August 15, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Many of the larger companies I have worked for negotiate training into the software licensing agreement and are able to send analysts to x number of prepaid training. A strong advocate of training I believe 1 week annually is a bare minimum. Technology changes so rapidly it's darn near impossible to even maintain basic skills with less than this. Conferences present excellent opportunities to learn about future strategies and network with other techies. Consultants are fine to solve a specific issue however I've seen too many times where unclear definition of their assignment resulted in hours of wasted time. To me, training is one of the key benefits to consider when accepting a job. Salary is only one part of the equation.
August 15, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I get 85K/yr as a database developer and i've expensed one conference (SQLConnections Las Vegas in Nov; $3000) and a 2-year subscription to SQL Server Magazine Print+CD ($150). So I burned or committed to burn $3150 and 1 week for training. I also know that books, certification classes, and certificatione exams are expensable too. So it is looking to be 4-5 % and 1 to 1.5 weeks.
Oh I work on the back-end data teir for thin-client EMR (Electronic Medical Records) software in Scottsdale, AZ
August 15, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Interesting discussion.
For the last 4 years I've worked for a company (or more accurately for a manager) that was more than generous about training. I was allowed to buy any technical books that related to my job and claim back the cost. MS trainings courses weren't just allowed, they were required, as was certification exams. We were required to attend at least one training course and write at least one exam every 6 months. If we wanted to attend a conference, we had to request, justify and satisfy the manager that we would get value out of it.
Now, I'm working for myself and have no one to pay for the nice stuff. What I've been doing for the last 6 months and what I intend to do, is to put 5-10% of my income each month (depending on what's possible) into a savings account and to use that for training (books, conferences, etc). For a consultant, staying up to date is not optional.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
August 15, 2008 at 3:35 pm
GilaMonster (8/15/2008)
... Now, I'm working for myself and have no one to pay for the nice stuff. What I've been doing for the last 6 months and what I intend to do, is to put 5-10% of my income each month (depending on what's possible) into a savings account and to use that for training (books, conferences, etc). For a consultant, staying up to date is not optional.
Do you get to write-off your conferences and training on your taxes over there, or is it just a business expense against taxes for you? I think that's an excellent plan that you're doing.
-----
[font="Arial"]Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves or we know where we can find information upon it. --Samuel Johnson[/font]
August 16, 2008 at 3:14 am
We get tax rebates. Not sure of the full details. I don't do the tax myself and the tax consultant I have knows what to claim and how.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
August 16, 2008 at 10:29 am
I think you can write those off here in the US as well.
Thanks for the great comments and it's interesting to see how people view training. In my training business we've definitely see lots of companies paying for Just-in-time training, less for general training.
I do think that you should invest some of your own time in training, depending on where your career is going. Some time at night to read or on the weekends, and some of your own money on books, magazines, etc.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
August 18, 2008 at 9:31 am
Training - I have a regular training plan and it can run from two to three weeks of training a year. This includes both IT and regular office training.
If I justify the topic for the training I could probably have no problem going even beyond what I have on the plan.
I buy a half dozen or so books per year. All IT and mostly deeper texts on things like SQL Server, SSAS, SSIS, BI, C#, XML Web Services, Security etc. Difference between me and others who buy books here is that I read them and use them to internalize the material. Then my job is to determine how to implement the technology into the mainstream of IT in the organization.
I also attend an annual conference on the XML data Exchanges we have for data nationally and within in our business area. This is educational as well and lets us know what is going on in other areas of data exchange, web services, etc.
However, in practice, I am out on training very rarely, but am on the net or in a book constantly.
I have operated under the principle of Learn or Be left behind. I am again lucky that I work in a place that they feel the same way.
Miles...
Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
August 20, 2008 at 1:24 am
Training definitely has its value but lot of companies (Read Management) do not keen of providing quality training to their people. One because of cost and second beacuase of fear that employee will leave after training.
Like Steve I also believe in education. As I am also not getting training I learn on my own.
August 20, 2008 at 1:45 am
Anirban Paul (8/20/2008)
Training definitely has its value but lot of companies (Read Management) do not keen of providing quality training to their people. One because of cost and second beacuase of fear that employee will leave after training.
My take on that is if the employee is going to leave after training, they're probably going to leave anyway. If however the employee considers training valuable, then providing it may make them stay, withholding it will probably make them leave.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
August 20, 2008 at 1:49 am
Anirban Paul (8/20/2008)
...a lot of companies (Read Management) do not keen of providing quality training to their people....beacuase of fear that employee will leave after training.
...which is, of course, a fallacy. A person's value in a technical job is not in the training given to them but the knowledge and experience they retain, so as long as they can walk the walk, it makes no difference whether they're classroom taught or self-taught.
And, of course, companies that don't invest in training generally buy skills in, so placing an even higher premium on properly trained people. Net result is that they either pay for the training directly or via higher recruiting costs, but spend they must.
And, of course, people bright enough to benefit from training (and that's pretty much anyone) are also bright enough to see the value of staying with a company that's investing in them. Accurate statistics without an axe to grind are difficult to come by, but I'm fairly sure I've uncovered enough of them to suggest that staff retention is generally better in companies that don't skimp on training than otherwise, so specifically disproving the aforementioned fallacy.
Semper in excretia, sumus solum profundum variat
August 20, 2008 at 6:41 am
majorbloodnock (8/20/2008)
Anirban Paul (8/20/2008)
...a lot of companies (Read Management) do not keen of providing quality training to their people....beacuase of fear that employee will leave after training....which is, of course, a fallacy. A person's value in a technical job is not in the training given to them but the knowledge and experience they retain, so as long as they can walk the walk, it makes no difference whether they're classroom taught or self-taught.
And, of course, companies that don't invest in training generally buy skills in, so placing an even higher premium on properly trained people. Net result is that they either pay for the training directly or via higher recruiting costs, but spend they must.
And, of course, people bright enough to benefit from training (and that's pretty much anyone) are also bright enough to see the value of staying with a company that's investing in them. Accurate statistics without an axe to grind are difficult to come by, but I'm fairly sure I've uncovered enough of them to suggest that staff retention is generally better in companies that don't skimp on training than otherwise, so specifically disproving the aforementioned fallacy.
My last position actually required you to stay in your position for six months following the end of any training which you used Tuition Reimbursement to cover, or you had to refund the tuition. Anybody else have that?
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
August 20, 2008 at 7:57 am
I've actually had that in a few places, but it was a year. Any training within a year of your leaving had to be paid back. One place pro-rated it (the right way to do this) and one required it paid in full.
I have a friend that specifically never allowed his employer to pay for any of his Cisco testing for that reason. He wanted to be able to leave at any time.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
August 20, 2008 at 8:03 am
My current employer does exactly that; it seems to be pretty standard in the UK. It's a 6 month period, and I don't know of a time when it's been invoked when the person leaving has been short by a couple of weeks or so either. Eventually, it's a safety guard rather than a big stick to wield, and it's used in exactly that way.
Semper in excretia, sumus solum profundum variat
August 20, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Some companies sign 'bond' of 1-2 years with the employees before nominating them for training. They expect the employees to work with them for a decent period after the training.
August 21, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I think whether you get these commitments and stuff depend on whether you live in a 'right to work state'. According to Ginger, Arizona is a right to work state and that pretty much means that either side can ditch the other at any time for any reason. You can quit whenever for whatever and you can be let go whenever for whatever. Whatever it is, it seems balanced. You can get training and they can't make you stay for it, but they don't have to keep you either ... You could technically get laid off after you booked the trip but before you actually go on it. Don't know how the expense reimbursement would work if that happened though.
With Major League soccer (single-entity; no team-to-player contracts) it is usually is that you have to fulfill your term but they don't have to fulfill theirs provided that their process is followed - get waived (cut); waiver grace period expires; your contract gets canceled. I don't think that is applicable to all players but I'm pretty sure most of the no-name and average players and some of the better non-star players are under that system. I don't know of MLS shipping players out for training, but I know players go to Europe on full or limited (training-only) loans (I think training-only stints are travel-funded by the player though). Player contracts can be very complicated - small books. My IT contract was only two pages (Ginger's was 7 because she's corp2corp)
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 44 (of 44 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply