5 ms·

> Ultimately, these companies wouldn't invest in training if there wasn't a return on that investment. Possibly, but its hard to see a ROI in this situation co

by jshowa 14y ago

> Ultimately, these companies wouldn't invest in training if there wasn't a return on that investment. Possibly, but its hard to see a ROI in this situation considering they are paying for training and giving the kids a full-time job, possibly with benefits. That's a couple thousand a person in training + 44,000 salary + a couple thousand in benefits and possibly a union membership. I don't see how there is cost offset over converting engineers who have a base knowledge. Not only that, where are they going to go if they lose their job? We're also talking about high school students here. They've had stuff taken care of for them all their life (baring extenuating circumstances). Not exactly the most responsible bunch I would guess.

drcube 14y ago
Dude, they aren't "giving" away jobs. This isn't a charity. You don't hire people unless you need them to make money, and then you do whatever it takes to help them make you money. If it wasn't in the best financial interests of the employer, they wouldn't do it. Why would you prefer engineers take a pay cut to do technician work rather than the engineering they are trained for and experienced in? If an engineer can do it, I bet it would be even easier to transfer VPs and executives to these lucrative technician jobs, right?
- jshowa 14y ago
  Because, if you look at it from a business standpoint, why would you hire more employers if you have employers that can convert. Unlike some people, I don't need $90k to make a living. But then again, when has ethics ever been a problem right? Its all about wanting more and more. Not to mention, some engineers are really crappy and since getting a new job isn't particularly easy, especially with a family, pay cuts are an option. I've seen a lot of things done at the company I work for that wasn't exactly in the companies "financial interest". Its amazing how much money is used for things that aren't needed because a manager felt they couldn't wait an extra month, or something wasn't "moving" fast enough, or other poor excuses that justify spending 50k on a system of which they probably don't even use the majority of the features.

by jshowa 14y ago

drcube 14y ago

Dude, they aren't "giving" away jobs. This isn't a charity. You don't hire people unless you need them to make money, and then you do whatever it takes to help them make you money. If it wasn't in the best financial interests of the employer, they wouldn't do it. Why would you prefer engineers take a pay cut to do technician work rather than the engineering they are trained for and experienced in? If an engineer can do it, I bet it would be even easier to transfer VPs and executives to these lucrative technician jobs, right?

jshowa 14y ago
Because, if you look at it from a business standpoint, why would you hire more employers if you have employers that can convert. Unlike some people, I don't need $90k to make a living. But then again, when has ethics ever been a problem right? Its all about wanting more and more. Not to mention, some engineers are really crappy and since getting a new job isn't particularly easy, especially with a family, pay cuts are an option. I've seen a lot of things done at the company I work for that wasn't exactly in the companies "financial interest". Its amazing how much money is used for things that aren't needed because a manager felt they couldn't wait an extra month, or something wasn't "moving" fast enough, or other poor excuses that justify spending 50k on a system of which they probably don't even use the majority of the features.