Re: [OT] As Was Done With Training, Perhaps


<docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:du739j$qek$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

There have been, at times, discussions here about how many employers train
(or, more frequently, don't train) employees to deal with changes in the
technologies involved with their jobs... how a company seeking to
implement web-based functions will hire new Java-jockies instead of
sending their COBOL-coders to classes, for example.

This depends entirely on the attitude of the said COBOL-coders. If they
think they have nothing to learn, it is simply a waste of corporate cash to
train them. Unfortunately, there are those who regard everything new as a
re-invention of what they already know. Would you spend your money to train
such people? Of course, there are also those who genuinely DO want to learn,
but this is not a good investment from the company point of view, unless the
person concerned can show that they are worth the investment and will return
on it. ( a young grad has potentially 30 years to offer the company; a
geezer has maybe 5 or 6, maximum 10. I don't personally agree with this,
because I realise that people can leave anytime, irrespective of their age,
but it is the perceived wisdom.). Someone who had got stuck into Java in
his own time and could show some applets or similar running, would have a
lot more credibility than someone who just wanted some training, with a view
to leaving as soon as he has a certificate. Throughout my career I have
never relied on a company to provide training. Knowledge is much too
important (and valuable) to let someone else decide whether you get it or
not.

I've often thought
that reasoning was bipartite, but with a single basis:

1) Sending someone to class Costs Money.

2) Once the person has completed the class they may be hired away by a
competitor... so to keep that person on the job a pay-raise might need to
be given and this Costs Money.

I have known many short sighted employers who saw it this way; fortunately
there are also many who don't.

Realistic employers know that WHATEVER they do it is going to cost money.
Better to invest the money in their staff, value their staff (and be seen to
do so), have an active social program and put money into it, and make sure
the people have an incentive to come to work, than to pay more money for
someone external. People don't get hired away on completion of a class, if
that class is part of a three year plan for personal growth and subsidised
education. (I have a couple of people on my team at the moment who are glad
to utilise such opportunites...) There is always a chance they will leave,
because there is always a chance ANYONE can leave ANYTIME, but my own
assessment is that they appreciate the help and will repay it with loyalty.

(Just as a matter of interest, and to illustrate how management attitude can
generate a good culture, here is a description of what permanent employees
of this company can expect (I have not disclosed details of the
confidential perquisites like performance related bonuses, share options and
investment, which are not just offered to senior executives but to all
employees...):

1. An ultra modern building (it has been open for just over 2 months) in
the centre of the Auckland CBD (Commercial Business District, the heart of
the City) with an open plan office that has views over Auckland harbour and
the North Shore.

2. There is a relaxation area with free coffee, tea, etc and refrigerators,
microwaves, and dishwashers for staff use. The same area has a (free) pool
table which can be used at any time of day. The latest copies of magazines
and newspapers are in this area, and staff are encouraged to use it at any
time. It is furnished like a lounge with coffee tables and easy chairs and
sofas.

3. Instead of managers having separate offices, they sit with the staff in
the open plan area. There is no difference between my desk (or my Boss's
desk) and anyone else's... For confidential discussions, there are "quiet
rooms" always available.

4. Presentation rooms are available on each of the floors we occupy. (each
of the other floors is laid out just as described.) These rooms are equipped
with widescreen TVs connected to wireless internet and you can do your
presentation with a wireless keyboard and wireless mouse. Video conferencing
is available and used quite a lot, especially to Australia.

It is a "salubrious" environment and care has been taken to make it
attractive (around 2 million dollars was spent on artwork for the
building - this is an Auckland City Council requirement: 1% of the building
value...), and a place that people would want to come to work.

Of course, buildings and toys are one thing, and not every company
(especially small ones) can afford these things, but the workplace "culture"
is much more important. Just one example to demonstrate...

Recently there was some concern about the social club. Social club funds
were low and activities that were being planned might not be viable unless
more people joined up. The committe met with the management. Management have
always said they valued the club's activities (quizzes, trips, parties,
etc.) and so it was decided that rather than people being excluded from
these activities because they hadn't joined the social club, the company
would simply pay everyone's subscription so that all staff (including
contract) could participate in the activities. This is a perfect example of
management investing (substantially) in their staff. (Of course the
management will also enjoy the outings and activities, but that is how it
should be.) The result is that the social club can now plan an active
calendar throughout the year, instead of just a Christmas party...


Anyhow... I was catching up on a bit of reading and came across an article
in the 18 - 24 Feb 2006 issue of The Economist, a 'special report' on
dealing with the ageing workforce, entitled 'Turning Boomers into
Boomerangs'. (A 'boomer' is someone born during the post-WWII 'baby boom'
and a 'boomerang' is someone who returns to work after an absence). I was
struck by the following:

Was it a boomerang :-)?

--begin quoted text:

A survey in America last month by Ernst & Young found that "although
corporate America foresees a significant workforce shortage as boomers
retire, it is not dealing with the issue." Almost three-quarters of the
1,400 global companies questioned by Deloitte last year said they expected
a shortage of salaried staff over the next three to five years. Yet few of
them are looking to older workers to fill that shortage; and even fewer
are looking to them to fill another gap that has already appeared. Many
firms in Europe and America complain that they struggle to find qualified
directors for their boards-this when the pool of retired talent from those
very same firms is growing by leaps and bounds.

Why are firms not working harder to keep old employees? Part of the reason
is that the crunch has been beyond the horizon of most managers. Nor is
hanging on to older workers the only way to cope with a falling supply of
labour. The participation of developing countries in the world economy has
increased the overall supply-whatever the local effect of demographics in
the rich countries. A vast amount of work is being sent offshore to such
places as China and India and more will go in future. Some countries, such
as Australia, are relaxing their immigration policies to allow much needed
skills to come in from abroad. Others will avoid the need for workers by
spending money on machinery and automation.

--end quoted text

Well, The Economist is always a bit suspect in my view (much too LSE if you
ask me... :-)) and the point about Australia is certainly not the perceived
policy. Australia has one of the tightest immigration policies in the world.
Our's is too slack; their's is too tight. Possibly both countries are moving
towards correction of the situation.

... and then there's, of course, a simple reason... older, more
experienced workers might have a better knowledge of the value their work
provides an organisation and might, as a result, demand higher wages...
and this Costs Money.

The man gave three reasons that contribute to this situation, but you see
only one, and a cynical one at that :-)


Never mind that it might take two recent college grads thrice the time it
takes someone with thirty-odd years' worth of experience to accomplish a
task... the two grads' salaries, combined, are - on a quarterly basis -
less than the geezer's.

Doc, I really hope the cynicism you express is limited to CLC and not
propagated to your colleagues... It would make for a gloomy workplace.
(Well, it would for the geezers... :-))

Anyone, whether they're old or young cannot price themself off the market.
If you demand more than the job is worth don't be surprised if you're
unemployed for lengthy periods.(Ooops, I forgot... you have that one
covered... :-))

Sure, there will be grads getting jobs that geezers might have done, but
that has always been the way of the world. Young people are an exploited
resource in many places, but that is changing too.

I can honestly say I have never felt discriminated against because of my
age. (It would be illegal in NZ anyway; you cannot even ask someone how old
they are in an interview, and people do NOT have to put their date of birth
on their CV. Neither can you ask them their religion or their sexual
preferences (maybe you can if the job is in the sex industry :-), not sure
about that one...), it all works pretty well.

I got the contract I am currently doing in the face of fierce competition
from dozens of applicants, most of whom were younger than me. I didn't drop
the rate so I have to assume they decided I was right for the job, based on
track record, references, and interview impression. (I had never met any of
the people who interviewed me and there was no "old boy" network involved.
I'd have more chance of that in Europe where I actually know people , than
in NZ where I know nobody after an absence from the IT scene of around 30
years...)

Maybe attitude has a bearing on it? I don't think of myself as a geezer and
I am passionate about what I do. It comes across in interviews. Maybe the
opposite does too...?

Pete.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [OT] As Was Done With Training, Perhaps
    ... Having worked with bad management, ... Mr Dashwood... ... invests in employees and then allows them to participate in the ... Sending someone to class Costs Money. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: What do you do when the company stops paying?
    ... Since the end of December 2007, the staff have only been paid 2 weeks ... money, as his boss says he is owed so much money by the council, that ... OTOH if employees have been able to afford to live for 3 months ... are trying not to make things difficult for the boss, ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: The excuses thread
    ... "The public sector 'saves money' by offering lower salaries than the private ... knowledge from the consultants to the permanent employees for the same ... management to willfully lie on their CVs about how many staff they do ...
    (uk.rec.motorcycles)
  • Flexi-Station Employee Management 1.60
    ... staff hours, the software features tools for quality assurance ... FlexiServer is the modern replacement for a staff hours book or time ... reasons to estimate how much time employees are working in different ... ~ Gives management the confidence to let employees work at home ...
    (comp.software.shareware.announce)
  • Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC)
    ... > Companies that test their employees are wrong, IMO, and I won't work ... That's exactly what I was trying to express, Brad. ... staff received after the merger. ... management types would take notice of stuff like that. ...
    (rec.music.gdead)