Training for older employees [closed]

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP

.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;

up vote
2
down vote

favorite

It makes sense that a company will spend more money on training young employees.

How can older employees be compensated if they do not need training?

Assume all do a similar job.

training

share|improve this question

edited Jun 12 '15 at 17:36

Elysian Fields♦

96.8k46292449

asked Jun 12 '15 at 17:28

Lucky1

121

closed as unclear what you're asking by David K, scaaahu, Jan Doggen, Kate Gregory, Jenny D Jun 15 '15 at 13:07

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Hi Lucky, I edited your question slightly to make it more on topic here. Hope this doesn't change your intent too much - feel free to edit if so!
  – Elysian Fields♦
  Jun 12 '15 at 17:40
  

  
  
  
  

suggest improvements | 

up vote
2
down vote

favorite

It makes sense that a company will spend more money on training young employees.

How can older employees be compensated if they do not need training?

Assume all do a similar job.

training

share|improve this question

edited Jun 12 '15 at 17:36

Elysian Fields♦

96.8k46292449

asked Jun 12 '15 at 17:28

Lucky1

121

closed as unclear what you're asking by David K, scaaahu, Jan Doggen, Kate Gregory, Jenny D Jun 15 '15 at 13:07

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Hi Lucky, I edited your question slightly to make it more on topic here. Hope this doesn't change your intent too much - feel free to edit if so!
  – Elysian Fields♦
  Jun 12 '15 at 17:40
  

  
  
  
  

suggest improvements | 

up vote
2
down vote

favorite

up vote
2
down vote

favorite

It makes sense that a company will spend more money on training young employees.

How can older employees be compensated if they do not need training?

Assume all do a similar job.

training

share|improve this question

edited Jun 12 '15 at 17:36

Elysian Fields♦

96.8k46292449

asked Jun 12 '15 at 17:28

Lucky1

121

It makes sense that a company will spend more money on training young employees.

How can older employees be compensated if they do not need training?

Assume all do a similar job.

training

share|improve this question

edited Jun 12 '15 at 17:36

Elysian Fields♦

96.8k46292449

asked Jun 12 '15 at 17:28

Lucky1

121

share|improve this question

share|improve this question

edited Jun 12 '15 at 17:36

Elysian Fields♦

96.8k46292449

edited Jun 12 '15 at 17:36

Elysian Fields♦

96.8k46292449

edited Jun 12 '15 at 17:36

Elysian Fields♦

96.8k46292449

96.8k46292449

asked Jun 12 '15 at 17:28

Lucky1

121

asked Jun 12 '15 at 17:28

Lucky1

121

asked Jun 12 '15 at 17:28

Lucky1

121

121

closed as unclear what you're asking by David K, scaaahu, Jan Doggen, Kate Gregory, Jenny D Jun 15 '15 at 13:07

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

closed as unclear what you're asking by David K, scaaahu, Jan Doggen, Kate Gregory, Jenny D Jun 15 '15 at 13:07

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Hi Lucky, I edited your question slightly to make it more on topic here. Hope this doesn't change your intent too much - feel free to edit if so!
  – Elysian Fields♦
  Jun 12 '15 at 17:40
  

  
  
  
  

suggest improvements | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Hi Lucky, I edited your question slightly to make it more on topic here. Hope this doesn't change your intent too much - feel free to edit if so!
  – Elysian Fields♦
  Jun 12 '15 at 17:40
  

  
  
  
  

Hi Lucky, I edited your question slightly to make it more on topic here. Hope this doesn't change your intent too much - feel free to edit if so!
– Elysian Fields♦
Jun 12 '15 at 17:40

Hi Lucky, I edited your question slightly to make it more on topic here. Hope this doesn't change your intent too much - feel free to edit if so!
– Elysian Fields♦
Jun 12 '15 at 17:40

suggest improvements | 

4 Answers
4

active

oldest

votes

up vote
11
down vote

Train based on skills needed -- not age.

If you have a team with a 30 and 60 year old, it's possible the 60 year old may need training and the 30-year old will not.

Older employees who don't need training hopefully are more compensated due to their experience/etc. If this is not valued by companies then older employees might just be out of luck.

Now companies will be less inclined to invest significant training into someone they expect to leave in the near future. This might be because of retirement or new jobs.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 12 '15 at 17:34

Elysian Fields♦

96.8k46292449

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  About the 60 year old - if the retirement age is 65 it still gives that person about 5 years of work. I'm not sure how many companies actually expect employees that are 30 to stick around more than 5 years and in some industries that's extremely optimistic.
  – Benjamin Gruenbaum
  Jun 12 '15 at 17:35
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @BenjaminGruenbaum perspectives matter, regardless of reality. There is a strong perception that someone who is 60+ will "Retire soon."
  – Elysian Fields♦
  Jun 12 '15 at 17:36
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Right, your answer is about what an employer should do (train based on skills and not age) - my comment referred to that, the fact someone is 60 does not usually imply in the tech industry (for example) that they'll retire sooner than a 30 year old will change jobs.
  – Benjamin Gruenbaum
  Jun 12 '15 at 17:37
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @enderland: our you can turn it on its head smh say that it's extremely unlikely that the 60 years old is almost guaranteed to stay for the next 5 years. At that ages, it's highly unlikely for them to just switch job, especially if they have families, etc.
  – Lie Ryan
  Jun 14 '15 at 11:47
  

  
  
  
  

suggest improvements | 

up vote
11
down vote

AS a 60 year old, I have never viewed training as compensation. I certainly never would consider it instead of pay!

Training is a spearate budget item generally and it goes to whoever needs it that particular year.

It isn't unfair if I didn't get any and it certainly doesn't mean I should get compensated in some other way.

My skills and experience help dictate my salary level and that is where I am compensated for what I know already without further training. It is true I might expect a significant salary bump if I aquired training in a new area that paid more (such as getting data science training since it is a field that is currently hot and pays very well), but I would expect the younger person to get the same kind of bump.

That said, in a tech field where things are always changing and new tools and languages are coming out, anyone at any age might need training. So again I don't see what age has to do with it.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 12 '15 at 19:11

HLGEM

133k25226489

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Training is compensation. If you switch companies after five years, you can expect better pay if you had some good training than someone who started like you five years ago but had no training.
  – gnasher729
  Jun 14 '15 at 21:34
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I thought companies pay you for skills you have, not the "training" you may or may not have received... If you have a skill, it doesn't matter how you got it (i.e., whether it was "training" or your own exploration). It only matters that you have it.
  – MathematicalOrchid
  Jun 15 '15 at 12:25
  

  
  
  
  

suggest improvements | 

up vote
0
down vote

How can older employees be compensated if they do not need training?

An employer doesn't need to compensate people for things they don't need, when others do need them.

In a good company, people's needs are generally met.

Some people (new and old alike) need training. Some people need insurance to cover their family. Some people need pet insurance. Some people need special chairs. Some people need bigger monitors or more powerful computers. Some people need tuition reimbursement. Some people need eye care. Some people need to leave early. Some people need to come in late.

Others don't need any of those.

Company's aren't usually in the business of trying to balance every individual's needs to compensation to everyone else.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 15 '15 at 12:52

Joe Strazzere

223k106656922

suggest improvements | 

up vote
-1
down vote

"Training" has a deeper meaning than what is sounds.

1. The employee that requires training is allowed to delay the start date (and the completion date) for the project to account for the training time. What's more, the admission that he needs training means that a slow start is acceptable.


2. Some "training" is clearly a benefit in disguise, for example attending conferences in Las Vegas, Orlando or abroad, when the employee is not expected to immediately apply the new knowledge on the job.


3. Some training can be "personal development" type, for example learning a foreign language, some type of coaching, or a college course.


4. The company's commitment means that it values the employee, or the employee has the power to force the company to provide education.

All this leads me to think that

1. An employee that gets education should really appreciate it.


2. An employee that doesn't need education should be compensated.

share|improve this answer

edited Jun 14 '15 at 11:35

mhoran_psprep

40.3k462144

answered Jun 14 '15 at 7:07

Lucky1

121

suggest improvements | 

4 Answers
4

active

oldest

votes

4 Answers
4

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

up vote
11
down vote

Train based on skills needed -- not age.

If you have a team with a 30 and 60 year old, it's possible the 60 year old may need training and the 30-year old will not.

Older employees who don't need training hopefully are more compensated due to their experience/etc. If this is not valued by companies then older employees might just be out of luck.

Now companies will be less inclined to invest significant training into someone they expect to leave in the near future. This might be because of retirement or new jobs.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 12 '15 at 17:34

Elysian Fields♦

96.8k46292449

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  About the 60 year old - if the retirement age is 65 it still gives that person about 5 years of work. I'm not sure how many companies actually expect employees that are 30 to stick around more than 5 years and in some industries that's extremely optimistic.
  – Benjamin Gruenbaum
  Jun 12 '15 at 17:35
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @BenjaminGruenbaum perspectives matter, regardless of reality. There is a strong perception that someone who is 60+ will "Retire soon."
  – Elysian Fields♦
  Jun 12 '15 at 17:36
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Right, your answer is about what an employer should do (train based on skills and not age) - my comment referred to that, the fact someone is 60 does not usually imply in the tech industry (for example) that they'll retire sooner than a 30 year old will change jobs.
  – Benjamin Gruenbaum
  Jun 12 '15 at 17:37
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @enderland: our you can turn it on its head smh say that it's extremely unlikely that the 60 years old is almost guaranteed to stay for the next 5 years. At that ages, it's highly unlikely for them to just switch job, especially if they have families, etc.
  – Lie Ryan
  Jun 14 '15 at 11:47
  

  
  
  
  

suggest improvements | 

up vote
11
down vote

Train based on skills needed -- not age.

If you have a team with a 30 and 60 year old, it's possible the 60 year old may need training and the 30-year old will not.

Older employees who don't need training hopefully are more compensated due to their experience/etc. If this is not valued by companies then older employees might just be out of luck.

Now companies will be less inclined to invest significant training into someone they expect to leave in the near future. This might be because of retirement or new jobs.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 12 '15 at 17:34

Elysian Fields♦

96.8k46292449

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  About the 60 year old - if the retirement age is 65 it still gives that person about 5 years of work. I'm not sure how many companies actually expect employees that are 30 to stick around more than 5 years and in some industries that's extremely optimistic.
  – Benjamin Gruenbaum
  Jun 12 '15 at 17:35
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @BenjaminGruenbaum perspectives matter, regardless of reality. There is a strong perception that someone who is 60+ will "Retire soon."
  – Elysian Fields♦
  Jun 12 '15 at 17:36
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Right, your answer is about what an employer should do (train based on skills and not age) - my comment referred to that, the fact someone is 60 does not usually imply in the tech industry (for example) that they'll retire sooner than a 30 year old will change jobs.
  – Benjamin Gruenbaum
  Jun 12 '15 at 17:37
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @enderland: our you can turn it on its head smh say that it's extremely unlikely that the 60 years old is almost guaranteed to stay for the next 5 years. At that ages, it's highly unlikely for them to just switch job, especially if they have families, etc.
  – Lie Ryan
  Jun 14 '15 at 11:47
  

  
  
  
  

suggest improvements | 

up vote
11
down vote

up vote
11
down vote

Train based on skills needed -- not age.

If you have a team with a 30 and 60 year old, it's possible the 60 year old may need training and the 30-year old will not.

Older employees who don't need training hopefully are more compensated due to their experience/etc. If this is not valued by companies then older employees might just be out of luck.

Now companies will be less inclined to invest significant training into someone they expect to leave in the near future. This might be because of retirement or new jobs.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 12 '15 at 17:34

Elysian Fields♦

96.8k46292449

Train based on skills needed -- not age.

If you have a team with a 30 and 60 year old, it's possible the 60 year old may need training and the 30-year old will not.

Older employees who don't need training hopefully are more compensated due to their experience/etc. If this is not valued by companies then older employees might just be out of luck.

Now companies will be less inclined to invest significant training into someone they expect to leave in the near future. This might be because of retirement or new jobs.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 12 '15 at 17:34

Elysian Fields♦

96.8k46292449

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 12 '15 at 17:34

Elysian Fields♦

96.8k46292449

answered Jun 12 '15 at 17:34

Elysian Fields♦

96.8k46292449

answered Jun 12 '15 at 17:34

Elysian Fields♦

96.8k46292449

96.8k46292449

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  About the 60 year old - if the retirement age is 65 it still gives that person about 5 years of work. I'm not sure how many companies actually expect employees that are 30 to stick around more than 5 years and in some industries that's extremely optimistic.
  – Benjamin Gruenbaum
  Jun 12 '15 at 17:35
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @BenjaminGruenbaum perspectives matter, regardless of reality. There is a strong perception that someone who is 60+ will "Retire soon."
  – Elysian Fields♦
  Jun 12 '15 at 17:36
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Right, your answer is about what an employer should do (train based on skills and not age) - my comment referred to that, the fact someone is 60 does not usually imply in the tech industry (for example) that they'll retire sooner than a 30 year old will change jobs.
  – Benjamin Gruenbaum
  Jun 12 '15 at 17:37
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @enderland: our you can turn it on its head smh say that it's extremely unlikely that the 60 years old is almost guaranteed to stay for the next 5 years. At that ages, it's highly unlikely for them to just switch job, especially if they have families, etc.
  – Lie Ryan
  Jun 14 '15 at 11:47
  

  
  
  
  

suggest improvements | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  About the 60 year old - if the retirement age is 65 it still gives that person about 5 years of work. I'm not sure how many companies actually expect employees that are 30 to stick around more than 5 years and in some industries that's extremely optimistic.
  – Benjamin Gruenbaum
  Jun 12 '15 at 17:35
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @BenjaminGruenbaum perspectives matter, regardless of reality. There is a strong perception that someone who is 60+ will "Retire soon."
  – Elysian Fields♦
  Jun 12 '15 at 17:36
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Right, your answer is about what an employer should do (train based on skills and not age) - my comment referred to that, the fact someone is 60 does not usually imply in the tech industry (for example) that they'll retire sooner than a 30 year old will change jobs.
  – Benjamin Gruenbaum
  Jun 12 '15 at 17:37
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @enderland: our you can turn it on its head smh say that it's extremely unlikely that the 60 years old is almost guaranteed to stay for the next 5 years. At that ages, it's highly unlikely for them to just switch job, especially if they have families, etc.
  – Lie Ryan
  Jun 14 '15 at 11:47
  

  
  
  
  

1

1

About the 60 year old - if the retirement age is 65 it still gives that person about 5 years of work. I'm not sure how many companies actually expect employees that are 30 to stick around more than 5 years and in some industries that's extremely optimistic.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Jun 12 '15 at 17:35

About the 60 year old - if the retirement age is 65 it still gives that person about 5 years of work. I'm not sure how many companies actually expect employees that are 30 to stick around more than 5 years and in some industries that's extremely optimistic.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Jun 12 '15 at 17:35

1

1

@BenjaminGruenbaum perspectives matter, regardless of reality. There is a strong perception that someone who is 60+ will "Retire soon."
– Elysian Fields♦
Jun 12 '15 at 17:36

@BenjaminGruenbaum perspectives matter, regardless of reality. There is a strong perception that someone who is 60+ will "Retire soon."
– Elysian Fields♦
Jun 12 '15 at 17:36

1

1

Right, your answer is about what an employer should do (train based on skills and not age) - my comment referred to that, the fact someone is 60 does not usually imply in the tech industry (for example) that they'll retire sooner than a 30 year old will change jobs.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Jun 12 '15 at 17:37

Right, your answer is about what an employer should do (train based on skills and not age) - my comment referred to that, the fact someone is 60 does not usually imply in the tech industry (for example) that they'll retire sooner than a 30 year old will change jobs.
– Benjamin Gruenbaum
Jun 12 '15 at 17:37

@enderland: our you can turn it on its head smh say that it's extremely unlikely that the 60 years old is almost guaranteed to stay for the next 5 years. At that ages, it's highly unlikely for them to just switch job, especially if they have families, etc.
– Lie Ryan
Jun 14 '15 at 11:47

@enderland: our you can turn it on its head smh say that it's extremely unlikely that the 60 years old is almost guaranteed to stay for the next 5 years. At that ages, it's highly unlikely for them to just switch job, especially if they have families, etc.
– Lie Ryan
Jun 14 '15 at 11:47

suggest improvements | 

up vote
11
down vote

AS a 60 year old, I have never viewed training as compensation. I certainly never would consider it instead of pay!

Training is a spearate budget item generally and it goes to whoever needs it that particular year.

It isn't unfair if I didn't get any and it certainly doesn't mean I should get compensated in some other way.

My skills and experience help dictate my salary level and that is where I am compensated for what I know already without further training. It is true I might expect a significant salary bump if I aquired training in a new area that paid more (such as getting data science training since it is a field that is currently hot and pays very well), but I would expect the younger person to get the same kind of bump.

That said, in a tech field where things are always changing and new tools and languages are coming out, anyone at any age might need training. So again I don't see what age has to do with it.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 12 '15 at 19:11

HLGEM

133k25226489

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Training is compensation. If you switch companies after five years, you can expect better pay if you had some good training than someone who started like you five years ago but had no training.
  – gnasher729
  Jun 14 '15 at 21:34
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I thought companies pay you for skills you have, not the "training" you may or may not have received... If you have a skill, it doesn't matter how you got it (i.e., whether it was "training" or your own exploration). It only matters that you have it.
  – MathematicalOrchid
  Jun 15 '15 at 12:25
  

  
  
  
  

suggest improvements | 

up vote
11
down vote

AS a 60 year old, I have never viewed training as compensation. I certainly never would consider it instead of pay!

Training is a spearate budget item generally and it goes to whoever needs it that particular year.

It isn't unfair if I didn't get any and it certainly doesn't mean I should get compensated in some other way.

My skills and experience help dictate my salary level and that is where I am compensated for what I know already without further training. It is true I might expect a significant salary bump if I aquired training in a new area that paid more (such as getting data science training since it is a field that is currently hot and pays very well), but I would expect the younger person to get the same kind of bump.

That said, in a tech field where things are always changing and new tools and languages are coming out, anyone at any age might need training. So again I don't see what age has to do with it.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 12 '15 at 19:11

HLGEM

133k25226489

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Training is compensation. If you switch companies after five years, you can expect better pay if you had some good training than someone who started like you five years ago but had no training.
  – gnasher729
  Jun 14 '15 at 21:34
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I thought companies pay you for skills you have, not the "training" you may or may not have received... If you have a skill, it doesn't matter how you got it (i.e., whether it was "training" or your own exploration). It only matters that you have it.
  – MathematicalOrchid
  Jun 15 '15 at 12:25
  

  
  
  
  

suggest improvements | 

up vote
11
down vote

up vote
11
down vote

AS a 60 year old, I have never viewed training as compensation. I certainly never would consider it instead of pay!

Training is a spearate budget item generally and it goes to whoever needs it that particular year.

It isn't unfair if I didn't get any and it certainly doesn't mean I should get compensated in some other way.

My skills and experience help dictate my salary level and that is where I am compensated for what I know already without further training. It is true I might expect a significant salary bump if I aquired training in a new area that paid more (such as getting data science training since it is a field that is currently hot and pays very well), but I would expect the younger person to get the same kind of bump.

That said, in a tech field where things are always changing and new tools and languages are coming out, anyone at any age might need training. So again I don't see what age has to do with it.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 12 '15 at 19:11

HLGEM

133k25226489

AS a 60 year old, I have never viewed training as compensation. I certainly never would consider it instead of pay!

Training is a spearate budget item generally and it goes to whoever needs it that particular year.

It isn't unfair if I didn't get any and it certainly doesn't mean I should get compensated in some other way.

My skills and experience help dictate my salary level and that is where I am compensated for what I know already without further training. It is true I might expect a significant salary bump if I aquired training in a new area that paid more (such as getting data science training since it is a field that is currently hot and pays very well), but I would expect the younger person to get the same kind of bump.

That said, in a tech field where things are always changing and new tools and languages are coming out, anyone at any age might need training. So again I don't see what age has to do with it.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 12 '15 at 19:11

HLGEM

133k25226489

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 12 '15 at 19:11

HLGEM

133k25226489

answered Jun 12 '15 at 19:11

HLGEM

133k25226489

answered Jun 12 '15 at 19:11

HLGEM

133k25226489

133k25226489

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Training is compensation. If you switch companies after five years, you can expect better pay if you had some good training than someone who started like you five years ago but had no training.
  – gnasher729
  Jun 14 '15 at 21:34
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I thought companies pay you for skills you have, not the "training" you may or may not have received... If you have a skill, it doesn't matter how you got it (i.e., whether it was "training" or your own exploration). It only matters that you have it.
  – MathematicalOrchid
  Jun 15 '15 at 12:25
  

  
  
  
  

suggest improvements | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Training is compensation. If you switch companies after five years, you can expect better pay if you had some good training than someone who started like you five years ago but had no training.
  – gnasher729
  Jun 14 '15 at 21:34
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I thought companies pay you for skills you have, not the "training" you may or may not have received... If you have a skill, it doesn't matter how you got it (i.e., whether it was "training" or your own exploration). It only matters that you have it.
  – MathematicalOrchid
  Jun 15 '15 at 12:25
  

  
  
  
  

Training is compensation. If you switch companies after five years, you can expect better pay if you had some good training than someone who started like you five years ago but had no training.
– gnasher729
Jun 14 '15 at 21:34

Training is compensation. If you switch companies after five years, you can expect better pay if you had some good training than someone who started like you five years ago but had no training.
– gnasher729
Jun 14 '15 at 21:34

I thought companies pay you for skills you have, not the "training" you may or may not have received... If you have a skill, it doesn't matter how you got it (i.e., whether it was "training" or your own exploration). It only matters that you have it.
– MathematicalOrchid
Jun 15 '15 at 12:25

I thought companies pay you for skills you have, not the "training" you may or may not have received... If you have a skill, it doesn't matter how you got it (i.e., whether it was "training" or your own exploration). It only matters that you have it.
– MathematicalOrchid
Jun 15 '15 at 12:25

suggest improvements | 

up vote
0
down vote

How can older employees be compensated if they do not need training?

An employer doesn't need to compensate people for things they don't need, when others do need them.

In a good company, people's needs are generally met.

Some people (new and old alike) need training. Some people need insurance to cover their family. Some people need pet insurance. Some people need special chairs. Some people need bigger monitors or more powerful computers. Some people need tuition reimbursement. Some people need eye care. Some people need to leave early. Some people need to come in late.

Others don't need any of those.

Company's aren't usually in the business of trying to balance every individual's needs to compensation to everyone else.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 15 '15 at 12:52

Joe Strazzere

223k106656922

suggest improvements | 

up vote
0
down vote

How can older employees be compensated if they do not need training?

An employer doesn't need to compensate people for things they don't need, when others do need them.

In a good company, people's needs are generally met.

Some people (new and old alike) need training. Some people need insurance to cover their family. Some people need pet insurance. Some people need special chairs. Some people need bigger monitors or more powerful computers. Some people need tuition reimbursement. Some people need eye care. Some people need to leave early. Some people need to come in late.

Others don't need any of those.

Company's aren't usually in the business of trying to balance every individual's needs to compensation to everyone else.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 15 '15 at 12:52

Joe Strazzere

223k106656922

suggest improvements | 

up vote
0
down vote

up vote
0
down vote

How can older employees be compensated if they do not need training?

An employer doesn't need to compensate people for things they don't need, when others do need them.

In a good company, people's needs are generally met.

Some people (new and old alike) need training. Some people need insurance to cover their family. Some people need pet insurance. Some people need special chairs. Some people need bigger monitors or more powerful computers. Some people need tuition reimbursement. Some people need eye care. Some people need to leave early. Some people need to come in late.

Others don't need any of those.

Company's aren't usually in the business of trying to balance every individual's needs to compensation to everyone else.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 15 '15 at 12:52

Joe Strazzere

223k106656922

How can older employees be compensated if they do not need training?

An employer doesn't need to compensate people for things they don't need, when others do need them.

In a good company, people's needs are generally met.

Some people (new and old alike) need training. Some people need insurance to cover their family. Some people need pet insurance. Some people need special chairs. Some people need bigger monitors or more powerful computers. Some people need tuition reimbursement. Some people need eye care. Some people need to leave early. Some people need to come in late.

Others don't need any of those.

Company's aren't usually in the business of trying to balance every individual's needs to compensation to everyone else.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 15 '15 at 12:52

Joe Strazzere

223k106656922

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 15 '15 at 12:52

Joe Strazzere

223k106656922

answered Jun 15 '15 at 12:52

Joe Strazzere

223k106656922

answered Jun 15 '15 at 12:52

Joe Strazzere

223k106656922

223k106656922

suggest improvements | 

suggest improvements | 

up vote
-1
down vote

"Training" has a deeper meaning than what is sounds.

1. The employee that requires training is allowed to delay the start date (and the completion date) for the project to account for the training time. What's more, the admission that he needs training means that a slow start is acceptable.


2. Some "training" is clearly a benefit in disguise, for example attending conferences in Las Vegas, Orlando or abroad, when the employee is not expected to immediately apply the new knowledge on the job.


3. Some training can be "personal development" type, for example learning a foreign language, some type of coaching, or a college course.


4. The company's commitment means that it values the employee, or the employee has the power to force the company to provide education.

All this leads me to think that

1. An employee that gets education should really appreciate it.


2. An employee that doesn't need education should be compensated.

share|improve this answer

edited Jun 14 '15 at 11:35

mhoran_psprep

40.3k462144

answered Jun 14 '15 at 7:07

Lucky1

121

suggest improvements | 

up vote
-1
down vote

"Training" has a deeper meaning than what is sounds.

1. The employee that requires training is allowed to delay the start date (and the completion date) for the project to account for the training time. What's more, the admission that he needs training means that a slow start is acceptable.


2. Some "training" is clearly a benefit in disguise, for example attending conferences in Las Vegas, Orlando or abroad, when the employee is not expected to immediately apply the new knowledge on the job.


3. Some training can be "personal development" type, for example learning a foreign language, some type of coaching, or a college course.


4. The company's commitment means that it values the employee, or the employee has the power to force the company to provide education.

All this leads me to think that

1. An employee that gets education should really appreciate it.


2. An employee that doesn't need education should be compensated.

share|improve this answer

edited Jun 14 '15 at 11:35

mhoran_psprep

40.3k462144

answered Jun 14 '15 at 7:07

Lucky1

121

suggest improvements | 

up vote
-1
down vote

up vote
-1
down vote

"Training" has a deeper meaning than what is sounds.

1. The employee that requires training is allowed to delay the start date (and the completion date) for the project to account for the training time. What's more, the admission that he needs training means that a slow start is acceptable.


2. Some "training" is clearly a benefit in disguise, for example attending conferences in Las Vegas, Orlando or abroad, when the employee is not expected to immediately apply the new knowledge on the job.


3. Some training can be "personal development" type, for example learning a foreign language, some type of coaching, or a college course.


4. The company's commitment means that it values the employee, or the employee has the power to force the company to provide education.

All this leads me to think that

1. An employee that gets education should really appreciate it.


2. An employee that doesn't need education should be compensated.

share|improve this answer

edited Jun 14 '15 at 11:35

mhoran_psprep

40.3k462144

answered Jun 14 '15 at 7:07

Lucky1

121

"Training" has a deeper meaning than what is sounds.

1. The employee that requires training is allowed to delay the start date (and the completion date) for the project to account for the training time. What's more, the admission that he needs training means that a slow start is acceptable.


2. Some "training" is clearly a benefit in disguise, for example attending conferences in Las Vegas, Orlando or abroad, when the employee is not expected to immediately apply the new knowledge on the job.


3. Some training can be "personal development" type, for example learning a foreign language, some type of coaching, or a college course.


4. The company's commitment means that it values the employee, or the employee has the power to force the company to provide education.

All this leads me to think that

1. An employee that gets education should really appreciate it.


2. An employee that doesn't need education should be compensated.

share|improve this answer

edited Jun 14 '15 at 11:35

mhoran_psprep

40.3k462144

answered Jun 14 '15 at 7:07

Lucky1

121

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited Jun 14 '15 at 11:35

mhoran_psprep

40.3k462144

edited Jun 14 '15 at 11:35

mhoran_psprep

40.3k462144

edited Jun 14 '15 at 11:35

mhoran_psprep

40.3k462144

40.3k462144

answered Jun 14 '15 at 7:07

Lucky1

121

answered Jun 14 '15 at 7:07

Lucky1

121

answered Jun 14 '15 at 7:07

Lucky1

121

121

suggest improvements | 

suggest improvements |