Slashdot Mirror
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."
Thanks in advance for the input."
I'm lucky if they tell me what day it is.
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.
Is it fascism yet?
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.
No.
I have eight guys in my specific dept (a section of security). As it stands right now, we are averaging about 10,000 USD per person for training this year. It will probably double before the end.
Every company I've worked for (small, large, huge) have either paid for or reimbursed employees for relevant training.
"This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
In fact this Sunday I'll be off to Melbourne for another course of a week, the second admin course for HPOV Performance Insight. Without the training I can't imaigine being able to deploy and support this quite complex (and not overly intuitive) product, it would in fact be negligent to have me do so.
I'd reccommend taking your need for education to your managemnt quite firmly, and if they won't budge look elsewhere - not just because of this particular issue, but because such behaviour is indicative of a lack of management vision IMO. If they can't outlay some cash now to train for the future it doesn't sound like they'll have much of a future to worry about - at least not a very interesting high growth one.
// It had been Fat's delusion for years that he could help people. --Philip K. Dick, Valis
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.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I moved from being an Excel junkie to being a network administrator with 5 servers. I had not used Active Directory or Windows Server 2003 before this point, so it was all new to me. My boss knows less than I do, and the people who installed the equipment basically showed us how to set up a new user when it was necessary.
Nobody told us how to map home folders, shared network drives, printers, set file permissions, or anything else. Everything I know was learned on my own, however, it was all researched on company time.
They've been pleased with the system so far. It's not too hard to learn.
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
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
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.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
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.
My amazing wife - Artist, Author, Philosopher - Laurie M
How do you Slashdot readers keep up with your continuing education, while still maintaining a personal life?
Your question implies a misunderstanding.
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
I manage a technical staff of about 35, mostly developers. When hiring I always try and determine what they have taught themselves recently, and within the company it is not hard for me to tell you who pushes themselves to keep their skill sets current. Such people do better in the market place, both when looking for a job, and then advancing once they get a job. End of story. It is a competitive world out there. Regardless of the training your employer gives you, you should make sure to invest regularly in your knowledge portfolio, as they say in the Pragmatic Programmer.
I have seen many sad situations where long time employees who have not kept their skill set up to date are laid off -- usually by forces beyond their control, like a merger or something -- and they wonder frantically how they are going to get another job. Don't let yourself be found in this position.
This may be similar where you live, in Canada if a company requires that you keep your skill-set up-to-date then they are required to provide funding.
But the easy way out for some companies is to state that it is not a job-requirement.
3 points I want to make.
a) get out of there. it sounds like a poison place to work if they pull that kind of shit on you.
b) When you do go for your training, make sure you do ALL studying, preparing on WORK time, do not bring it home with you.
c) To answer your question; No it is not part of the IT climate. Like I said; get out of there.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
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.
Impossible = A fun challenge
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.
Some companies are terrific at sending their people to training. I used to work for one of those (IT outsourcer here). When we met with the end-users, they loved us, because we knew what the heck we were doing, and it showed in our work. Alas, due to a tragedy at the highest level, the company founders decided to dismantle the company and sell out.
My new employer is significantly more stingy with the training dollars.
Due to other factors we nearly lost the contract (could lose it still). But - the company has had to shell out a ton of money in an attempt to save the contract, and somewhere the light bulb went on: it isn't worth all this money, if the staff can't out-perform the competition.
So this year, they have paid for time and tuition for about eight people, where for the previous three years we got zilch. Heck - I got my CCNA, and two of us got their CCNP's. :-)
With all this training, and the professionalism that comes from knowing you are a subject-matter expert, morale is tremendously improved. And that is reflected in customer satisfaction.
If your employer won't train you, look for a place that doesn't run the joint like the Keystone Kops.
"The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
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.
"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:
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):
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
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
There is experience that will follow you even though technologies change; what I learnt while using DOS is still relevant (creating directories is still something I do); a strong OOP formation in C++ makes Java/C# easier; knowing how pointers work makes a better coder in any language.
Even if experience is a great mistress, everything changes so quickly that continuous self-education I think is a must. Recall all the hot technologies of 1996 - only 10 years ago, a small fraction of your life in the workforce. Almost nobody wrote Java, C#/.NET didn't exist, most dynamic webpages were written in Perl, CSS wasn't there yet, XML was unborn, there were no "Seamless Open Integrated Solution Providers (!)", etc, etc, etc. Now think 1985. 1975. 1965. Somebody born in 1945 and who worked all his life on computers will retire in 2010.
Problem with courses is that they always lag a couple of years behind - they still teach table-based HTML tagsoup... and though you may have a 12-hour intensive session on a subject, you won't be ready to use it before you play on your own time with it.
You don't need to lose your life, I guess spending a couple of hours a week on new technologies is more than enough. You don't have to know everything, just focus on what is created in your field.
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.
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.
My first IT job was running the mainframe at a chain of auto parts stores. The boss purchased several Windows 95 desktops and a Netware 4.1 server. He called me into the office and said, "I spent too much already on this, so I can't send you for training. Go to Borders, buy some books, and we'll reimburse you."
Best thing that ever happened to me.
Since then, I've been pushed off the turnip truck into new environments more times than I can recall. Each time, I have turned the hardship into an opportunity to become a Subject Matter Expert. Sure, I didn't get any extra money then for the off-hours time I devoted, but I made up for it later.
In a perfect world, you and your employer are both responsible for training. You would need to find out what you needed to learn, show the initiative to plan it, and take the time out of Real Life to attend some classes and do the work necessary to advance your career.
In return, the employer would reimburse you for your training, and recognize your increased expertise with more money and respect as your skills grew.
The reality is that this sounds like a far-from ideal employer that also got burned last time they paid for someone's certification and then lost them. So you'd probably have to take most of the initiative to advance your skillset. It's worth it - and you can learn a lot of stuff pretty cheaply just with the combination of a couple of middling boxes with plenty of RAM, VMware, and a subscription to the MS Action Pack along with a few books. For a pretty small investment of time and probably a couple of thousand dollars, you can teach yourself enough to know, at the very least, whether you want to stay on the sysadmin side of the business, and at best you can get a great head start on an MCSE (If you want one). It also makes for a very low-pressure way to learn more off-hours when you want to.
Ultimately, if you want to stay in the field and you want to stay with this employer you'll have to show them the folly of their training-miserly ways. Picking up some good AD kung-fu is part of the puzzle - and if need be it'll be a good way to brush up for the job interview with your next employer!
In this business the unfortunate reality is that while you can have a life, it's tough to keep up if you do. I'm lucky now - working for myself I can designate some time for the "keeping up" during the workweek, but when the customers want me they get me, even if I've set up downtime (I do charge a lot more for any off-hours work, and as a result I don't have to deal with things too often outside of the workday at least). So you can have a life - but it helps if you really, really like IT work. In general, though, formal training is something that the employer should provide some time for, but you should be willing to pitch in as well. And the homework and studying is something you're on your own for. It's partly to help in your day-to-day work, but it's also career advancement as well. Both parties gain, so both parties (should) give.
One relevant example from my old career: when I was an IT manager (prior to my old company getting bought and shrunken - part of why I'm on my own now) I had a staff with three techs. I had the training budget to send them all to class if I wanted, but I would only do so if they were willing to spend some of their personal time in pursuit of the goal as well. Typically I'd allow up to a day out of the office per week over a period of a couple of months during that, pay for everything including materials, and pay for the testing. I wouldn't send folks out for things like a 2-week bootcamp or anything of that sort. Was that the most progressive training policy around? No, but it was a reasonable and fair one, balancing my interests (as manager and company representative) with the interests of my employees. Of six people who worked for me during the five years I was there, only one never took us up on the training offer (the person liked their limited function and wasn't really interested in advancing), one left after a year to transfer back to their old department, and the other four went to classes. Of them, I lost one a month after they got their MCSE - they went to a dot-com for over $25k more than I was paying. Neither that nor the dot-com lasted. Go figure.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
I can speak to this issue from the other side of the desk.
1. Yes, you are supposed to teach yourself. When I hire, I look for folks who are always learning, all day, every day. "Training" means I have to pay good money to have you absent from work for a week every couple months so that you can come back and spout off about the way X-Corp says it should be done instead of the way that would actually integrate into the system I spent years building. No thanks!
If you need a reference book, I'll buy it for you. If you want to take some night courses in computer science so that you can get a better grounding in the fundamentals then I'll help out in whatever way I can. Just don't waste my time or yours with these so-called training courses.
2. I expect that you'll spend a certain amount of time at work experimenting and gathering knowledge about the software and hardware you use to make my systems run. That's part of the job. You don't have to know everything ahead of time, you just have to know how to figure it out.
If you were a consultant it would be different. I'll pay a consultant twice what I pay you because I expect him to already have the answers when he hits my door. If HE doesn't know, he won't be invited back and if its bad enough he won't be paid. You, as an employee, have more leeway.
3. I expect that you'll spend a certain amount of time at home using similar technologies in the pursuit of your own hobbies. I expect that you'll learn things there that you apply to work just as you learn things at work that you'll apply to your hobbies.
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.
Now, if you're like four out of five people out there then having read this you think I'm full of shit. And that's OK. There are plenty of suck jobs out there that will pay you well enough to drive a nice car and vacation at the beach. I wish you all the best in life and may you find your bliss.
But if you're the one out of five that finds the job worth working for its own sake then I want you working with me.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
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?"
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
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.
0 82980-8475324?v=glance&n=283155
e rformance%20Trainer.pdf
r ning_map.htm
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/1879618176/102-9
There is a modified version of Mager's flowchart in this document: http://www.archertraining.co.uk/Documents/The%20P
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/lea
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.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
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.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
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
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
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
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,
It's just the normal noises in here.
That being said, I was given no "lab time" as Cliff implied. All studying and training was to be done at home. I purchased my own cheap server through Dell, installed Server2k3 on it, and created my own home domain, to which I attached a few boxes. I was continually pressured to advance and achieve, and to be more like my boss, whose home network put the average proffessional installation to shame. This continual pressure to give up my own time to advance is what eventually prompted me to leave the company.
Training materials and testing is expensive. My company gave me all of the financial help with training it could, but expected me to do all of myself and on my own time. Even though I left because of it, I still have to say that the arrangement seems more than fair.
P.S. Cliff, would you like to buy a used Dell server? Cheap!
I grew up under communist policies, and then moved here...
In the last 15 to 20 years I've seen the following VERY disturbing trend here in the USA.
People here do not leave their work at work. We work EXCESSIVE hours and are expected to kill ourselves, damage our health and wound our minds to "be more productive" or "increase productivity". (Ever since I left IT, I sleep more, I have more restful sleep, and I'm not at the edge of becoming homicidal.)
In Europe, even the eastern side, people left their work at work. I recall my mother telling me stories when I started hating the working world I encountered here. "Yep, I remember how we used to have it back home, it wasn't as bad as it seemed, now that I think about it. At least we had assured work, nobody got laid off, everyone had assured (and delivered, without need for lawsuits) pensions and retirement, and when they walked out the door at the end of the day, and off the premises, the coat of "labor" wore off, and it was time to enjoy life.
(Nevermind that she left for work at 0700, came back around 1600 in the afternoon, that would be, 4 o'clock for those who cannot read 24 hr clocks.)
I don't know, but now that I look back at it, the commies weren't nearly as abusive in the work place (corruption was rampant, but at LEAST one could actually get ahead based on their skills, if those skills were formidable, here, its very hard because your healthcare is assured by massive expenses, and the healthcare is rarely there when needed, because most people do not want to "get into expenses", I should know, I've been there... or perhaps "they can't find the time" (I've spent weeks trying to plot a day off to go get a filling for a tooth...)
~D
PS - I'm not praising communism, but I am saying that there are some merits to limiting the amount of power CEO's and CoB's have. Perhaps even making them "the people"... it wouldn't hurt to make those dirty bastards have to EARN a living. They bleed the same as we do, perhaps they should put something back into society before they see another dime.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
...work finishes YOU.
Czech language for absolute beginners
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.
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
Ask yourself, who trains the trainer and who trained the trainer's trainer and so on.. the n th trainer.. Answer - No body, he/she trained him/herself from the product manuals, It is important to study computer science(not applications) as basic education and then whenever a new product/tool/apps is launched, read the product literature/reference manual etc.. and train your self.
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 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 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 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.
This will be revisited when YOU are on the other end of the blade :)
:) 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.
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
~D
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
With that competitive threat removed, capitalism can be as nasty as it wants to be. Because it has monopoly power now.
Nothing more to say, have I. At least not in response to that comment. I will eagerly await all of MH42's replies to my comments when I return from my run today. Again... VERY WELL PUT!
~D
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Many companies hire whomever is trained in what the company needs. The problem is that once the company needs a worker who knows X--and you don't--you'll find yourself laid off.
The company sees it as easier and less expensive to hire workers, burn them out, refuse to pay for new education, and hire those who have paid for their own training.
Disgusting, but true. The bright side of this phenomenon is that word tends to get around, and after 2-3 years, finds itself tacitly 'blacklisted' among IT workers in that city.
Normally I don't post these kinds of comments, but you need it.
:: I like your bike, I stole your imaginary girlfriend.
:: You're a Microsoft Administrator. You're fine. (which in itself is incorrect, but I won't get into that)
Your (possessive)
You're (contraction of two words, you & are)
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.
Which ties back into the original subject rather neatly, I think. If your employer pays for you to learn new stuff, good for you - take advantage of it. If not, oh well. Either way, you'd be well advised to take every opportunity to learn new things, even stupid things like Windows administration, and if that means doing it on your own time, so be it. The alternative is to risk waking up some morning and finding yourself out of work and unemployable because nobody wants the sorts of skills you have any more.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
If she said the same to her employer/manager I am not suprised she didn't get training.
Training is expensive. Not just the training costs themselves but also because it usually removes the person from work.
Now who would you choose for training? Female A: claims she has a life outside of work, probably going to have a baby anytime now or Male B: Work is his life, can't have babies.
Gee, that is a thoughie. Oh the baby argument is sexist but I am telling you what it is like in the real world. One woman in a company of thousands pulls the being absent for years trick and every woman in the company and every woman in companies where the male managers know a guy in another company where it happened will be tainted with the brush of being unreliable.
Common perception is that women see work as something to do until they get kids. You put them in a position where they are critical and they will just disappear for months. True? Sorta, while I never met any "highlevel" females who did this it sure can mess up a company when the "lowlevel" secretary decides that she has had it and is going to take care of her own baby and no a bunch of middle aged babies. Offcourse the fact that this female was underpaid, undervalued is never mentioned. Just maternity leave is risky. Every male knows this. Sorry.
Then stating also that you value your private life is not a good thing. I am male and even I can't get away with that one. Companies investing thousands of dollars in a person want to be sure they get a willing slave in return. Doesn't matter if that person is going to leave right after completing the training what matters is perception.
And finally the biggest killer in getting training? Just being to damn valuable. I actually been told I couldn't get trained because they couldn't get me the time off needed from projects. So the guys who were "unemployed" got the the training while the guy who was earning the salaries by being outsourced had to buy his own books. Oh and ended up having to be the teacher to the guys just having received a 20.000 guilder training. Grrrr.
Whenever an employer starts talking about training your bullshit meter should spring into the red. I have had several "offers" and it never works out. In the rare occasions where it actually reaches a "planned" stage there is always some project that I am suddenly needed on because the guy that was on it and received lots and lots of training can't hack it. Or left for greener pastures with his shiny new diploma.
Those who can, do. Those who can't get trained and leave the company.
As for the whole butter trap, can you blame men for trying it? Call us sexist pigs if you want, just also remember to call us master and serve us. Resistance is futile. We are male, you will serve us.
If you think it is wrong, just realise that no matter how fucked up men are, women are worse. Just examine yourselve (if your female) what you want in a male partner and then check how many of your wishes contradict themselves. Strong, yet caring. Able to express his emotions but not a cry baby. And the biggest one, "he musn't mind me earning more then him" vs "he better earn a good income". No women respects a man with a low paycheck. The only way for a woman to get the man she wants is to have a harem or someone with a split personality.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
There are essentially 2 ways an organisation can consider an employee, either:
- Asset/Investment therefore a constituant of the value of the business.
- Expense/Commodity item therefore they provide a service to the business as a cost.
Within any organisation both types of employee exist.
Business's strive to commoditize employees by simplifying and documenting processes, this allows the business to be more flexible about its workforce because employees can be replaced with other employees/outsource etc. that provide the same service to the business at either less cost or less risk. A business that can replace employees easily is more flexible and therfore can grow faster and manage expenses better. People in commodity positions will probably only get training if its proven to be more cost effective for the company to train the person than it is to replace them. General thought is that providing training for people in commodity positions on standard skills isn't good for retention of those people because they are just better equipped to work elsewhere.
Most businesses at some level have some categories of valuable knowledge such as visionaries and thought leaders. These people are investments for the business, they command high salaries and actually define the shape of the organisation. In knowledge industries there can be quite a lot of people in this category and the businesses USP is based around these people. As a result such people are an investment for the business with real asset value. Just in the same way as maintaining your house helps retain and increase its value, companies will usually invest in training these assets in order to keep them at maximum effectiveness.
In short if you are a commdity, accept it and keep yourself at maximum value. If you are an asset demand training if you think you can demonstrate that it will provide value to the business.
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?"
Which ties back into the original subject rather neatly, I think. If your employer pays for you to learn new stuff, good for you - take advantage of it. If not, oh well. Either way, you'd be well advised to take every opportunity to learn new things, even stupid things like Windows administration, and if that means doing it on your own time, so be it. The alternative is to risk waking up some morning and finding yourself out of work and unemployable because nobody wants the sorts of skills you have any more.
From my point of view the thing that really matters when deciding which job to go after or which offer to take is how marketable will your skills be when you have to change jobs in a few years? I would rather take a low paying job that say, gives me Oracle or Java development skills than a very high paying job that offers knowledge few companies want. I have always followed this principle and have yet to live to regret it unlike some of my classmates from university who followed the money and are now stuck in difficult to get out of niches in the job market.
The thing that really burns about training is that alot of companies don't do it any more because the people that they do take the trouble to train are frequently poached by other organizations right after they are fully trained and be cause there are no legal safeguards against such poaching. To a certain extent I can understand this, your company sinks a significant sum into training somebody say as an MCSE (or the even more expensive Oracle and Cisco certificates) and then has to watch the guy go to some other company the day he gets his qualifications. Why isn't it possible, for example, to allow companies to make training contracts, stipulating for example lower pay during the training period when the worker is only of limited value, followed by a suitable pay rise when he is finished and then binding him/her to the job for a period afterwards so the employer is insured against poachers? Possibly not the best solution but surely something can be done. It sucks that there really are companies out there whose training policy is simply to leech off (what they doubtless regard as) the 'morons', ie. firms and companies that are still socially responsible enough to offer their employees training programs. Another thing I often hear corporate types whine about is that it should really be the employees and not the companies who pay for things like MCSE, Cisco or Oracle certifications which is a nice thought and I would probably do so if the well stocked portfolio of such certificates that these same corporate slimers then argue I should pay for out of my own pocket didn't cost an arm and a leg. I don't suppose they have taken a look at what those training courses complete with lectures actually cost?
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
In England, firing someone for being unable to do a job to which they have been moved without training might (IANAL) count as unfair dismissal. You could take your ex-employer to an Employment Tribunal.
Ne mæg werig mod wyrde wiðstondan, ne se hreo hyge helpe gefremman.
You need to have a heart to heart with your boss. Find out what the company IS willing to do. If they expect you to train on you own time, then decide if you want to jump ship over it. If you don't want to jump ship, then explain that you'll be doing your training "on-the-job" and that it will make some tasks take longer because you'll have to research them while you work on them.
Worst case, post your resume on Dice/Monster/... and quietly look elsewhere. And don't take another position without talking to employees of that company who work in your area (admin). They'll tell you what it's like to work there so you don't get a nasty surprise.
Some people are afraid to express concerns to their managers because it may hurt their image. But, if you allow this kind of problem to fester, it will surely lead to worse problems. Good managers will try their best to address the problem and appreciate your trust in talking to them. Bad ones will not and that is another reason to have the talk. You need to find out if it is worth staying in your current position. An honest discussion will tell you all you need to know.
Most admins I've dealt with are over-worked, so quality of life issues make your choice of careers problematic. The places where I've seen admins who keep sane hours are: very large aerospace firms (tied very closely to the government) and the federal government. Anywhere else, they're usually over-worked.
Good Luck.
d4,...,Nf3, or maybe I should use a Ratfaced Mcdougal?
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.