Re: When have companies supported employees?
docdwarf_at_panix.com
Date: 01/25/05
- Next message: Paul Robinson: "Re: VAX COBOL and TCP/IP"
- Previous message: Paul Robinson: "When have companies supported employees?"
- In reply to: Paul Robinson: "When have companies supported employees?"
- Next in thread: Robert Wagner: "Re: When have companies supported employees?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 25 Jan 2005 10:21:30 -0500
In article <cKsJd.508$2i4.368@trnddc01>,
Paul Robinson <postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote:
>Robert Wagner wrote:
>
>> Simply put, they stopped learning new skills in the '70s out of
>> personal laziness. Why should companies support their personal sloth?
>
>Maybe this is slightly off topic, but given the practices of downsizing,
>layoffs, management incompetence in designing systems that cannot be
>implemented without massive unpaid overtime, (or sometimes plain can't
>be implemented) and lots of other bonehead stunts can we even argue that
>companies in general support their employees at all?
If 'a company in general' exists in order to maximise shareholder value
then any 'support of their employees' must be weighed against this end.
As for training... somebody posted this here back in 1997 and to the best
of my knowledge not much has changed since then:
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.cobol/msg/6c29c3f3dc17173c?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8>
--begin quoted text:
It is a Well-Known Fact that if you give someone training they will
immediately jump ship to a higher-paying company because said company is
foolish enough to think that a person, trained, is more valuable than a
person, untrained... don't they know that Gratitude Is Enough?
[snip]
Let's look at it another way... assume that an organisation has invested a
great deal of money in the upgrading of the physical plant. If sufficient
investment has been made then it is likely that serious consideration will
be given to upgrading the security system (new locks, etc.) to prevent
these improvement from 'walking off'. Also consider the common term of
'golden handcuffs', a recognised metaphor for increasing salary/benefits
to prevent human capital from *physically* walking away. Now, consider the
investment of money in humans to upgrade skills in order to make them more
valuable to the company. Consider how many times you have seen a corporate
policy stating that an increase in salary/benefits accompanies the
successful completion of such an upgrade (courses).
Years ago the Wall Street Journal did a story on one of the major NY
houses... I think it was Morgan Stanley or Morgan Guaranty or the like.
They hired *only* the 'unhireable'... kids with BAs in Library Science,
Art History, etc... they put these kids through two years of hell, 60 - 70
hr weeks, and turned them into *crackerjack* programmers... and then saw
said kids being hired away by the competition at double or triple the
salary. When asked why a raise did not accompany the completion of the
course the HR representative replied 'Oh, we cannot do that... all the
money has been taken up by training.' (compare this with 'Oh, we cannot
upgrade the door-locks... all the money went into oil-paintings to hang on
the walls.')
After a few years of seeing themselves serve as Wall Street's unofficial
programming school the company finally 'wised up'... and cancelled the
program entirely.
--end quoted text
DD
- Next message: Paul Robinson: "Re: VAX COBOL and TCP/IP"
- Previous message: Paul Robinson: "When have companies supported employees?"
- In reply to: Paul Robinson: "When have companies supported employees?"
- Next in thread: Robert Wagner: "Re: When have companies supported employees?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
