Training - A Company or a Worker's Responsibility?

r0wan asks: "I'm currently working as a Microsoft Systems Administrator. Through a series of bungled management decisions, have found myself responsible for a Windows Server 2003 Active Directory network, that I know nothing about (the person who was sent for training was: not the Microsoft point person, as I was; and left the company, soon after the domain upgrade). It doesn't look as though training will be forthcoming, and I've just been moved from the lab, where I was training myself while simultaneously handling the domain. I've got the MCSA/MCSE Training Kit, but recently I've found numerous errors, so many that I was sent a free Press Kit book, for submitting all of the errors I had found. Between management's reluctance to shell out for training, and being moved from the lab, I'm getting the distinct sense that training is something I'm expected to take care of, on my own time. Is this the de-facto standard within IT, and for all jobs within IT? If so, how do you Slashdot readers keep up with your continuing education, while still maintaining a personal life? Is it naive to try to leave my work at work?" "I'm especially interested in hearing from the Slashdot readers of the female persuasion, as I have a husband, a dog, and a household to keep up with (no kids by choice, but I wouldn't have the time to take care of them, even if I wanted to). I also have the added responsibility of being the primary breadwinner. My free time is valuable in that it allows me to take care of that which I can't during the day (grocery shopping, dog responsibilities, cleaning, etc), and decompress/de-stress in order to prepare for the next day's work. I like tinkering with computers and learning new stuff, but I fear that if I'm expected train myself, outside of work, I may need to consider a different career.

Thanks in advance for the input."

Comments

Once the camel's nose is in the tent.....

[DoraLives]

rely on seeing the rest the smelly thing in there with you sooner instead of later. Resist ALL attempts to cause you to spend your OWN time and money on things that benefit your bosses and/or the owners of the company instead of yourself.

Re:Once the camel's nose is in the tent.....

[loteck]

And this goes double for IT. Especially if the location you are responsible for is open during hours that you aren't at work. However, the above poster's response isn't always possible.

Many IT professionals simply end up negotiating higher salaries based on the amount of personal time they are going to be giving up to be on call or to be in constant training. I realize this option isn't attractive to the submitter, but, especially if you're charged with mission-critical support for high availability networks, it seems to be the nature of the beast.

Re:Once the camel's nose is in the tent.....

[WhyCause]

One thing I would suggest, keeping in line with this, would be to 'spin' it such that it is to the company's great benefit to ensure that you are properly trained. For example, you don't want to spend hours trying to solve a problem that a properly trained domain admin might spend 5 minutes fixing (think of the downtime!). This is the polite way of batting the camel on the nose (as it were) to make it back out of the tent.

If necessary, keep records of the time you spend on figuring out problems, and present this (in accumulated form) to your manager, insisting that training will reduce this. Present this in paper memo form, making sure to cc: to file (yours, paper, of course), and make certain that your manager's secretary stamps each memo you deliver to him or her with one of those "Received On" stamps (they still use those, right?). If your manager still refuses training, your ass is covered when the shit hits the fan (and it will).

I've never been in an IT position like this. It doesn't matter, though, because just about every manager with a lean training budget will act the same. Once you prove to your manager that this training is worth the investment, you'll generally get the support you need. On the other hand, you might see (currently) intangible benefits by training yourself. You're a go-getter with initiative. A straight-shooter with upper management written all over you.

Re:Once the camel's nose is in the tent.....

[klparrot]

If necessary, keep records of the time you spend on figuring out problems, and present this (in accumulated form) to your manager, insisting that training will reduce this.

You might want to be careful, though, that your manager doesn't just decide that laying you off and hiring someone with the training is cheaper.

Re:Once the camel's nose is in the tent.....

[nlindstrom]

I think you have forgotten you are merely an electronic janitor, and not fit to wipe the dust from the secretary's keyboard. Remember your place, Employee 1450936! Report for reassignment immediately!

Re:Once the camel's nose is in the tent.....

[SetupWeasel]

On the other hand, you might see (currently) intangible benefits by training yourself. You're a go-getter with initiative. A straight-shooter with upper management written all over you.

Oh god no. If the company isn't willing to shell out for proper training, they are more than willing to take advantage of your hard work. If you need no incentive to work as hard as you can, they will give you no incentive to work as hard as you can.

Yes, there are companies that don't act this way, but in my experience, they are the companies who give training, raises, and other incentives without twisting their arm. In today's corporate climate, employees are seen a necessary evil.

Re:Once the camel's nose is in the tent.....

[bonius_rex]

Resist ALL attempts to cause you to spend your OWN time and money on things that benefit your bosses and/or the owners of the company instead of yourself.

Along these same lines, I only do self-funded training that will benefit my next employer. Invest in yourself, not in your boss.

Some advice

[aliscool]

Hey,

Get your company to front for some M$ premier support. When something comes up you are not sure of or are having a hell of a time resolving, call in the experts at M$.

Except for one or two "M$ Alliance partners" I have always had good luck with M$ premier support. And we have had some major fiascos to unscrew over the years.

And best of all you can consider it free on the job training, don't let the M$ Engineer hang up until you completely understand what was wrong and how to fix it in the future.

Also, document everything you do! Two years from now you will be fighting the same or similar fires you are fighting today. Have a reference to fall back on and help remember what steps you took before that fixed something.

Sounds like you are a lone gun, but a 800 Premier support help number and some documentation may help greatly.

Best of luck with the new responsibilities.

Re:Some advice

[zeroduck]

I'm sorry and all. . . but I really couldn't read your post with all the "M$"s. It's really hard to take your post seriously.

CYA

[Black Parrot]

I suppose if the company's managers want its infrastructure maintained by amateurs, that's their business. (No pun intended!)

However, you'll probably get the blame if something goes wrong. You might consider looking for another job.

Training

[Alex P Keaton in da]

At my company, we each get budgeted a certain amount of money (generous) for training. (We also get an allowance for professional organizations.) We also get paid for the time we are off site at traing events.
We have to get approval before taking a class we want to take, but they are very open to our ideas.
No matter what anyone says, a great strength of a company is its employees. The more we know, and the better we are, the better the company will do. It also has other benefits, as it makes us all feel better about our employer

But who does it really benefit?

[SlashChick]

But does it benefit the company more, or does it benefit the employee more? If she gets training, she'll be better able to demand a higher salary from the company he's working for now, or a higher salary in his next job.

I also think it should be the company's responsibility (in general, and in this case) to provide work-related training. However, I don't agree with your assertion that it only benefits the company involved.

Re:But who does it really benefit?

[Mr. Underbridge]

But does it benefit the company more, or does it benefit the employee more? If she gets training, she'll be better able to demand a higher salary from the company he's working for now, or a higher salary in his next job.

In this case, neither, but it benefits the employee the least. The company is being shortsighted by forcing an (admittedly) underqualified employee to manage something beyond training. They're also forcing said employee to "train" during free time from manuals and such instead of investing in real training.

It would be fair for the company to send the employee to real training, which would benefit both. If the company's not willing to invest in the employee, they shouldn't expect the employee to give up a ton of free time.

Re:But who does it really benefit?

[NitsujTPU]

It's not that I don't agree with the sentiment, but the company sent someone off to training who later returned the favor by jumping ship.

I've seen some training bungles in my time... like hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to train software engineers to use a proprietary software library... engineers who weren't even with the company that was doing the development.

However, if the company felt it important enough to send the one person off to... why not the other?

On one side, the company probably has a training budget. Did the original poster already have all the training budgeted to her that year? Well, no room to complain. Is the company trying to fleece the original poster? Well, that's a reason to complain.

Then there are a couple other points to that. If you're getting something out of your job that's more than a paycheck, it doesn't hurt to chip in a bit of personal expense to sharpen your skills. If the company treats you poorly otherwise, and you really don't get much out of your job, they probably at least owe you the training and equipment to do what they ask.

Re:But who does it really benefit?

[slaker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Parent looks at dirty pictures at work all day.
I worked 88 hours last week and had to wait until I got home every night to look at teh boobies.

To the OP: seriously, read the stupid Microsoft books, or as much of them as you can stand without puking. Don't bother with the tests until some tells you that it's a requirement that you certify. At that point, you tell them with a straight face that you want compensation for your study time. I say this as a Microsoft Certified Trainer. The stuff on those exams can be pretty out there, and unless you really WANT to be on a "Microsoft Certified" career track there are better things to do with your life.

Re:But who does it really benefit?

[bigpat]

Yes, I think if it clearly benefits the company more, such as supporting a legacy system or learning to support a short lived or highly specialized system, then clearly the company should be picking up the bill for any training. Otherwise, if it isn't really required training, but more of an "enriching" nature or will further the person's career, then it seems reasonable that a company would not want to pay or would want to have the employee pick up a portion of the expense. Most companies have limited ability to advance within a company, so training that isn't specific to a task or project could only serve to make the employee more expensive or more likely to choose another company. Of course, the person might choose to go to another company because they offer educational opportunities, so it really is a mixed bag for the company.

I think companies should take a more wholistic approach and once they reach a certain size just bite the bullet and start offering more generaous training and education opportunities. Sure the person might end up leaving before turning that knowledge back into something useful for the company, but if all companies are doing it, then that education and training will serve to create a better overall workforce for all companies to draw from. So, companies shouldn't think defensively when offering education benefits.

Of course, a company could just pay it employees a better salary and expect them to invest some of that money back into themselves rather than micromanaging employee self improvement.

Re:But who does it really benefit?

[JWSmythe]

    hehe. hey, that's the day job..

    Last night, I was giving directions over the phone on swapping drives at a remote location, then I did array work from here, and started a 2 day transfer..

    Today I spent 4 hours on the phone. Worked on a Win2k box, 15 linux boxes, and tonights task has been to fix a dozen or so libraries on an old RedHat box, so a client can install a piece of software that they want. Oh ya, and got my image thingie working on my site, so people can select images from our library to include in their news submissions.

    Fun, fun..

    I saw boobies once. One of the client calls was regarding an adult site.

    boobies get old after too many years of working with adult hostings.. Kinda like working QA for a brothel. After a while, it all seems the same, and you kinda dread the next one.

Small company vs. big company

[douglips]

In a big company, the company will train you on their time and their dime. In a small company, they may not train you, but they should allow you the time to train yourself and/or learn by doing. Do NOT front any money for technical training like this. Maybe for a Masters degree, but not for some Microsoft certificate.

You have to choose what kind of company to work for, essentially.

Having done both, I liked the small company when I was young and had no kids, and now I like the big company.

Re:The norm for the industry?

[Andr0s]

I cannot say if it's the norm for the industry... but I just saw the loose ends of my department's budget for last year wrapped up, (I'm Remote Site Admin in a sizeable corporation's IT) and I was shocked at how much money was in it for IT staff training, unused. After chatting with some other friends in the industry, I discovered that often companies don't refuse to pay for training... but do expect employees to go through training without dropping any of their tasks. And since so many of IT people work 60+ hour weeks, we can all see how frequently that kind of training is a feasible scenario.

Depends strongly on employer

[EmersonPi]

It really, really depends. A good employer will try to people with a strong capacity to learn, and good problem solving skills. Once hired the employees generally just pick things up as they go. It's kind of expected at top tech companies that you'll stay on top of your field, and learn everything you can. IF however your job requirements change drastically, a good employer usually sees it as in their best interest you train you (or give you the time to train yourself).

What you have is really a company with bad management. First of all, giving a rats ass about any sort of certificate (i.e. MCSE, or whatever else) is usually a bad sign (means they are more concerned with beaurocracy than with reality). Then the fact that they trained the wrong person is a bad sign. The fact that their communications with you is so terrible is a really, really bad sign. Many other companies would handle this far better than yours has.

That being said, it looks like it is indeed your own problem to train yourself. My best advice would be to train yourself as well as you can (forgoing personal life for a while), and then jump ship for a company with better management. Look for a company where management cares more about how well people can problem solve than what certificates they have (sometimes hard interview questions and logic puzzles are a good guage of how seriously they take problem solving). If they place a strong emphasis on teamwork, and trying to retain good people, that's another good sign.

I've worked in several different environments (and companies) over the years, and I've worked with a lot of programmers. I've known college dropouts who were stellar programmers and could really deliver solid products on time. I've also known PhDs who couldn't be trusted to write (let alone maintain) good code at all. The one constant I've seen in good management is that they can recognise those programmers (and IT) people who are good, and those who are not. They try hard to support (and retain) those who are good, and nurture those who are not (and cut them loose if they refuse to be helped). Look for a manager like that if you can.

You know that other guy who left the company?

[lanner]

You know the other guy who set up AD and left the company? Perhaps he jumped on the clue train and left for a better place. You might consider doing the same.

First quarter of the year is a good time to be looking for work, and I know there are jobs out there. I'm looking for one myself. Two of my peers recently quit after finding better jobs. The IT department at the company I work for has awful management, and that's beyond my ability to fix -- you can't fix stupid. Best to just leave and work for someone who you can be productive for, instead of being fed self-induced problem after problem by witless, unsupportive, personnel managers.

Re:The norm for the industry?

[lamasquerade]

I hope 20 or so of those hours are paid overtime. I can't stand seeing some of my friends (grad lawyers and engineers) doing unpaid overtime because it's 'standard' in the industry or necessary to 'get ahead'. I'm out of here the second the clock strikes five (actually, usually 5 to 5 to get the good bus:) unless there's a project that needs to be worked on to meet deadline and I've got some pre-approved paid overtime (or some agrreed time off in lieu). Happily this is the norm at my company and it is the first job I had out of Uni, and I know it's harder to quit such a job if the culture in your workplace is all about unpaid overtime, but once you start submitting to that bullshit you can wave bye to your life IMO. If I didn't have a good five hours after work to relax and do other things I think I'd go quite mad...

Your life is not work.

[$ASANY]

...and your management shouldn't try to change that. Good management understands that they have to ensure that personnel expected to perform tasks have the experience and/or training to do those tasks. Your off time isn't theirs.

If they really think you're responsible for getting training in your off time, even if you're doing self-study, then it's time to get a new job. The market is good now, and you don't have to put up with idiots like this -- especially if the PHBs expect you to develop some instant affinity to Active Directory management. Yuck.

Okay, you asked for it...a female perspective!

[SlashChick]

Oh, sigh. I see the flame war erupting already, since Slashdot is primarily male. But this needs to be said anyway.

"My free time is valuable in that it allows me to take care of that which I can't during the day (grocery shopping, dog responsibilities, cleaning, etc."

WHY are you doing all of this grunt work IN ADDITION TO being the primary breadwinner of your household?

What is your husband doing?

Now, if your husband is doing 50%+ of the household work (I say plus, since you're the primary income), that's one thing, and I would argue that a housekeeper/cleaning service would save a lot of your sanity. That's a given. I hire a cleaning service to clean my house. I need to keep myself focused on work that benefits my career instead of busywork.

However, if your husband is not doing at least 50% of the job, that's a whole other can of worms, but one that I'm willing to open because I think it's an important point of discussion.

I read a great article about this the other day. It's called My Radical Married Feminist Manifesto, and it's a must-read for most women who are primary breadwinners and who are or plan to be married. It's in response to America's Stay-At-Home Feminists, which is in itself an important article to read.

One of the most important points of the article is as follows:

"The home-economics trap involves superior female knowledge and superior female sanitation. The solutions are ignorance and dust. Never figure out where the butter is. "Where's the butter?" Nora Ephron's legendary riff on marriage begins. In it, a man asks the question when looking directly at the butter container in the refrigerator. "Where's the butter?" actually means butter my toast, buy the butter, remember when we're out of butter. Next thing you know you're quitting your job at the law firm because you're so busy managing the butter. If women never start playing the household-manager role, the house will be dirty, but the realities of the physical world will trump the pull of gender ideology. Either the other adult in the family will take a hand or the children will grow up with robust immune systems."

Sounds like a trap that you might have fallen into, and even if you haven't, it's important to be aware of "the butter question" in case you get into this situation in the future.

In case you plan on having kids, I also want to quote this stunning piece (from the same article):

"Bad deals come in two forms: economics and home economics. The economic temptation is to assign the cost of child care to the woman's income. If a woman making $50,000 per year whose husband makes $100,000 decides to have a baby, and the cost of a full-time nanny is $30,000, the couple reason that, after paying 40 percent in taxes, she makes $30,000, just enough to pay the nanny. So she might as well stay home. This totally ignores that both adults are in the enterprise together and the demonstrable future loss of income, power, and security for the woman who quits. Instead, calculate that all parents make a total of $150,000 and take home $90,000. After paying a full-time nanny, they have $60,000 left to live on."

...which is so incredibly true that I'm amazed it's even looked at any other way. Remember that if you stay home to take care of the kid, this calculation assumes that your salary would have remained the same indefinitely -- an invalid assumption for a career-oriented woman.

I sincerely hope you haven't fallen prey to the butter question. However, if you have, now is the time to reassess who does the work in your marriage. Do it like you would any other job -- figure out which parts you can outsource (grocery shopping? You can shop online and get groceries delivered. Cleaning the house? You can hire someone) for very lit

Re:Okay, you asked for it...a female perspective!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Just, wow.

Project much?

Perhaps you shouldn't read so much into something you don't have the details for. Saying she is the primary breadwinner merely tells us that her yearly income is more than his. It does not tell us whether they both have full-time jobs or whether his is part-time or not. It does not carry any details of his job at all - he could be full-time, or a travelling salesman, or a contractor or anything requiring at least as much or more hours at work than her job requires.

There is absolutely no mention of how the household works - no claim that he isn't pulling his weight, or that he is preventing her from having children or any such nonsense.

Please get over your hatred of men, and learn not to poison others with your own twisted views of the world.

Re:Okay, you asked for it...a female perspective!

[swillden]

Remember that if you stay home to take care of the kid, this calculation assumes that your salary would have remained the same indefinitely -- an invalid assumption for a career-oriented woman.

But also remember that when making this decision, economics are far from the only consideration. You and your husband also need to consider whether or not you really want your kids to be raised by a nanny. More realistically, for most people the choice is between a stay-at-home mom or dad and day care, not a full-time nanny. In either case, you need to think about what is best for your kids, and what might be the rewards to the stay-at-home parent in terms of the opportunity to spend time with and bond with the children.

Personally, I've long wished that I had had the opportunity to be a stay-at-home dad. Since my wife's income was not adequate to support the whole family, and mine was, there wasn't much possibility of that. When our first child was born, she quit work and became a full-time mother. If you asked her about it, she'd tell you that although raising kids is harder and *much* more frustrating than any job, it's also much more rewarding, both for the kids and the parent.

Of course, being a full-time parent isn't for everyone, and perhaps a nanny is a better solution for some (or maybe not having kids is an even better choice), but serious consideration should be given to all of the non-economic aspects of what are perhaps the most important decisions of a couple's life.

Re:Okay, you asked for it...a female perspective!

[swillden]

Raising kids is harder???

Absolutely. Ever done it?

Umm yea, getting up and not having to get dressed, not having to sit in rush hour, not having to stress about possibly getting fired, not having to care what you look like etc...

How about getting up and having to get four kids dressed, fed and out the door to school on time, with all of their stuff? How about having to manage five peoples' schedules, not one, drive everyone to sports, dance, scouts, music lessons, etc., etc.? How about having to stress about whether or not your children are going to turn into responsible, educated adults (compared to that, the possibility of maybe losing a job is trivial). How about a job that you get to leave for only four or five hours a week (if that).

If we provide for them, they need to put in a fulltime job of providing a better lifestyle for us.

I can't speak for others, but my wife works much more than full time providing a better lifestyle for her family.

Show me a half decent looking woman, reasonably smart, and willing to pull her true "equal share of the load" in a relationship and I'll think about getting married one day.

There are lots of such women in the world. If you can't find them, you're not looking in the right places.

Raised some good points

[Pollux]

This isn't the norm. Any company who understands that downtime = $$$ down the crapper knows that investing money in human resource training pays for itself down the road.

You didn't give any detail about how large of a domain is in your hands, and I don't know exactly how much you so far understand or don't understand about Win2K3 administration, but I'll leave that for someone else to post on.

Following this thread, there are three things that you must do in order to succeed in a precarious position such as this:

1) Take a crash course in Win2K3 server, because that's what you're responsible for. Someone might want to start up a thread with recommendations about where to begin.

2) Open up lines of communication between you and the managers. The computer network has become the modern spinal cord of the business workforce, and communication leads to familiarity leads to confidence. In times of storm (i.e. network downtime), your company will have to put their trust in you that they'll make it through.

3) Explain the situation to your managers in a language they understand: the almighty dollar. Tell them the truth. They threw their money in a garbage bin when they trained the wrong person. Failure to invest in proper training for IT staff leads to increased downtime leads to loss of commerce leads to loss of money. Tell them that they will lose money because their investments (e-commerce) right now are not proected (properly trained personnel). It's all about money.

And if nobody listens, I would be very cautious. Find another job that will better support you as you become a better admin, rather than be put in one where, when something serious goes down, you get all the blame. Better to be led away from the fire than to lead someone into it.

Re:Raised some good points

[Billly Gates]

many employers are under the impression that if you can't learn on your or if you can't know everything about anything then you need to fire that person and replace them with someone who is.

Training today means incompetance to lots of folks in IT who consider us janitors that Indians do for $5k-10k a year. With salaries like that we get no respect and we are viewed as a cost center only.

Be blunt.

[Smoky D. Bear]

These are not IT people. You need to directly tell them "Things are not going as well as I know they should be. I need training if we want to get things back on track". If they aren't willing to pony up for course material, or at least start a discussion after this sort of statement, start looking.

The only reply...

[TheAncientHacker]

The only reasonable reply to bosses who say, "What if I train them and then they leave?" (which they WILL say if pushed for why they don't feel like investing in "their greatest resource") is, "What if you don't train them and they stay?"

Does you husband do anything?!

[rolfwind]

"I'm especially interested in hearing from the Slashdot readers of the female persuasion, as I have a husband, a dog, and a household to keep up with (no kids by choice, but I wouldn't have the time to take care of them, even if I wanted to). I also have the added responsibility of being the primary breadwinner. My free time is valuable in that it allows me to take care of that which I can't during the day (grocery shopping, dog responsibilities, cleaning, etc), and decompress/de-stress in order to prepare for the next day's work. I like tinkering with computers and learning new stuff, but I fear that if I'm expected train myself, outside of work, I may need to consider a different career.

Thanks in advance for the input."

Primary bread winner with no kids? Holy crap, does your husband do anything or sit around in his underwear all day.

2nd Question: Where can I find a geeky girl like you? It be almost as good as getting married to money:D

ASK! Don't assume.

[meburke]

You are the administrator. You tell THEM what's required to maintain the system properly. Your training is an essential component of network administration. They promoted you to the position, meaning they didn't go outside to hire someone who already had all the essential skills.

You obviously didn't sit down with management and get clear about all the responsibilities and outcomes; what's expected on both sides. You need to design a Win-Win solution and get them to buy in for their own benefit. If they pay for it, you should agree to an arrangement that doesn't leave them in the position of throwing money away. If you pay for it, you deserve a big raise and you are under no obligation to stay when another corporation offers you a raise and better benefits. Consider thinking up three alternatives that would satisfy you, and then negotiate the best elements of all of them for a Win-Win solution.

It may require some research to identify the gap between the skills you have and the skills you have to learn. Do it now, before the situation solidifies.

Some organizations will willfully ignore your plight, and before you know it you've spent years in the electronic sweatshop. Know what you want. For clarity, you might use the flowchart and worksheet from Robert Mager's, "Anayzing Performance Problems". http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1879618176/102-90 82980-8475324?v=glance&n=283155

There is a modified version of Mager's flowchart in this document: http://www.archertraining.co.uk/Documents/The%20Pe rformance%20Trainer.pdf

Here's a spot that could help you determine your learning goals, although it's aimed at people designing courseware: http://www.bryanhopkins.co.uk/learning_design/lear ning_map.htm

Lastly, remember it's your life. The company doesn't care for you like your family does. Nobody ever died and said, "I wish I'd spent more time at the office." (unless they were married to my ex-wife). Your work and the rest of your life need to be in alignment.

These are my opinions, of course, based on 40 years of programming.

He's discovering reality. Isn't it cute?

[crovira]

I just love the way the stars in their eyes fade to be replaced by the circles and bags under where the glow was.

Congratulations. You're beginning to wake the fuck up.

Rule 1: Companies need to generate profits. Cash flows from the customers pockets to the stock holders pockets. In order to maximize profits, there must be as little spent on things that are known in accounting circles as expenses.

There is no rule 2, only legal complience issues.

Training is an expense. Training is expendable.

Hell, you are an expense. If you weren't being paid so much, or at all, the stock holders would be delighted.

Hint: When ever you hear somebody say "Our employees are our greatest asset" they're lying, or they don't understand basic accounting, or they're slavers and illegal after-market organ transplanters.

If management doesn't seem interested, its because they aren't. All the arguments about it being counter-productive and costing more in the end don't matter.

See rule 1.

Re:He's discovering reality. Isn't it cute?

[garyboodhoo]

If you cannot hack it, then you were never worth that much in the first place.

That's unnecessarily harsh and also unrealistic. While I've chosen to live on my own terms, I've also gained priceless experience/knowledge working for certain companies. The scale of certain (non-niche) projects often requires greater resources and better distribution than any individual or group of individuals will be able to muster. Not forming your own ventures has nothing to do with native intelligence or initiative. Some people either don't want to or simply aren't suited for it.

Certainly, not all companies are created equal, and there are those who do in fact choose to hide inside companies, trapped by self doubt or cluelessness. However, your argument doesn't account for other possibilities. According to you, a talented animator or software engineer (for example) working on a contractual basis would be a fool to accept a position at a company like Apple, Google, ILM, Blizzard, EA, etc... where she'd gain excellent benefits, stock options and regular exposure to new methods & ideas.

Re:He's discovering reality. Isn't it cute?

[sirwired]

The only way to make what you are worth is to go into business for yourself. If you cannot hack it, then you were never worth that much in the first place. ... If they were smart enough to actually do something with their life other than working for someone else, then they would branch off and start their own company. If they arent smart enough, then I am doing them a favor by employing them and helping them feed themselves.

I know SlashDot isn't exactly the place to go for humility, but this statement is pretty damn arrogant. There are some people (like myself), that LIKE not having to worry about anything but the technology. I am an Engineer. That is what I do. I am pretty damn good at it. I don't want to be a marketer, accountant, salesman, lawyer, manager, or even supervisor. Those functions are all necessary time (or money) sinks for anybody going alone, especially if you have one or more employees. Doing all that "overhead" crap would subtract from the time I get to do the work I enjoy doing. This doesn't mean I am not worth anything (my employer certainly would diasgree, given what they are paying me), it means that I choose to be an Engineer, not an entrepenur. I like having my gargantutan employer do all that other crap. I show up to work every day, I work what I consider to be reasonable hours every week, (50 or so) and I get my paycheck twice a month. In return, my employer charges customers about 2 1/2 times what they pay me.

That is more fair than it sounds.

I remember reading somewhere in a "guide to being an independent consultant", that if you plan to actually make money, your hourly rate should be three times what you would get in an equivalent hourly job. This covers downtime, the value of the benefits you aren't getting from your employer anymore, overhead expenses, etc.

In return for paying me far less than what they get paid, they will sell my services, write contracs, give me health insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, a retirement plan, bill the customer, collect payment, arrange financing, pay me to go to conferences, give me "downtime" to muck about in the lab doing whatever the heck I want on equipment I couldn't possibly afford on my own, (or cost-justify in any business with less than 1000+ employees), give me time off to go write a book (about their products of course, but it is still a refreshing change of pace), etc. Most important to me as an Engineer is the chance to be a part of something far bigger than anything I could arrange on my own. Let others get all the glory for being the fearless leader, just let me do my job doing something I enjoy, and kicking butt doing it.

It is almost guaranteed that you arent being paid what you are worth, because then where is the profit for your employer?

This is an idiotic statement. Have you EVER heard of the concept of "value add"? Or for that matter, do you even UNDERSTAND the concept of a "fair trade"? Business is not a "zero-sum" game. They go over this in every "intro to business" course.

The computer you write your little programs on... where did you get it? Naturally you bought it from some place that sells computers (or computer parts, if that is your thing). Why did you buy the computer? After all, you could have created your own CPU, designed your own motherboard, built your own hard drive, created all your cables, designed a power supply, etc.? Somebody else (the computer seller) just made a profit off of you! Why didn't you do all those things? Because it was a heck of a lot easier and cheaper to let somebody else make a million computers, and sell you one of them, than it was for you to make your own, starting from scratch.

You paid good money to the computer seller because you thought you could derive more value from owning the computer than you were paying the seller give you one. You received what you felt to be a good value for the money paid. The seller of the computer we would assume received enough money fr

Your training, your responsibility

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Having a company that's willing to pay for training is nice, it really is.

But the reality is its your career and your responsibility. My first job was with a company that gave a little training to programmers. Most of them griped and complained that they weren't getting enough training. Which was almost true, they had enough training to get started, but they weren't getting nearly enough experience. A few of us took some personal initative and developed useful skills. We actually studied things beyond basic CS. When everybody finally bailed or was laid off, those of us who studied got jobs as engineers and systems admins. The others ended up testers

There is no standard. What deal do you want?

[rhadc]

Companies have vastly different expectations, and there are no standards. Larger companies expect to do more training, and smaller companies will find the $3k outside training courses a bit difficult to swallow.

    Your company will take as much as you can give them. The best technical IT workers have done a substantial amount of work off the clock. How good do you want to be, and how much will you be able to offer a company after a layoff in a bad job market?

    My suggestion to anyone in your situation would be to spend as much time as you are comfortable, and to spend that time learning transferable skills. Spending time learning internet standards would make more sense than spending time learning your company's proprietary products, in the case where you can choose. If you know something, it would also be a good idea to make documented accomplishments.

    If you are thinking of leaving for a more supportive company, and you live in the US, I think now is a great time. Companies are having quite a hard time finding good people.

Good luck

rhadc

Asking slashdot won't help

[NullProg]

This is not a flamebait response, but most moderators will treat it so.

"I'm currently working as a Microsoft Systems Administrator. Through a series of bungled management decisions, have found myself responsible for a Windows Server 2003 Active Directory network, that I know nothing about (the person who was sent for training was: not the Microsoft point person, as I was; and left the company, soon after the domain upgrade).

Your a Microsoft Adminstrator but you know nothing of AD services. Your on Par with most MCSE/MSVP/PMS/MS whatever certificate holding persons. Your fine, it's just that most of what you need to know is buried in Microsofts SDK documentation.


It doesn't look as though training will be forthcoming, and I've just been moved from the lab, where I was training myself while simultaneously handling the domain. I've got the MCSA/MCSE Training Kit, but recently I've found numerous errors, so many that I was sent a free Press Kit book, for submitting all of the errors I had found. Between management's reluctance to shell out for training, and being moved from the lab, I'm getting the distinct sense that training is something I'm expected to take care of, on my own time. Is this the de-facto standard within IT, and for all jobs within IT?

Is it your career or mangements career? Who trained Bill Gates or Wozniak? Its up to you to figure stuff out. If your into computers why should you care about the platform? Your next job could be Windows/AIX/AS400/Linux whatever. Always be ready for the next career jump.


If so, how do you Slashdot readers keep up with your continuing education, while still maintaining a personal life? Is it naive to try to leave my work at work?"
"I'm especially interested in hearing from the Slashdot readers of the female persuasion, as I have a husband, a dog, and a household to keep up with (no kids by choice, but I wouldn't have the time to take care of them, even if I wanted to).

I'm male. I have a wife and three kids, one dog and one cat and a habitat they all call home. Yes I work overtime most/sometimes. We do family things on the weekends. I'm currently learning OCAML in my private time (I get up early on weekends, have coffee and learn something new). Whats your problem?


I also have the added responsibility of being the primary breadwinner. My free time is valuable in that it allows me to take care of that which I can't during the day (grocery shopping, dog responsibilities, cleaning, etc), and decompress/de-stress in order to prepare for the next day's work. I like tinkering with computers and learning new stuff, but I fear that if I'm expected train myself, outside of work, I may need to consider a different career.

You may need a new significant other if he/she is not willing to share (along with his/hers) in the responsibilties of your lifes vision quest. I have time to play network games with my kids, satisfy my wife, work (+- 50 hours), play with my dog, and clean house when my wife is too busy.

Without trying to sound mean, whats your problem? Is everything supposed to be given to you?

I like computers, its a life choice for me. Maybe you don't. My advice? Use common sense and choose your own path.

Enjoy,

Re:Normal for my employer

[AKAImBatman]

I'm lucky if they tell me what day it is.

That's right. Because you're expected to do your job. If you need information, go find it. It doesn't matter how many people you have to push your way past. Find what you need, and act on it. You may annoy several folks along the way (do try to be somewhat cordial about it), but you'll become invaluable simply because you're the one who gets the job done.

Here's my advice for the submitter:

1. Make a plan. It doesn't have to be anything fancy. Just identify the problem and find the solution that you think will best solve it. If it's training, then make that your plan. If it's simply some reference materials, then make that your plan.

2. Sit down with your boss when you get a chance and say, "Hey, we've got this hole in our operations. It's a big problem for the company as a whole as we're not able to respond as well as we should be. Here's the plan I'd like to execute."

3. If you've got a good boss, your plan will actually be increased seven fold just to ensure that it gets done right. If you've got a mediocre boss, you'll get what you asked for. If you've got a REALLY bad boss, you won't get anything other than a "make due". Since you're already "making due", you're not going to lose anything. Plus you have some ammo in case your boss's boss ever happens to question the operations of your department.

4. ???

5. Profit!!! (Just to be complete.) ;-)

I know that coporate life seems like a bottomless pit sometimes. But no one else is going to change it, so you might as well make your own best effort. As long as you make something of an effort not to tick off every higher-up you meet, you should gain at least some leverage. Good luck! :-)

Re:From the across the desk

[kaiser423]

I agree with every sentiment of your post except for this one:

Its not about taking your work home with you; its about getting paid to do work that you enjoy. This work I do was my hobby before it became my career. I enjoy it immensely and I want people around me who feel the same way. If you're just here for the paycheck then I hired the wrong guy. You won't deliver the standard of quality I want because when push comes to shove you just don't care.

I do take my work home because I love it; but I can't say that I'm able to get more than an hour or two of half-assed work done at home before I realize that I'm gonna be burnt out on it the next day.

The most motivated, intelligent and best employees I've worked with have often been those who punch out exactly on time. They love their work, and they'll work obscene hours if needed. But they know what they like to do, and they know how to do it. Pure business for a 9 hour workday, and then a straight line to the door -- they have other activities in their life that are different, interesting, and keep them from being burnt out! In my book, knowing that is a quality judgement. Knowing where your point of diminishing returns is is crucial to being good at your job.

I'm not saying that you're wrong. People who do their job as a hobby also are usually great employees, I'm just saying that the people who have the motivation and will-power to stand up to a boss like you and demand a fine line between work and the rest of their lives also usually have great qualities that you want in an employee. They think that the job is "worth working for its own sake," they just have other things that also are -- and let's be honest here, they're working not only to enrich you, but themselves also. You're not selling yourself short here, so why disrespect other people who demand their fair compensation also?

A company might get built on a one-trick workhorse, but they rarely survive for long on one.

If the company respects its employees

[drgroove]

it will train them to fulfill their job functions.

If not, it won't.

It is up to you to decide if it is worth staying with a company that shows this kind of disdain and disrespect for you and its employees.

There are plenty of companies that respect their workers and will train them. I strongly recommend finding one.

one strategy...

[Bobzibub]

Suggest to the powers-that-be in a memo thus:

The Active directory is dependent upon one (or two) nodes that may go kaput. In such a situation, nobody can log in. Nobody can do any work. This could cost a day or two of lost productivity plus chaos.

The problem may not be solvable without the assistance of highly trained contractors. "Best practices" demands that we have some sort of backup plan.

We have two options: hire a contractor on the spot or get some support when the emergency happens.

Appendix I. Emergency Assitance 24/7:
Contractor A:
rate: $XXX per hour

Contractor B:
rate: $XXX per hour

Contractor C:
rate: $XXX per hour.

Appendix II. Support fees for Active Directory with x nodes:
Contractor A:
Base: $XXXX
Monthly: $XXX

Contractor B:
Base: $XXXX
Monthly: $XXX

etc.

That should scare the bjesus out of them. Once it is in Memo format, it is on the record and ready for discovery with any law suites. They will act because they are legally obliged to prevent loss to their shareholders and there is a memo floating around that will incriminate them should any disaster happen. Put all that in an attached word doc and in your email mention that you are extremely eager to help rectify this situation in any way possible! If that takes improving my skills, I will do it!

Hope that helps.

Cheers,
-b

Re:From the across the desk

[Spazmania]

Don't get me wrong. Generally speaking, I don't want you to take your work home with you. You'd burn out, just as you say. When quitting time roles around, go home. The work will still be here tomorrow and you'll be freshly rested.

But if you're one of my sysadmins, I don't want to hear that you have a $9.95 netzero account and a windows 98 box. No one who likes the work could tolerate such a setup. I want to hear that you have DSL with static IPs, 256 meg video cards and a blog. I want to hear that geeked out with whatever app or game is hot this month. Not because its relevant to work but because its fun.

And along the way you'll pick up a lot of knowledge that turns out to be relevant to work. And you'll share it with us. That's good too.

Choices for both

[mswope]

You have choices and so does your employer. If you are too far below the requirements to train you to effectively do your new job in a short amount of money, er, time, you are probably going to be replaced. This happens fairly often.

If you believe that they might afford you the time and money for training, ask them and have a tangible cost/benefit arguement in mind for the inevitable questions.

If you can't make headway and if you believe that you can train yourself to the job in a reasonable amount of time, use your time at work as a primary resource for learning. This should make sense to your employer if they really understand that this is the position that they put you in. This is not to say that you wouldn't put in a bit of time on the bus to and from home, in the evenings or in the morning before work. After all, you gotta look like you're learning the stuff at an extraordinary speed, right? :-) If you truly enjoy the topic, you'll probably be reading about it in your spare time anyway. I got several certs that way myself - studying on the bus, an extra hour before work, a few late nights...

If all this doesn't work for them or for you, the last choice is to do the best that you can, documenting everything, without killing yourself in the process. You *do* have a life outside the server room and you can reasonably expect to be left to live it, even if you aren't given the means to adequately prepare for the work you have to do.

Re:Oddly enough...

[Descalzo]

"How anyone can presume a business has your best interests at heart, and freely gives a business the keys to effect your life at a massive scale (i.e. Healthcare) without better regulation is an incredible insult to human intelligence."

Well, what do you suggest? Let the government do it? Do you trust the US gov't with that kind of control over your family?

I am getting less and less happy with my employer all the time. Increased commands, less professional treatment, lowering my benefits, pay not keeping up with increased cost-of-living. That's why my wife and I are thinking of moving. Moving is MUCH easier than emigrating.

I don't want to trade in my responsibility for my family's health for a little dubious security, but don't worry, though, you'll have your socialist government soon enough.

It blows my mind that people believe increased dependence on the government is a good thing.

Hehe, keep your words in mind kid :)

[DaedalusHKX]

This will be revisited when YOU are on the other end of the blade :)

Remember your words when you've spent 40k and 5 years of college learning a subject which recently became the target of massive outsourcing and layoffs.

I look forward to seeing if you make it past that, I have :) but that doesn't mean I don't look out for my fellow man, which, I believe, is what makes me a better citizen than you. I don't help others only when it gives me a tax break.

~D

Re:From the across the desk

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I want to hear that you have DSL with static IPs, 256 meg video cards and a blog. I want to hear that geeked out with whatever app or game is hot this month.

Maybe when I was 23. I'm 30 now, and my interests have diversified. I've also noticed that precious little of what's hot this month ever lasts past next month.

God God!!!

[Run4yourlives]

Normally I don't post these kinds of comments, but you need it.

Your (possessive) :: I like your bike, I stole your imaginary girlfriend.

You're (contraction of two words, you & are) :: You're a Microsoft Administrator. You're fine. (which in itself is incorrect, but I won't get into that)

If you can take out the "your" and replace it with "you are"; and the sentence still makes sense, you've spelt it incorrectly.

You made that error so many times I stopped reading after the third paragraph. If English is not your first language, lesson learned.

If it is... good great God learn to spell. People like me (a project manager) look at bad spelling as a reflection of intelligence - a fitting appendix to the thread here as well.

Typos are excusable, ignorance of language is not.

Hmmm. Not sure on that one.

[jd]

Time is money. The more time that is spent looking things up, the more money is being spent, so the more it costs to get whatever it is done. Ergo, the most profitable way to get things done is to have maximum information to hand, because then the least time is used in learning how to be productive, rather than being productive.

Companies are there to make money. You are there to make a pay check. The pay check is pre-determined by whatever you signed onto, the profit of the company is determined solely by return on investment (over the long haul). You are not there to make the company money, that is the job of the company. If you were there to make the company money, you would be making the decisions, not following them. You'd also have a budget, as investments aren't free.

Training is an investment. You can choose to train yourself (by going to courses, etc) but the only time that makes sense is if you're getting a ROI (return on investment) such as a raise or a job somewhere else that pays enough more that you'll get the investment back and more before you'd get anything more than a cost-of-living raise as things stand.

In general, though, investments are the business of the company because they are the ones who are looking for return. No investment, no return. In practice, companies won't do this because they're cheap. It's much more cost-effective to hire someone at a dirt-cheap rate, force THEM to make the investment, but ensure they never get any return from it. Many companies will even regard training as using up vacation time (which is usually unpaid) so you get ripped off three ways at once and essentially end up paying your employer for the dubious priviledge of doing their work for them.

In another sense, since the work goes to support the national ecomony, the training ALSO goes to support the national ecomony, AND since a skilled workforce is likely to attract more jobs, I'd argue that the Government actually has a greater responsibility in paying the costs than you do. A highly skilled, highly educated workforce is far more beneficial to them than it is to you personally.

However, theory is immaterial if it isn't how things work in practice. How things work in practice is that employees have to do not only their own jobs but everyone else's job too. It sucks, it's a crappy system, it's inherently unstable and will eventually collapse, but it is the way it is done. That means that you pay for your training, whether you ever see an ounce of benefit or not.

The best I can suggest to anyone in that situation is to grab some used textbooks, download a trial version of whatever it is, and practice at home. It'll cost a lot less. You might not do as good a job at work, but if they don't care, then let them suffer with the long-term consequences. If the consequences aren't on your job description, they're not yours to worry about. Sure, that's self-centered, but copmpanies (and Governments) will never learn good conduct if ethical employees keep enabling them. Treat them like they're a drug addict. Don't enable. If you do, you just become part of the problem.

Re:Oddly enough...

[tacocat]

Here's a way to limit their power: stop paying them.

You really need to learn something about capitalism. There is little relationship between the employees and the consumers/customers in a company. How is it that Nike has been accused for many years of running third world sweat shops (as has the rest of the garment industry) and yet the first thing we are concerned with when buying clothes is the cost. There is nothing which will stop this from happening unless it is artificially implimented (government regulations).

But nothing will fix this on it's own.

A wise saying about training...

[Punk Walrus]

I have a button in my pod that says:

A man once asked me, "What if I train my employees and they leave?" So I asked, "What if you do NOT train them, and they stay?"

Re:Oddly enough...

[Qzukk]

I don't want to trade in my responsibility for my family's health for a little dubious security

So you'd rather have a company cut corners on your health to keep their stockholders happy? By the way, the HMO reviewed your case and decided that you're just too expensive to keep alive. Please shuffle over to the approved waiting area/pile of bodies and wait for the end.

At least the government's stated goal isn't to make money above all else. In the real world, they'd probably suck too, so I don't really have any answer other than a pipe dream of people ditching the whole materialistic thing, giving up million dollar mansions and driving up the prices of property in order to turn a profit and worrying more about their bling than solving problems.

Re:Hehe, keep your words in mind kid :)

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that as far as non-college training and certification processes go, the price has been driven up by companies who do buy the training and certification for their employees. Take the CISSP for example, the assorted tests required for certification alone would be roughly half my salary, assuming that I already knew everything on the tests and didn't have to take classes. Three day seminars are regularly thousands of dollars, because they're aimed at getting companies to send people, not at individuals looking to better themselves on "their own time" (not to mention these are all on weekdays, I'd pay thousands out of pocket for some of these if they were over a weekend, but taking three days in a row off work is too much when one works for a small company like mine).

Re:Oddly enough...

[jdavidb]

Pretty cool insight. Personally, I grew up aware that many companies would try to take more time than they were entitled to, so I entered the workforce prepared to make my stand and say "No." I work for a large corporation (with all the heartlessness, bureaucracy, and inefficiency that entails) where I started as a co-op student. When I became a full time "exempt" (salaried: they don't pay me for overtime) employee, I quickly realized there were no benefits for me, only potential benefits for my employer. So I strengthened the backbone I had already grown. Now I'm married, and still trying to finish my master's degree. I have a life and responsibilities outside of work. But even if I did not, it is still My Time.

When work needs me for emergencies or a big push, I've got no problem with it. But in general, I simply do not work more than forty hours a week. I change managers frequently, and when I get into a new organization there's often a lot of highly-stressed people expecting that we're all going to have to put in a ton of overtime. I never let that faze me. I figure out what tasks need to be completed by when and move heaven and earth to complete them before that date during my normal work weeks if at all possible. When people ask me to show up for extra work (non-emergency), I explain that I have something previously scheduled. And I always do. I am a very busy man. As I said, I have a life.

This has worked just fine for the last decade. All I needed was a backbone.

Re:Of course. Capitalism no longer has competition

[jdavidb]

That's actually a really cool thought. I'm a laissez-faire capitalist, and it is still very interesting.

Under the system I envision, groups would be free to form communist, socialist, or whatever systems for themselves within the larger system. They just wouldn't have the right to force participation from everybody. That would provide a lot more competition, and I've always seen that as one of the benefits. Indeed, I'd argue that without that kind of freedom, we are not truly Free.

Budget vs. Risk

[SloppyElvis]

I know nothing about your company, but in my experience, training budgets are decided at the onset of each fiscal year. These budgets are balanced against monies slated for employee compensation increases, perhaps additional employees, contractors, tools, etc. If your company doesn't keep some money for employee training, than it doesn't believe investing in employees is worthwhile, and you may want to check your other options.

Take heart, this is not simply an IT issue, it is a corporate issue.

Here are some things to ask yourself...

How frequently do employees "rise in the ranks" at your company?
Are new higher-up positions always filled with people off the street?
Does your company have any benefits for continuing adult education? Tuition reimbursement?

How important is this domain that you now control?
What would be the cost to the business if you left?

If your company is blind to employee education as an investment in the business, than you may be able to remind your supervisor that the cost of replacement will be higher than the cost of training. Of course, don't bluff with your job, be prepared to walk if your going to lay it on the table. You don't need to threaten to quit to get the message across. Ultimately, your supervisor will need to answer for their decisions, and if those decisions are costing the company money, they will be in a tough situation. Remember, if you've agressively pursued training, and not recieved it, you have a good stand against a boss who thinks training is your responsibility. Placing unqualified people in important positions is bad management, plain and simple.

Re:Community =! Government

[Anonymous Coward]

"The community should band together to help those people"

Yes! For sure!

And that "banding together" we call "Govermenment" in civilized countries.