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?"

Comments

Oh dear

[QuantumG]

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.

Re:Oh dear

[lmnfrs]

I think parent is stating reality, not his opinion.

I agree because most companies, in my experience, will do anything they want. Sometimes it's valid, sometimes you wish you weren't involved so you could laugh at the situation. If you're worried about an action that you think is unfair, you don't want to work there.

Think about it, if this place caused you to Ask Slashdot to determine its decency, it's not that decent :\

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

And you probably appreciate that and in return you're doing the certification. Everyone gets something they feel is valuable out of it. That's the way it's supposed to work.

Meanwhile, companies who expect staff to spend their own time and money on compulsory company-related activities that weren't part of the original deal are likely to find that, regardless of the legal position, the reality is high employee turnover, few staff having the qualities the company is looking for, and ultimately a less successful business. That is also the way it's supposed to work.

Re:Oh dear

[penix1]

Meanwhile, companies who expect staff to spend their own time and money on compulsory company-related activities that weren't part of the original deal are likely to find that, regardless of the legal position, the reality is high employee turnover, few staff having the qualities the company is looking for, and ultimately a less successful business. That is also the way it's supposed to work.

So let's take this to the next level. How do you keep an employee from taking that training you just paid for and leaving for what the employee sees as greener pastures? How do you get a return on the huge investment you just dumped into that employee? That is the real issue on why many companies won't expend the dime on training. They can always negotiate salary and worst case scenario have to let the employee go who demands too much. It is far easier requiring a certified new hire than to go to the expense of training someone who will only leave after they are trained.

I see continuing education as an employee responsibility. It goes with wanting to better yourself in your chosen profession. If you don't care enough to keep on top of it, why should the company? After all, it is YOUR career, not theirs.

Re:Oh dear

[St.Creed]

How do you keep an employee from taking that training you just paid for and leaving for what the employee sees as greener pastures? How do you get a return on the huge investment you just dumped into that employee? That is the real issue on why many companies won't expend the dime on training.

In the Netherlands, you can add a clause to any contract basically stating that when they are going on training, they will repay 100% if they leave in one year, 66% in 2, 33% in 3 and 0% after that (or any other declining rate that will hold up in court - 100% in 10 years will not hold up). Most of the companies are part of mandatory collective bargaining agreements with a similar clause.

So one of my friend has a new and shiny MBA - and he will have to fork over a serious amount of money if he decides to leave next year. If the new hiring company wants him bad enough, they'll pay it.

I'm surprised this isn't a standard clause in the USA as well, because it solves most of the issues in this area.

Does it matter?

[PhrostyMcByte]

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.

Depends...

[Jedi Alec]

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 ;-)

Re:Deppends...

[Hognoxious]

So indentured servitude is OK so long as it's mentioned in advance?

Microsoft Certifications

[AnonymousClown]

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.

Where in the world?

[slim]

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.

Re:Where in the world?

[haystor]

Depends on which state. In an "at will" state, they could dismiss you, but it wouldn't be "for cause". That is, the former employee would be able to file for unemployment, since it is a change in the position the employee was hired into.

Re:It's called competition

[NNKK]

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.

Employment vs. freelancing

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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?

Non-competes

[Roger W Moore]

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!