is just no room for me grow in this environment, unless I wanna sit here for a half a decade before a getting an opportunity.

olaHalo

AwesomeGarrett wrote: »

It's just us here, so wouldn't you? I finished my CCNP recently but I'm trying to really hammer that down and pick up a few things before moving on. There is just no room for me grow in this environment, unless I wanna sit here for a half a decade before a getting an opportunity.

My previous employer would reimburse you on a select set of certifications if you passed, but you had to sign a document saying that if you left the company within 6 months you'd have to pay them back.

I plan on leaving no matter what. I like my job and the company but we are underpaid significantly relative to similar jobs at other casinos.
So most of our staff or either low experience guys (like me) or people who are content with their pay and situation.

We had a guy quit and it took 3 months to replace him. (We're talking Tier 2/ Jr Network Admin positions here) just because no one would accept the pay for what they want.

Anyway, for my particular company it would be cheaper to train the staff than it would to call these vendors in all the time. Even if we know how to resolve a problem our Admin calls the vendor to come in for support rather than us just fix it. Maybe its a liability thing idk...

TheProf

It's tough to say... some companies might not allocate funds for certifications if there are other priorities, I've seen it happen. But also to be honest, $150-$200 for a certification isn't much either. I would honestly say if you can afford it, pay for it yourself, if not, don't worry about it, prepare on your own and if you're not learning anything new or gaining experience then maybe it's time to move on.

sadfjlfdo24

My company pays for certs and college courses. Nobody has ever left voluntarily. The business can just write it off as an expense and it benefits you, your business, and the team by having trained people get the job done quicker. Certifications are just a proof of minimal level of competency, its the training you do on your own that gets you there - and that benefits your company and your colleagues in the process. Any manager who does not see it, and any business that does not encourage it, is simply a poorly run business, and I would start looking for a new job.

lsud00d

To me it depends on the company core business focus.

If it is something like an MSP or contracting firm, certificates greatly increase revenue potential as the staff is more robust and capable from a metrics standpoint. In addition, competencies/partnerships with major companies (Microsoft, Cisco) can depend on staff certification levels, which also increases billing rates accordingly.

LarryDaMan

It's shortsighted for a company not to reimburse or pay for education or certifications which are job related. So many potential benefits to having a motivated, trained, and certified staff.

It is not a retention issue as many places do require you to pay it back if you leave within 3/6/12 months of accepting the benefit. The last few places I've worked have been the same, $5K per year for any training/certification and you pay it back if you leave within 12 months. Works for me. If I am unsure about staying another 12 months, I still use it because it essentially just becomes a salary advance on my last paycheck.

NetworkVeteran

olaHalo wrote: »

I want to debate him about it. But I dont know where to begin.

I certainly wouldn't argue against profitability. You'll lose that one every time! You could argue some certifications make your company more many than they cost--although that begs the question, why didn't they hire such people? Another successful angle might be that some employees merit more compensation than they currently receive.

I'm actually the guy who keeps eliminating "training gear" from our site's budget. There are so many free or low-cost options like GNS3, Junosphere, etc. I bring it back to "And what have you done on your own?" I also remember many experiences where team members viewed 'paid training' more akin to 'paid vacation' than a 'seize the day' moment.

Now, paying for the cost of passed exams, or even some extra as a bonus, those are no-brainers.

(And even some training, provide you pass a value-add exam, and stay long enough!)

jibbajabba

olaHalo wrote: »

I think that is the real reason too.

One company I worked for would pay for any training you want, but make you sign your life away. Basically you have to sign a clause that you will be staying with them for 1-3 years (depending on the training / costs). So if you leave before that, you pay some money back ... Like a loan you pay with your working-hours.

sadfjlfdo24

Point your manager to this link Tax Benefits for Education: Information Center" specifically to section Business Deduction for Work-Related Education"

instant000

I feel for those without a training budget.

Nevertheless, I am the type to continue to train on my own, just like the original poster.

I can honestly say that I have reaped many-fold for the seeds I've planted for the investments I've made in my own training.

I don't begrudge those who get training assistance, and would one day like to be in that number. For that reason (and others) I've decided to be a bit more judicious about the next job that I take on.

Codyy

Your co-worker already jusitified if for you .."justification for it was that we are highly dependent on vendors for a lot of things we could just be trained to do." Less dependent on vendors = less expense = more revenue for the company. I guarantee you vendor support costs more than $200 certs. Seems like a no brainer to me to drop the support if the employees are proficient enough to get the job done after getting the certs, that's easier said than done though..

Ecio

Codyy wrote: »

Your co-worker already jusitified if for you .."justification for it was that we are highly dependent on vendors for a lot of things we could just be trained to do." Less dependent on vendors = less expense = more revenue for the company. I guarantee you vendor support costs more than $200 certs. Seems like a no brainer to me to drop the support if the employees are proficient enough to get the job done after getting the certs, that's easier said than done though..

I agree with you, you can save thousand of bucks on consultancy/assistance BUT you must also consider that the boss could also play the "who screwed up" game: is it better to let our internal team do that Storage update saving 1000$, or is it better to pay the external certified gold storage partner consulting company that will do it and if they screw up and halt all our production site I will sue them AND I will tell my CEO (what else could I do? I called the best company on the market for this activity!) ??
This is the typical approach of some managers, like calling IBM (or Accenture or you-name-it) not because they're better but just to cover their a****

FloOz

My last employer was also very adamant to pay for any kind of certification that they did not previously approve. So they didn't seem to happy when I passed my CCNA while working in desktop support. Safe to say I didn't stay at that employer for long.

My current job offers certification reimbursement as well as a partnership with a pretty big IT training company (I have yet to take advantage of it). Just be sure to ask during your interviews if there is any sort of certification reimbursement.

Zartanasaurus

eansdad wrote: »

Better response then what we got. We were told that if they paid for training and certs then we would leave.

Q:"What if we train them and they leave?"
A:"What if we don't train them and they stay?"

instant000

Zartanasaurus wrote: »

Q:"What if we train them and they leave?"
A:"What if we don't train them and they stay?"

LOL. I have a buddy who worked for a state health system (won't say which). He says this was standard practice. You'd run into people who had been in positions for years and did not really know much. The organization had a major virus outbreak. (Actually, not totally true, the organization had rampant problems with viruses and malware all the time.) Part of it was due to working in education, which is inherently more "open" than a lot of other enterprises, but another part of it was that his admin team would sit around and do nothing all day long -- literally nothing. His department was like the guy on Office Space who is in the basement with a stapler. It seemed that IT Security was just a space filler for this university system.

He started wondering why they weren't implementing certain best practices, and then realized that none of the staff was trained, certified, or motivated to improve themselves. He said that he asked around, and the response was what eansdad gave: if we train them, they will leave. His query: And what if they stay? We're staffed by people who don't really know what they're doing?

He said that if anyone high speed and motivated showed up, they wouldn't last long in the culture of mediocrity, and would leave within a month.

I don't think he lasted a year in that position, and he's the type to stick with a company for 5+ years at a time.

networker050184

Better trained people allow you to provide better service therefore increasing revenue. I'd expect anyone, much less someone in a management position, to be able to realize this.

Probably time to start polishing up the resume. No point wasting your time working for a company that couldn't care less about your professional development.

instant000

Hah. Self-enrichment.

So, you didn't actually hire me to work on these systems, you just hired me to escort the service providers around our facility? Oh wait, you gave them an access badge now. So, I showed them where everything is, am I not redundant now?

What about retention? You might want to ask the question of how much it costs them to bring in new employees. There is only so long people will stick around in a poor situation.

The issue I see is that if the organization does not want to invest in its people, then it does not care to keep its people.

If you want to maintain something, you put some work into it.

I'm growing a tomato plant on the balcony. I have to water it. I have to make sure that I pluck bugs off it. I have to get more dirt to cover any exposed roots. I have to check on it everyday, just to make sure that everything is OK and the plant is progressing in growth. Why am I doing this? Because I want to keep the plant. I know that if I provide it with the proper nurturing, then it will bear much fruit (revenue) for me.

What if I don't maintain the plant? Well, it shrivels up and dies, and I lost the investment that I paid into it.

Oh well, that is just my simple take on things.

One thing that contrasts with this story is that unlike the tomato plant, people can leave for more fertile ground.

Maybe the OP should calculate how much turnover costs them, in unrealized revenue.

pert

Think companies are mostly insane on this issue. The cost of paying for certs is like what, $1k a year max? Whats the worst case scenario? Someone really starts going deep and takes the company for.......$2k? As far as people leaving, that's the companies fault. People leave when it's in their best interst to do so. If that's the case, then why is your corporate structure incentivizing the brightest to leave and the dumbest to stay?

colemic

Sounds like this.

US agency baffled by modern technology, destroys mice to get rid of viruses | Ars Technica

fredrikjj

Our budget is supposed to create revenue for the company

The problem with looking at IT this way is that while you can try, you won't be able to quantify the actual risks involved with having staff that lacks the knowledge to reliably run things. For example, how do you quantify how much to pay for someone that is able to fix a catastrophic network outage in 30 minutes vs. being down for two hours and then having to call a $$$ consultant? The variables involved in a scenario like that can't be put into dollars and cents on a budget, and people who claim that they can are lying/don't know what they are talking about.

I'd argue that a person who is confident in an evironment because he has learned how to run it simply by trial and error is EXTREMELY dangerous to a company because he doesn't know what he doesn't know and could make horrible things happen. Studying for certifications tempers this confidence and makes you realize how little your really know. It humbles you, and that alone should make it worth it for any company to encourage studying and certification. But of course, "Bob's knowledge of BGP has increased and he is now less likely to do something dumb" isn't easy to translate into revenue.

SteveLord

Geez. Certification reimbursement is pretty small potatoes compared to boot camps, whether you travel to them or not. You'd think they should swing that kind of stuff.

Hypntick

lsud00d wrote: »

To me it depends on the company core business focus.

If it is something like an MSP or contracting firm, certificates greatly increase revenue potential as the staff is more robust and capable from a metrics standpoint. In addition, competencies/partnerships with major companies (Microsoft, Cisco) can depend on staff certification levels, which also increases billing rates accordingly.

Working for an MSP, both this job and the previous, they do value certification highly as it affords vendor discounts and partner status. We have a quarterly bonus that 40% of is a requirement for an up to date certification. This isn't just limited to vendor certs either, as once you have your up to date vendor certs, you're free to pursue whatever you'd like. They also re-imburse for any pass you get, although that is up to a certain point. Your average MS or Cisco is fully paid for, something like a VCP or SANS cert does require paperwork signed so they cover themselves from loss in the event you leave after getting the certs.

About7Narwhal

Even if he is missing the main point of certification = value for everyone, he did give you a very legitimate response. All I got when I asked was "Haha... No."

darkerz

All of the companies I've ever worked for reimbursed certifications.

Not encouraging someone to better their technology and best practices, especially in Jr and Mid level positions, causes "1 year of experience, 5 times over" syndrome. It's unfair to the motivated but clueless new to mid level worker, and it's bad for a companies retention and internal culture.

epcg

My boss once said something like this to me "If we get you certified then you will leave." They have never and will never pay for any training or certs. That's ok I'm going to keep doing self training and get certs on my own and keep looking for the right job for me.

blargoe

eansdad wrote: »

Better response then what we got. We were told that if they paid for training and certs then we would leave.

The only companies that tell you that are companies that are already having problems with turnover because they are such a crappy company (or possibly, decent company with an idiot IT manager) to work for in the first place. Investing in relavant training makes your team deliver faster and better. Unless it's a call-center type of job where the labor is relatively unskilled, and any successful training is obviously motivated toward getting a better job (level 1 support asking his boss to pay for CCNA or VCP for example), properly training your IT staff should be a win-win for a well-run company and IT organization.