BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS Archives

The listserv where the buildings do the talking

BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"J. Bryan Blundell" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS The historic preservation free range.
Date:
Thu, 22 Jan 1998 12:26:36 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (90 lines)
If life were so simple.

For individuals, whether employee or employer, the need to learn
(training) is as much a personal responsibility as a company
responsibility. It is the employer's responsibility to create an
organization that provides products or services needed in the market
place. (Even government employers.) Creating and maintaining that
organization has many issues that need to be constantly juggled.

In the ideal world of employees, the employer is an all knowing, deep
pocketed, benevolent being who's soul purpose in life is to see the
employees are well taken care of.

In the ideal world of employers, the employee is a self-motivated, hard
working, individual that is constantly involved in providing top quality
services and products to the clients and employer.

Both of these ideal situations are based on various forms of loyalty to
one another.

This talk of training is important but I can not help but feel it is
with the emphasis on employer responsibility which to me is a pretty one
sided view of the world and one that really does not include personal
responsibility.  I hear one option of  'train me or I'm out of here' and
another that training is an immediate justification for raises, not a
particularly positive view of the work environment. The education we
endeavor to give ourselves is an investment in our future no matter
where we work. The trick in the work environment like in other areas of
our lives is to have open dialogs with those that exert influence on us.
What is usually wanted is a work environment where there is give and
take so that long term goals of all parties can be strived for.

The risk that employers take on a daily basis on how to invest in the
future and deal with all of the problems of running an organization is
not trivial. Many risk their personal family's future on a regular
basis. So next time you think about training, also ask yourself how will
the company benefit from this and what will the pay back period be. Use
this information to argue for and justify your next request for training
dollars. I would bet the response would be more positive.


...................
Pam Blythe wrote:
>
> Being in a different profession (computer systems analysis), there's a lot
> to be said from the value of training.  I have been in situations where the
> corporate mentality was "why train them if they're just gonna go away?"  To
> me, that is an exercise in utter stupidity.   Without the training, the
> quality isn't there and the employees are disgruntled ("They don't think
> enough of my current skills to send me out somewhere for enhancement.")
> Besides, training, or the lack thereof, should not be the sole purpose for
> sticking around someplace.  If you're outa there simply because you've
> learn to breathe better, then there are other underlying problems with the
> employee/employer relationship that need fixing.  Quite honestly, if an
> employer sends a person out for training, the employer should expect that
> as a cost of doing business they'll now need to pay more to this person the
> employer just made more marketable.  Most employees see that as a sign the
> employer really cares (enhancing skills, paying more, promoting, etc. -
> gee, must really want me).
>
> ------------ Previous Message from  [log in to unmask]  on  01/20/98
> 06:05:04 PM ----------
>
> Please respond to [log in to unmask]
>
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> cc:
> Subject:  Training Value
>
> ARWNY wrote:
> > The drawback with sending workers to manufacturer classes is that, after
> you
> > have made a capital investment, the workers remain free go elsewhere and
> can
> > ask for higher pay based on the training you provided. It is similar to
> the
> > idea that the older stonemason should find apprentices, who often leave
> and
> > start their own competing firms - as I once did myself. After a while the
>
> Yes, but...  Sending me to training tends to make me too happy to look
> for new opportunities for employment...when the training budget dries
> up...I'm outa there!  ( or at least sullen and ornary).  Providing good
> training and good tools shows that your employer values you...sort of.
> Of course one asks for more money after one has learned new skills!
> What's your point?  An employee is going to ask for more money just
> because he's now got more experience breathing!  At least if you
> provided the training you know what the quality of it was!
> -jc

ATOM RSS1 RSS2