Employee Training Reluctance

Tragedy of the commons? After they’re trained up a new company can afford to give them more money since they don’t have to break even on the training period any more.

It's the old "why train an employee (or let them learn on the job) if they could quit and go to our competitors" coupled with employee loyalty to the company going down (probably to match low company loyalty to employee levels) and companies want people pre-trained and ready to go. It's up to the employee to ask for a premium for this, and most can't.So you're not wrong. It's where things are going not only in software engineering but other professions as we

Usually, the teaching/mentoring is not free either.So you can a) hire someone who needs training and then train them, or you can b) hire someone who is productive since day 1.The people in a) cannot expect the same salary as b). Otherwise, there would be no point in incurring the costs of training them.Unfortunately, once you train them, someone can snatch them as people in b). You incur the loss, someone else benefits.

Companies have no pension to tie people to those jobs, people make more money by job hopping, companies don’t give large enough raises to keep people, companies lay off people at the slight change in fortune. Correspondingly it doesn’t make sense to spend the time training someone if they leave as soon as they are productive.

Yes, it is much cheaper than training once employed; however, the company should view training employees in new technologies as something that gives the company a competitive advantage. Technology ages pretty quickly, and if you want to stay at the forefront of technology as a company, then it might be a good idea to encourage your employees to use some of their work time to invest in learning the new tools that will push the company forward. Yes, they might leave once they have "leveled-u

If the old employer didn't want the training investment to go to waste, they should've paid more.

Why not simply hire someone on a 3-year contract with the understanding that the first x months will be paid for but spent in learning a new skill and the other x months will be spent in earning back the course + paid hours?There should be a strict rule in the contract, that ending it before the 3 years are over will have a pricey consequence, so that you are incentivized to only sign up if you understand the work involved and will not quit after just doing the training.

no, you just offer pay for training and apprenticeship for experience (instead of making people pay to be trained).

>...quitting right after their training is complete and going to work for a company that invests in paying its employees more money instead of training.This shows up a lot, and it's worth debunking. Salary is not the only reason that people take a job, and it's not the only reason that people switch jobs. There can be huge costs (for all parties) to casually switching jobs, and most employees stay put longer than the training period. Additionally, there are standard

I'm curious about this idea. I'm wondering why companies can't invest in employees and why the burden of everything is on the employee to come through the door fully prepared and exactly what a company needs right out of the tin. Often, a previous novice had the role and gradually developed the role and themselves. Then, the company wants to hire some new person at the same salary as the person who left the role with all the developed skill of the previous person. I'm wonder