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.
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.
So indentured servitude is OK so long as it's mentioned in advance?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
Sure, except for the very narrow types of indentured servitude prohibited, at least in U.S., by U.S. Constitution.
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. Without those contracts and the world being full of unscrupulous individuals as it is, good luck running a free market economy.
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.
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.
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
Stop giving these people ideas, please.
-- Linux user #369862
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.
Well, all us "computer people" were made DIFFERENT from the likes of Master Electricians when someone arbitrarily determined that we are exempt from overtime.
If I was getting paid for off-hours emergencies and long weeks and weekend project work, maybe it would be a valid comparison, but as it is now, its not.
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!