Slashdot Mirror
Studying For Certification Exams On Company Time?
An anonymous reader writes "Companies sometimes require employees to hold or obtain certifications — for example in order to achieve Cisco certified partner status. Some companies pay for employees' exams and encourage employees to study on company time. Others expect employees to obtain mandated certifications on their personal time and dime. Should companies be able to require employees to obtain a certification, but refuse to pay for it, under threat of losing their job to a certified individual? Should it be or is it even legal to demand this of employees, especially if such a certification was not required at the time of hire?"
They can do anything they want. If you wanna try suing them for unfair dismissal, refer to your local laws (or consult a lawyer). But if you think you're being unfairly treated stand up for yourself.
How we know is more important than what we know.
What does it say in your employment contract?
Oh, you're an at-will employee? Never mind.
..On what the expectations were at when the employee was hired. If they changed policies after an employee was hired, they should pay for it. But when someone is being hired it could go either way; and would depend on how they (the company) decided to do it. At that point if you (the employee) don't like their terms they can move on to the next applicant.
You either get payed $X and get to bill $Y certs to the business, or you get payed $X + $Y and get to handle paying for $Y certs yourself. If $X isn't high enough for you, don't work there.
on the contract you have.
In a fire-at-will situation you're pretty much screwed anyway, so that's not really relevant. In other situations however, an employer basically agrees to a contract stipulating that in exchange for an employee with qualifications X and labor Y said company will pay out Z in compensation. If the company then decides that X is no longer sufficient, that is basically a one-sided change to a contract. So at least in most european countries, the company can not *force* an employee to improve his skillset on his own time and dime, unless that has been stipulated beforehand. On the other hand, unless the contract is for an undetermined time period (which pretty much makes it a pain in the ass to fire someone) the company is under no obligation to prolong the contract once it runs out.
Speaking from personal experience, if my employer tells me to bend over, be their bitch and spend my own time and money to improve my skillset if we didn't agree beforehand that would be part of the deal, I'm fully within my rights to give them the finger. On the other hand it is within my own interest to improve my skills, so if some sort of deal can be struck where both parties make an investment, it's a different story.
Companies will often loudly proclaim that in order to comply with new regulation or to be able to compete all employees will be forced to do X. That regulation or those market forces are irrelevant to me as an employee. The only party I have made a contract with is the company itself. On the other hand sticking to one's guns while the company goes down in flames might not be the best career choice either ;-)
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
If they require that for any applicants as part of their qualifications, obviously you'll have to get it done before even starting to work there (or just don't apply if the requirements seem unreasonable for what the job is).
But if it is something they decide to require from you after you already work there (which is what this article seems to be about), then the only time they can require you to do anything in, is your work hours.
We are all God's parents.
It depends on the company and what you'd put up with regarding compensation and study time. Although, getting a Microsoft Certification does in fact make you eligible for disability - keep that in mind if you get fired. I even think you can get a handicapped license plate in many states.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
i work for a japanese company(clue: starts with an "N" and ends with an "EC"), and they expect us to pass the jlpt exams. we're asked to study on our own time, but the company pays for the exam fees and offers free nihongo lessons. there are certain other certifications that we should get in order to be promoted. though they are having a hard time implementing it due to the high resignation rate.
"Should it be or is it even legal to demand this of employees, especially if such a certification was not required at the time of hire?"
The legality is probably contingent on whatever paper you signed when you took the job. In most states mandatory drug testing is legal, so I'm guessing knowledge testing isn't going to be something you could make many successful objections to.
But if the company is forcing you to foot the bill for things they think add to your work value, you might want to skedaddle anyway. I mean, at that point, what do you think the chances are of you ever getting a raise? Find someone less stingy to work for and build a career that will actually carry some rewards.
However, one argument I can think of for why you should personally pay for the certification is that it's something you get to take with you when you leave the company.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
When you ask legal questions, it's polite to mention which country you're in.
In the UK, and probably the rest of the EU, I suspect this would not be reasonable grounds for dismissal.
In the US, well, nothing would surprise me. Labour laws seem incredibly weak from the employee side.
If you have ever heard the term "At Will Employment" it means that either you or your employer may terminate your employment at the company without informing the severed party of the reason.
As long as your employer fires you and does not tell you why, you probably won't have much recourse. Even if they tell you, unless it legally classified as discrimination (e.g race, religion, sex, disabilities...), there is not much you can do.
Companies that do not want to pay nor use company time for employee training have their reasons. These companies are usually afraid that you will finish the training and leave to greener pastures, leaving them with a bill to foot. Some companies will pay, but may make you sign a contract stipulating that you work for them for a certain time period after training.
There are some nasty employers out there, you may be working for one of them. It's usually easier to find a job while you still have one, maybe its time to seek a new job.
What next, you have to bring your own desk? Stoppages from your paycheck for rent & electricity?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Well, firstly, very little is fair... Many employers will try to get away with as much as possible. The less they spend, the more they make.
If they require this after they have hired you, and won't pay for it, you have to ask your self a couple of questions.
1.Can you take this off of your taxes? If so, then well, you are not really paying for it so it is not so bad.
2. Will this cert make you more valuable, that is, with this cert can you expect a larger salary? If so, will the employer pay you more?
Often times, things like this is the employer trying to get a senior level person while still paying them only a junior salary...
It might not be FAIR, but, well, that business.
Ask your self if it is worth it? If the money is still good, and the boss is kosher, then do it...
If it is just your boss trying to take advantage of you, and you think that you can find better else where, this might be a time to start looking for somewhere else to work, somewhere that will treat you better.
It's less about whether its fair, and more what you are willing to put up with for the job.
There are job opportunities coming up for new jobs, or jobs that people have left every day. It's not necessary to have the jobs other people are already doing also available. You must be pretty young if you think that's a good idea. People need to have some degree of stability in their jobs, to be able to get a mortgage, to have a family.
If you mean one that protects employee rights, and has a decent public healthcare system, e.g. anywhere in Europe, that sounds like a good idea.
If I'm a mechanic in the state of Pennsylvania and I want to keep my state inspection licence, it's on me. My employer only needs my services as long as I can provide them legally - sometimes competence dosent' matter . It is not incumbent upon them to keep up with my skills and certifications. I'm not a mechanic but you get the idea. It would be nice if the required were paid for but I don't see that happening soon. I'd like a working relationship where I can have some financial help along with the support but realistically it isn't going to be expected. In the US at the current time it's a roll of the dice unless this was hammered out during the onboarding process or you can get a program started.Make your argument worth investing on the company's part and they will at least give it a listen. Good Luck!
IMHO, if te company required it at time of hire, and the employee DIDN'T have it, then its a coin toss. If the company now requires it, as opposed to the time of hire, then i would expect that they would allow for studying, insofar as is didn't interfere with regular duties. Personally, i would subsidize the cert cost, if not pay for it outright. A better statement/question is if the company can eliminate you based on new requirements. If the position's requirements were redefined, then the whole game changes, but i still fell that they should help if not take care of their own.
Do you want to keep your job? Don't forget that in this economy (especially), there are going to be countless skilled professionals, already out of work, more than willing to put the extra effort for that position. So if you want your job, then show them that you're better than the competition and that you're worth keeping. Otherwise, dont blame the company for wanting to choose someone who has shown more diligence, hard work and skill over you.
What next, you have to bring your own desk?
Actually, yes. Generally speaking, employers in the US may require workers to purchase their own equipment without reimbursement. The expenses are tax deductible for the workers, but that's about it.
Although rare in IT, there are a lot of jobs out there where this is, to one degree or another, routine. Employees that have to wear uniforms are a good example. Jobs that involve a lot of driving often require use of the employee's own car, and don't always provide reimbursement.
They already paid for your time in class and the expense FOR the class. Their obligation is done. You should be doing it for yourself. Don't expect it to all be handed to you.
> "Should companies be able to require employees..."
Yes. It's called at will employment. They can set any requirements they want. You can work there or not.
It might be instructive to engage in a little etymology (origin of words, not study of bugs, which starts eNty...)
A 'professional' is someone who professes to BE something, as opposed to an employee, worker or similar, who simply does something. A professional would seek training for their own betterment, company assistance aside. Even in cases where such training is not required, companies are usually also made up of professionals who respond to like behavior and reimburse, credit or promote those who act professionally. When they don't, other companies often will.
A major failing of many companies is in forcing other kinds of workers to go to training. Not being professional, they can sit for days to fulfill that obligation but fail to learn anything useful. But they keep sending these people anyway. Optimism, perhaps.
Decide if you want to be something or just do something and act accordingly. A professional wouldn't have asked such a question, so the question may be moot. But then, anyone can change. Optimism, perhaps.
If not, hey, the professionals always need drones, droids and gofers. Just not always the same ones in the same jobs.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Employers already have economic incentive to provide some stability. Experience counts for a lot more in job security than pieces of paper do, and they're not going to cut an existing employee just because someone with more pieces of paper comes along unless the employee is already performing poorly (in which case it's perfectly justified), or there's something else entirely going on under the hood (whether it's discrimination, misconduct on the part of the employee, etc.).
If you truly encounter an employer who is hiring and firing solely based on how many pieces of paper each person has, you've found a business that no sane person would want to work for, and which is unlikely to be in business much longer anyway.
Unless there's something in the contract explicitly putting all the burden on the guy needing certs (nearly impossible and unenforceable), the company pays to maintain. If you think that's bullshit, remember that the company itself profits from that maintenance and a n experienced worker.
It can sound strange to anyone who isn't familiar with it, but it has some practical logic to it. If you have to buy your own equipment, you have greater incentive to protect and avoid damaging it. And to be fair to the employer, many of these jobs do not attract the world's most mature and responsible people.
At better employers, you may get a small, fixed allowance, perhaps for one or two uniforms every couple of years, for example. They may also offer reimbursement for replacement of items damaged in on-the-job accidents that weren't reasonably avoidable.
Depending (as others have said) on how well your government requires companies to treat their serfs, you may have some protection or you may have to lodge your disapproval with the usual two word response: "I quit". However, bear in mind that the reason for walking out (that your employer was asking you to become better qualified) will get a dim reception from any interviewers. Better to make the effort, get the certification and then start looking for something better. Now that you have another string to your bow.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Can't say I've come across it in the UK either, except for self employed and freelancers.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Stop giving these people ideas, please.
-- Linux user #369862
This is so true. I think companies that require these certifications do it for two reasons. Either they get some kind of special status for having employees with the certifications (e.g. "Microsoft Partner"), or they're too lazy to truly evaluate how well employees are keeping current, and the piece of paper is a shortcut for this. I think that a company that truly cares about the employees' skills more than a piece of paper could find better ways to evaluate. The certification just means that you can remember a lot of information and regurgitate it, not that you have a deep understanding of it, or the creativity to use it to solve problems in the best way. As someone who has never actually run a business, I humbly suggest that companies who want to encourage their employees to keep current start setting aside a certain amount of time each week for developers to take turns presenting something new they've learned to the rest of the team. Each developer would only have to prepare something once a month or so (give or take, depending on team size), and most people, I expect, wouldn't have a problem with spending a few hours to a day of their personal time studying/researching for something like this, especially if they get to choose the topics themselves. Plus, from the effort of one individual, and an hour of listening to the presenter and discussing, the whole team learns something new each week.
Have you asked to have the fees covered? When my company began asking me to handle areas of the business that I wasn't prepared for I requested a graduate degree so I could gain the skill set. They agreed to pay for tuition. I would pay for books and attend class in the evening. I could study whenever so long as I got my duties done. I would not sever employment or get fired for negligence for 2 years after receiving a reimbursement check or I would pay back 100% from 0 - 1 years or 50% from 1 - 2 years. Also, reimbursement was based on performance; 100% for an A, 80% for a B, and 50% for a C. My company was concerned I would take my new skill set and shop around for new employment so the agreement give them some protection and a chance to recoup their investment.
I think I understand what you're saying, but perhaps your examples are unfortunate. I have seen little evidence that either non-competes or NDAs do bring any commercial benefits to a business.
Broad non-competes aren't enforceable in many jurisdictions anyway.
As for NDAs, they're rather like patents: the original idea might have been reasonable, but in practice they are mostly just a legal tool that the big guys use to hammer the little guys. Try getting any serious VC or angel investor to sign up to one before you pitch your idea and see how far you get. Meanwhile, look at how any business that has had a "meteoric rise" conducted itself. To pick some from the software business, did Google or Facebook rely on NDAs, for example? Probably not, because as those investors I mentioned know, there are plenty of good ideas in the world, but what really counts is having the will and the ability to execute them well. And if you have a good idea and you're executing it well, it's unlikely that a few details leaking out is going to pose a serious threat, because by the time anyone else understands their significance and acts on them, you've already moved on to the next stage anyway.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Chef's and high end cooks are generally expected to bring their own knives. I'm fairly sure that is the case in Europe as well.
This is pretty common of mechanics as well. Often the set of tools they carry acts as a sort of resume.
If you have a job that pays a living wage and your only beef is they require you to keep up your skills on your own time, consider yourself lucky. Suck it up and do your studying. Your certification will travel with you, should you choose to leave.
On the other hand, if they also have you working 50 hours plus on-call time 24/7 then they don't have a healthy sense of work/life balance and maybe they need to be told you're already giving them as much time as you're willing.
My father was an MD in government service. He had to stay current, and all of his study was done on his own time on his own dime, so we are not alone.
That said, in the IT industry, if you are not continually working to expand your skillset/knowledgebase, you will very quickly find yourself unemployable. If your employer wants to provide guidance in what to study, that's not a bad thing - there are so many possible areas of study that some guidance is useful. Now, if their guidance would required you to spend a lot more of your own money than would other areas of interest to you, they probably ought to pony up some part of the cost of studying that area. You might consider discussing it with your manager ("my budget for study is X. The cost of your suggestion is X + C. Could you cover C?").
Any good manager is willing to consider a win-win situation. If you don't have a good manager (or a good employer), study what will make you marketable in the direction that you want to move, and then MOVE.
linquendum tondere
Ever heard of working from home? Basically it means you provide your own office, including your desk, of course. And of course, you're also using your own electricity. And pay the rent yourself.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
For salaried people whose job really is 24/7 or who work on commissions, like company officers, commissioned salespeople, and some creative types, it's a moot point since your compensation was set with "off hour work" in mind. The same goes for any job where you routinely work well over 40 hours and routinely do much of your work outside office hours. Yes, this includes many computer professionals.
For everyone else, it should be paid time.
The bottom line:
If off-clock labor or unpaid certification study was common practice when you accepted the job and you knew it or should have known it, you have no complaints. If it's a new thing or your company is changing the rules mid-stream you have a valid gripe.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
then you owe them when you leave (maybe). Since I wouldn't want to work for a company that is as stingy as you describe, I'd be looking to get my cert and use it to find a better job. That being the case, I'd gladly pay for it myself, and thank them for 'forcing' me to better myself/leave.
My state, Virginia, has an at-will policy, and it works very well. Both employers and employees can come and go with minimal entanglement in the court system. This works to the benefit of both sides. If my employer makes what seems to me to be an improper requirement for employment (such as paying for my own certs), then I'm free to pick up and find greener pastures elsewhere. I don't have to worry about my employer suing me for breech of contract. Likewise, if my employer decides to restructure the company and that means my position is no longer needed, they don't have to worry about a lawsuit from me.
In the beneficent absence of involvement by the courts, employers rely on their reputation to attract good people. Local magazines publish annual ratings of the best places to work. Gain a reputation as a lousy employer that lays people off and throws them on the street with two weeks notice, and you'll be bottom-feeding in no time.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Most responses have answered the "is it even legal" part quite well. The "should it be" is basically the same though. If you agreed to something when signing up, well you agreed to it. Your pay should reflect your personal costs and time, if it doesn't, well perhaps now should review your decision.
It gets more complicated if it was not part of the contract you agreed to. Realistically, this is just what happens and you're left with the choice of accepting it, moving on or going to a tribunal or whatever (very risky to your career). If you're lucky you may be in a position to negotiate or help develop proposals whereby staff and management can reach an amicable agreement.
However, in all cases I would expect there to be appropriate compensation for the extra demands being placed upon you and also to reflect your increasing qualifications. I don't necessarily mean wholly financial compensation; it would probably be some combination of the certification being part of the employer's ongoing training programme (i.e. paid for and performed mainly during company time) and you paying and studying in your own time but getting an increased salary. Keep in mind that certainly if an employer paid everything and provided all the time, I would certainly count it part of the remuneration package.
What you really need to watch out for however is when the employer is bringing you up to a level that would normally require promotion, but simultaneously raising the bar for promotion. You're doing more, higher level work but getting paid the same. Employers can be very bad for exerting pressure on staff to make it appear that they need to do more just to maintain their current position when in fact they are continually increasing their responsibilities without recognition.
The thing I don't understand is why people continue to be employees once you start crossing those lines.
Employment is a two-way relationship. The employer takes on the risks while the employee gets a fixed income, the employer provides the work environment and carries the other costs, but in return the employer gets to keep any profits beyond the agreed fixed payments.
In industries like manufacturing, transportation or services (of the electricity/gas/water/etc. kind) there is no way any one person could do things on their own. Here, an employment relationship as part of a larger organisation has the additional advantage of being practical, where co-ordinating hundreds or thousands of freelance workers with individual commercial arrangements might be too much of an administrative burden.
However, in creative or knowledge-based industries such as programming, sales, marketing or training, that is no barrier. It is relatively easy for one person, or a small group of people, to set out on their own and provide the same services that they could as employees of someone else's business. For larger projects, there are few overheads in dividing up the project and assigning each part to an individual or small team; this is, after all, what would probably happen in a large company doing everything in-house anyway.
In these industries, the workers gain relatively little benefit from an employer's physical resources and scale, yet they will still wind up leaving most of the money they generate for the employer. The only reason for such people to accept an employment relationship in these industries is the risk trade-off: an employer takes on the risk and all the general costs of running the show, but in return the employee only takes a fixed salary even if the business makes a lot of profit.
In the US, AIUI, there is relatively little employee protection in some states anyway because of "at will" employment and limited legal rights for employees. So the only thing left is providing a ready-made work environment and covering the associated costs and administrative burdens.
Once employees start having to sort out their own equipment anyway... Well, why would they still be employees instead of going freelance, forming their own business (perhaps with a few others with complementary skills) where they will directly take a share of the profits, or signing up as contractors (and with contractors' rates) instead of as employees?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
IANL, but it seems to me that you'd have a pretty good case for constructive dismissal, if you wanted to push that hard. I can't see that it would be anything but counterproductive, but it would be there. The employer wants to materially change the job you hold and isn't prepared to provide the tools that would let you upgrade to the new standard.
On the other hand, as stated elsewhere, an employee would probably be much better off simply obtaining the certification and using the opportunity to look for a new job while there's still a steady paycheck coming in.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Right. Because that's exactly the same. And of course there are no advantages to me from woorking at home at all.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
There is a much simpler argument for not replacing people all the time, too: hiring is expensive. The total administrative cost of recruiting a single member of staff can easily be the equivalent of paying that staffer's salary for a year, once you include the costs for HR, legal, time lost by senior staff reading CVs and conducting interviews, agency/referral fees, the administrative burden of filing whatever employment/tax paperwork are required in your jurisdiction, inefficiency for maybe several months before the new guy gets up to full speed...
No sane employer would voluntarily have high staff turnover. It's just bad business.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Some company's do in fact encourage small seminars during a break or actually set aside some time for employes from different areas of discipline to sit and learn from others. It only works for the benefit to all and opens up channels for the human creative process as you mentioned to work. Great comments.
For example, the company may be concerned about paying for an expensive cert for an employee, who then goes out and gets another job. So maybe pay back over a year or two.
I definitely prefer working at companies where there is a feeling of teamwork, if the company succeeds we all succeed. Then I expect some additional reward for myself, but I understand that it is shared around.
I have a problem with people that create an adversarial relationship, and vent their grievances publically. They poison the environment for everybody. We all have to stand up for ourselves in the job negotiation process, but spreading negativity and resentment around is a morale-killer and holds the company back. If you think you should be getting more, the best proof is a job offer from somewhere else, that speaks volumes.
That said, when the company I work for now needed employees with clearances for some government projects, I went through that process. I don't clock in/clock out, I wouldn't count the time as 'my time' vs 'their time'. But they certainly paid for it, to me that is a cost of doing business for them.
In group behavior: 'because they're evil/morons/sheep/crazy' is not 'insightful' it's 'oversimplified'
If I have a position that requires a college degree, it's not up to me to pay for the candidate to go get that degree. It is similarly not on me to pay for people to maintain certifications that are required for the position.
Generally, however, I don't mind employees doing things on my time as long as it doesn't interfere with their work, or cause slippage in the schedule. If someone wants to spend a few hours per week on my dime studying material that makes them better at their job, I see that as a good investment.
My next-door neighbour is a Master Electrician on staff at the local university (a very progressive employer). He is expected to keep his certification up to date, purchase new code books, etc., to keep ticket his valid. Additionally, he is responsible for the fire alarms and has to re-certify every 3 years (and this year was a MAJOR change). The university pays for his fire alarm certification test, but he is expected to study on his own time (and he spent, by my estimate, 20 hours a week for 3 weeks doing so).
A lot of non-executive computer guys -- network administrators, system operators, repair technicians -- seem to think they are different from the other trades because they work on computers. That's BS! That's like claiming patentability of X because you added "on the internet".
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
If it is truly mandatory, I think the company should pay for at least a part of it.
If it is specific to your current job and employer, but is otherwise not useful to you the company should pay.
If it is general training that is more personal development, the company can consider paying, but they could fairly go either way.
The real question is if you're short term commodity staff, or a long term member of core staff. If they consider you part of their team, they should invest in you. If they consider you a replacable generic commodity, then they shouldn't.
By not investing in you, the company is showing how much they really value you.
That being said, if you supervisor values you above the corporate philosophy he might permit you some time to work on some of this stuff. What's a few hours a week if you're improving your work performance. Also it gives a good opportunity to be simultanously considering how to apply your new training to the company problems, as well as encourage other to seek out more training.
Any reasonable employer supports education for its employees, within reason. There are, of course, abuses possible on both sides: employers who won't pay or offer any time on the job for studying, and employers who are generous and then get taken advantage of.
Basically you want - and should expect - is the middle ground. Both employer and employee benefit from a certification; both should chip in. My previous employer had a really nice policy here for MS certifications: they paid the exam fees and offered you one hour per week for several months that you could use on-the-job for studying. One week each month, that hour was a tutorial plus Q&A session held by the company's top developers.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
In the US it is very common to require vesting of time to pay for training. It is also very common for companies to just give grants and scholarships to pay for schooling. There are contract laws that protect both the employer and employee. I have gone to many training programs for certification of this or that product and always had my company pay. I've never had any restrictions in when I could quit after receiving the training. Generally the higher up the ladder you go, the more you get without restrictions. There are also parts of the USA that like unions and do collective bargaining. But, it tends to not do well among IT workers because, job hopping can raise your salary faster than any union can. Also, job hopping can yield contract clients who need your expertise, but couldn't afford to keep you. My comment to the original poster is, who cares if a company requires you to train on your own time. Find a better employer and leave. Personally, I got into programming computers because I like it, it really doesn't matter what a company requires in time or training, I will exceed it.
sounds like working off the clock and other jobs try to pull the same stuff as well.
I have even see a job application I am prepared to work off the clock from time to time to increase my skills. and that was for a ice cream store.
Some places try to get out paying for time / gas if they say want you to go to other job site for a few days and this is not you main base.
Other want you to work from home / do paper work at home as well.
Some companies bill direct time, rather than general overhead for your position. They can't have you on unbillable hours due to contract structure. In those companies, there may be times where you have to suck it up and read on your own time.
It helps if you remember that certifications are self-improvement. I understand the frustration of having to acquire something for your position outside of work hours, but it is something that will help you as a professional with or without the company. When you get your certification and tell them to piss off, you can surely get a higher paying job out of it, or if you can't, well, it's a no brainer.
I have worked in many settings, and the most likeable were the ones that offered reimbursement in exchange for my own self-study.
The least enjoyable were those that forced me to take on-site training boot-camps that imparted very little actual knowledge and dragged on at a mind numbing pace.
The ones that required certification or even degree always let me know coming in that I'd need it within a certain timeframe to remain with the company long-term.
Studying on your own time to improve yourself isn't really such a bad thing. And even though a certificate or degree isn't knowledge itself, it is proof that you have displayed sufficient knowledge to be considered competent in that area or at least had enough self-discipline to suffer through and get the accreditation.
Not quite. Studying and taking a cert leaves the employee with resources that are useful even after he moves to another employer.
A lot of places also require the employee to buy their own suit/uniform.
In these cases, I find it much harder to fault the employer for not footing the bill.
For your other examples, something there sounds pretty fishy though.
remember that and deduct them on your taxes.
if the company requires it, deduct it.
They're using their grammar skills there.
In the US, well, nothing would surprise me. Labour laws seem incredibly weak from the employee side.
You are correct on that observation. Over the past 30 years (plus change) the US has veered increasingly conservative in all practices that can in any way be remotely tied to a dollar (which is pretty well everything). This means that the labor unions have lost most of the membership - and power - that they enjoyed decades ago. You may have heard that Toyota recently closed their only UAW-staffed vehicle assembly plant in this country, in spite of its stellar performance.
We have been fed BS about "labor=communism" for so long that a staggering number of people here believe it and vote on it. Notice that the "health care reform bill" that recently passed did not fix any of the major problems and people are screaming bloody apocalyptic murder.
So yes, in a nutshell, worker's rights just have a tendency to get in the way of profit. And nowadays it is considered "un-American" to do such a thing, so most worker's rights have gone out the window.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
As an amateur cook, this makes perfect sense to me. A good chef would never accept just any old knife that somebody told him to use. Along the same lines, a lot of carpenters own their own tools as well. As an office worker, desk supplies are largely interchangeable. I'm able to find something in the supply cabinet that's comfortable to use. In the kitchen, though, I've grown accustomed to certain tools and it would be inconvenient if I had to use an unfamiliar knife.
Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
Many certifications will help you be more marketable in your field. It is only the starter certs (A+-whatever) that don't mean all that much, unless you want to work for a help desk.
You may find it crazy but there is a university close to me of a somewhat reputable name that was recently hiring IT staff starting in the 40-50k USD range (35k is about the average household income in my area) that required A+ and if you didn't have an A+ they may hire you but you had to complete the A+ testing before the end of the probationary period. It's not a big step above the help desk level but it's nothing to sneeze at either and it seems pretty clear that they took the A+ seriously.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Does your company have a number of training hours required? I'm guessing no. My employer requires 40 hours of training. Some of this is mandatory all-hands training like ethics courses and administrative task training. The remainder of the time is spent on role-specific training. If you are doing .NET development, you take courses on .NET. The technical lead on a team is supposed to have input on your skills and which courses you should be taking.
Most of the time, I end up having to put down book reading using "AdHoc" training time because I don't feel like taking the available courses. AdHoc means something other than the Saba-provided training courses available, which automatically updates the training record. I could just as easily put down exam prep. The big thing is that I have to find time to set aside, and that's one of those things our team has decided is important. Schedule training time and don't move it unless there is a financial incentive like losing/winning business.
I'm salary, so I sometimes have down time when we're waiting for client requirements, and I can do the online course thing, pausing and returning if needed. There are hourly people, and they often get waived from the 40-hour training requirement. Who wants to pay for 40 hours of training just so the entry-level people feel over-qualified and underpaid? No one, that's who. The benefit to them, however, is that they can spend their own time using the supplied courses. It's not a big incentive, and predictably people who do that usually find a better job somewhere else using their new-found skills and knowledge, so it's not mentioned much other than in official company policy.
In addition, there used to be a payback for passing a certification exam, but I think that went away. Take it twice, pass the second time, and they pay for just the time you passed. So if you really felt ready, you were confident it would be paid for. Confidence isn't always correct of course.
Bottom line is, whether it's negotiating company payback or time to set aside or obtaining materials which aren't supplied by the company or its suppliers, a meeting with your boss is the first step. If you can make a good argument, you win. Next is company policy - if your boss says no but you find company policy to overrule, go back and try again. If that doesn't work, go up the chain and ask in public meetings or start talking on company discussion boards or over the water cooler. We asked that in a team meeting and the boss asked if any of us had brought it up with him - we were silent for a bit and someone said "We were told not to expense office supplies any more, we didn't think there would be money for training." So we didn't ask. Man, we felt stupid. We just didn't directly ask. Your situation seems different.
If all roads lead to "no", do you really want to work there? That's not rhetorical, you might be better off there and not making waves. But asking questions about company mandates will get you a better job - by making the current one better or by making you look for a better one.
The certification just means that you can remember a lot of information and regurgitate it, not that you have a deep understanding of it, or the creativity to use it to solve problems in the best way.
That can be said of most college degrees as well. Do you have a point to be made here?
And the department pow-wow idea is a good one. We do that in my department but what happens when there is no real team? What ensures that the techs who are at these meetings take anything away from it besides a free coffee? What happens in the one man shops? There's a lot more of them out there than you might think.
Certifications hold a role in our industry. They may not deserve the value placed on them in some circumstances but they do still have a value. To dismiss a process simply because it ends with a certification instead of a degree is short sighted. To go through a process with no measuring stick at the end and expect people to take something useful from it is short sighted. A company may abuse the role of the certification but given some of my run ins with IT managers it is a better solution than what some of these bozos think should be the standard for their charges. And in a situation where managers who don't know IT, from a technical aspect, are meant to ensure that their staff is up to par it is probably the best solution.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
It really depends on how you handle it. It's actually fairly easy to get them to pay for it, if you stick to your guns and force them to see the logic. They are charging you money to keep your job. They aren't getting the money, but to you, they are not only forcing you to work for free on your own time getting the certification, but they are actually charging you for it. You lose that cash because of them. It wasn't what you agreed to, you agreed to a certain amount of work (measured in time, projects, etc) for a certain amount of pay, adding a requirement for that work that reduces your pay while adding to your work is absolutely not acceptable in any way.
You have to get them to see your side first. You're trying to get them to come to the logical conclusion before you have to explicitly state it. Be calm and reasonable. They will have arguments about budgets, policies, everyone else, etc. - don't get drawn into them. Keep the argument about you having less money and doing more work.
If they don't have the budget, then the certification and the requirement for it can wait until the next budget.
Policies which effectively fine employees to keep their jobs aren't ones any rational moral human can follow.
If everyone else accepted it, and you're the only one, it's because they haven't thought it through and you didn't talk to them about it, which is how you thought they'd prefer it.
If you don't do this, it will most likely be the start (if it's not the continuation) of more work for you with no additional compensation.
This sentence no verb.
In these days it often has little to do with ethics or morality, but everything to do with bargaining power and leverage.
If a company can bully their workers into getting certified on their own time by threatening to turn their jobs over to already certified folks, then that is just what they will do.
Mechanics bring their own tools, as do many business analysts.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
Mostly, I expect that we'll kind of compromise on the whole thing. I absolutely expect my employer to pay for the exams and the course provided I pass. The time? Not so much really. Yes, I expect my employer to allow me to study if there is "downtime" at work . . . but I don't expect him to prioritize me getting a certification over, say, keeping the network up and running. If its a new certification, of course, I may also expect preferential treatment for raises when annual evaluations come through. But really, the cert is good for me, and its good for the employer. We should BOTH be investing in it. That said, the one thing I absolutely expect, is that if I'm exempt and salaried, the employer will respect the fact that my coursework cuts down on the free extra hours he gets.
Given that a certification improves your own marketability, I would be willing to put in additional time studying on my own provided my employer pays for the certification exam and any training materials.
If you say "indentured servitude is not acceptable" for a very broad definition of "indentured servitude", you invalidate quite a lot of contracts, such as the noncompete clauses, nondisclosure agreements, etc. that are meant to reduce the unknowns of running a business.
Non-competes SHOULD be invalid unless the company is willing to pay the person a salary in compensation for the length of the non-compete duration i.e. they pay them NOT to work for the competition. Non-competes might reduce the unknowns of running a business but it also prevents an individual from working: if that is worth something to the business then they should be willing to pay, if not then why should the individual suffer on the whim of the company they once worked for?
Arguing that they accepted the contract at the start is nor reasonable either: employers generally have the upper hand and, particularly in hard economic times, can be very persuasive. For example we would not allow employment contracts requiring a full, frontal lobotomy if an employee left a company would we? Although I don't doubt some companies in the US might jump at the chance were legal!
...and I've seen numbers as high as 20% is some countries and even counties in the US.
Try to find a comparable, available position in your city. I'm not as in touch with how IT position availability is, but the scene is not very pretty out there in general.
Keep working while you look for a better situation and improve your resume in your current position.
"Oh, you hate your job? There's a support group for that, it's called everyone, they meet at the bar."
There's usually nothing that requires a company to keep the job requirements the same year after year. If the job changes or goes away, the redundant employee no longer has a job. It's in your interest to keep current as the job's responsibilities change (unless of course you work someplace where a union has made it almost impossible for employers to shed nonproductive employees, such as a tenured teaching position or civil service).
On the other hand, if you no longer desire to work for that employer there's nothing to stop you from resigning. They can't force you to continue working there just because they paid for a Cisco Cert.
You're selling something (your skill and time). An employer has the option of buying it or not, you have the option of selling to that employer or not. I don't understand why people have a problem with this type of arrangement.
It's similar with IT folks too, I imagine.
My company provides me with a decent laptop and the $10 keyboard / mouse combo that comes when they click the little box next to keyboard / mouse (+$10). Within a few days I've tossed those and replaced them with nice high end keyboard / mouse. If I feel like I can get away with it I might even bring in my IBM Model M keyboard. Even the laptop is nice enough, but when I need to get some serious computing done I go home to use my hardware - a cluster of multi-core servers on a GigE backbone that combine to somewhere in the neighborhood of 24GHz of processing power, 12G of memory, and 2TB+ of drive space, with three huge LCDs as the user interface.
Funny thing is - as powerful as my current rig once was there's a strong possibility I will scrap the entire thing this year and build a new cluster on newer technology. A cluster capable of 100GHz (1/10th of a terahertz - damn!) is easily within the reach of high end professionals if they are serious about having that kind of horsepower at their fingertips. I estimate the current cost of such a system at right around $10k, and by Christmas probably about half that.
And no, my company isn't buying it for me. It's coming right out of my pocket.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
From a Computer Science linguistics nerd point of view-- that was/were boundary gets kinda awesome as far as the semantic implications are concerned. Yea.. I left my own main point pretty quick.. because it led to a way more cool one IMHO.
I wonder if anyone (say, in business school) has "done the math" to find out what the actual cost/benefit is of employer-paid training is and what the cost is of being too generous.
A CIO I used to work for said the solution he came up with at a previous employer sounded expensive (which made it tough to sell) but actually solved the problem of too much and not enough employee education.
He said previously they had problems with mandatory education requirements. Employees picked training with classes taught only during business hours and scheduled them at the worst possible times in terms of business scheduling, which often put the company in the position of canceling their training. This became a lather, rinse repeat situation; one employee didn't complete any training for 3 years and it couldn't be held against him as the company made him cancel training & certification tests every time.
The "solution" became company-paid training & certification where the company agreed to cover the costs and a bonus for completion. Once it became a situation where there was no employee cost *and* a financial benefit to completion, miraculously employees figured out how to schedule and complete it in less disruptive ways.
He said it was a tough sell to the board at first but after two years the time spent at courses actually went down, the scheduling caused less chaos and required fewer fill-in temps/contractors and there was a noticeable (if immeasurable) improvement in projects -- in other words, people were actually learning something and putting it to use.
Usually to the advantage of the employee, and normally the employee already has a desk, and electricity costs are inexpensive.
Now if you've heard of an employee whose company decided 'working for home' meant they would need to setup some server racks at their house, and power a portion of the company's IT infrastructure, or power up some heavy-duty office equipment ancillary to inherent needs for them to work remotely, you might have a point about electricity usage and rent...
If a company is requiring me to be trained on current technology, then YES, they should at least offer reimbursement for the costs of the training and allow me to study on company time. Once certified, a pay raise is in order if they want to benefit from the skills.
Why is a pay raise in order for benefitting from the skills, when they paid for all the training? They should get the financial benefits that were generated by paying for training.
Newer skills may be getting learned, but the reason they need the training is obviously now the older skills are of less value. Technology changes. When an employee's existing skillset becomes less valuable to the company, and they need training to obtain a certification of a different nature, they are doing the employee a big favor if the employer pays for training they need.
Because the conventional wisdom is to dismiss the existing employee whose current skills are losing value, and hire someone with the skillset and credentials having greater value to the company, at (probably) a lower pay, for a net win.
Instead they paid to get the employee the skills needed to their job. The employee can also expect long term (but not immediate) benefits for having more skills. But the employee put the resources in to allow you to get those skills, and they have the right to the financial advantage obtained through their investment.
I will agree it's within the employer's perogative to offer a raise.
However, the employee wanting or expecting a raise sounds like double dipping to me.
imo, if your company doesn't have a training budget, don't expect to stay there long anyway. If it does, it shows they have an interest in building up their existing staff, planning for the future, and appreciating the quality of their people.
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
Think about it. Point 1: Companies may require certain education and experience levels neither of which they pay for. So, what's the difference between that and requiring a certification? Point 2: If a company paid for your certification can you use it to qualify for employment elsewhere. i.e. who owns the cert, you or them?
You are a vendor of engineering services. Your customer (employer) says something to the effect of "We want a certified developer to work on this project. We're kind of hoping you'll be that developer." What you do is up to you.
They just have to be narrowly constructed and of reasonable duration.
CA won't let a company claim your off hour work, but that's a different issue.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'