FTC Recinds All Non-Compete Agreements

[Andylusion]

Where I'm not saying that you are wrong....things certainly can go that way. But instead of hiring people who can't hold a job for 2 years they will look for those who hold jobs for 10+ years or more. Especially if it's a position requiring a high amount of training.

Currently we have an epidemic of employers absolutely having zero concern for their employees as a result of legislation crafted by corporations instead of a representative government. Workers today have almost zero rights. So in turn you have workers pretending to work for employers who pretend to pay wages. Many job applicants flat out lie and exaggerate the truth on their resumes (CVs) to get a job that they are not qualified to hold. And basically just bluster through with their performance because upper management is asleep at the wheel. Nobody notices or pays attention or cares to do either.

But in the meantime the actual work is usually done by 20% of the employees. Who have an inkling that they are worth more than they are getting paid. (80/20 rule is alive and well among employees)

This gives those highly productive employees an opportunity to advance their income and opportunities in their trade.

Well, yes. And that 80/20 rule is always going to be the case. It's almost like a natural law.

Pareto Distribution & Price's Law Jordan Peterson​

The square root of the number of people, produce 50% of the work. And he pointed out that this is true across the entire economy, and in every field. So if you take 1,000 musicians, the sq root is 30 of them produce 50% of the music. And even of those people, if you take the top musician, they produce 1,000 songs, the sq root is played half the time.

Take Beethoven which produced 733 songs. How many are popular and played over and over? About 20 of them at best. And rest no one has ever heard, or even heard of.

Unfortunately, there is no way around this.

Can companies do a better job of picking good employees? To some extent. Obviously I've been in companies that were in fact "asleep at the wheel" as you said. And those have the worst outcomes, no doubt. But at the end of the day, your best hope is to avoid hiring complete boat anchors that weight the team down. You will never get an entire team of people, all being the 20% as you said, and avoid the 80%. It's just not possible.

And maybe that's why some companies fall asleep. It would be curious to research that. Maybe some companies try super super hard to hire only the best employees on the planet, and they still end up with 20/80 like all companies do.... and so then they give up and just hire anyone, because they don't see working hard to pick and choose results in 50/50 instead of 20/80.

It would be interesting to see some research on that.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Not possible. I can't pay you the employee, more than the customer is willing to pay me.

Doesn't matter what you think competitive wages are. I the employer, do not have a single dollar to pay the employee with, that doesn't come from the customer.

So if you want employees paid more, you are saying YOU want to pay more.
Do you want to pay more?

Does your actions as a consumer show you want employees paid more?

Because you can go to the high end restaurants and pay $25 for burger. Do you do that? Or do you go to McDonald's or some other cheaper place?

You can go to Whole Foods, and pay $1.50 lbs of potatoes, or go to Walmart and pay 50¢ per lbs of potatoes. And higher prices for all products. Do you do that? Or do you go to the cheaper stores?

How you actually live out as a consumer, tells us if you really believe employees should be paid more. Because the stores that pay their employees more, charge more. And if you don't go to those place, and instead go to the cheaper places, then YOU are the one that doesn't want employees paid competitive wages.

This whole thread is about people leaving one company to go to a different on in the same industry.

They are leaving due to getting more pay.

As for me, I am the 25 dollar burger type that leaves normally 40 to 50 percent tip.

I buy my groceries from a local chain that is pretty middle of the road but they have the best produce.

I think everyone should do all they can to get paid as much as they can, I know that I do.

 

[Andylusion]

This whole thread is about people leaving one company to go to a different on in the same industry.

They are leaving due to getting more pay.

As for me, I am the 25 dollar burger type that leaves normally 40 to 50 percent tip.

I buy my groceries from a local chain that is pretty middle of the road but they have the best produce.

I think everyone should do all they can to get paid as much as they can, I know that I do.

So a bit after posting my last comment, I realized to my horror that I had completely answered out of context. Brilliant for me. You are right, I was scatter brained.

If you'll give me a second change, I'd like to answer more relevant to what you said.

So have you ever trained anyone in a professional environment? I have. I worked at about four different jobs where I was tasked with training people to do fairly complex jobs. I also worked at a job at a dealership, where I was not training, but I was friends with manager of the entire repair department. And we talked about why the dealership was phasing out all of their apprenticeship positions.

So to the question, why are people who are trained or apprenticeships, paid less money for the same job as other people, which can result in those trained employees without a non-compete, going and working for a competitor?

The manager told me this, and I've found it to be true in all my jobs where I trained people to do various positions.

Having a trainee, or having an apprenticeship, is basically you paying people to lose money and break things.

You have to pay them to not be productive. They don't know what is going on, they don't know how to do the job, and you have to pay them knowing they are likely to make a tons of mistakes that you have to fix.

And not only do you pay people to lose money, and break stuff, but you also have to take your productive employees that are making the company money, and use them to train, which means they are making the company less money.

I remember one job in particular where I was the top employee on the production floor, producing 60 to 70 units a day. Well they put me in charge of the entire project, and had me train 4 new employees. My production for the following month fell to about 20. Because every time I sat down at my desk, someone was yell "help help, this isn't working!" and I'd have to go put out the fire.

That's what training people, and apprenticeship programs are like.

Now if you can understand that, then you have to ask the question, why would any company hire a trainee over anyone that has any experience in the business or career? Most companies are getting 10 to 20 job applicants for every position. Why would they hire someone that needed trained over someone with any experience? They would just be losing money.

Well... they pay less. You earn a lower wage for the first year or two after being trained, and that offsets the loss the company experiences training you.

But that means not having you get trained and running off to a competitor. So you just lose money training, and then you get nothing in return for that training. They go to a competitor and the company losses money, and then trained their competition.

The non-compete was largely a remedy for this problem. Without that, companies have no reason to ever train anyone.

 

[JohnDB]

Well, yes. And that 80/20 rule is always going to be the case. It's almost like a natural law.

Pareto Distribution & Price's Law Jordan Peterson​

The square root of the number of people, produce 50% of the work. And he pointed out that this is true across the entire economy, and in every field. So if you take 1,000 musicians, the sq root is 30 of them produce 50% of the music. And even of those people, if you take the top musician, they produce 1,000 songs, the sq root is played half the time.

Take Beethoven which produced 733 songs. How many are popular and played over and over? About 20 of them at best. And rest no one has ever heard, or even heard of.

Unfortunately, there is no way around this.

Can companies do a better job of picking good employees? To some extent. Obviously I've been in companies that were in fact "asleep at the wheel" as you said. And those have the worst outcomes, no doubt. But at the end of the day, your best hope is to avoid hiring complete boat anchors that weight the team down. You will never get an entire team of people, all being the 20% as you said, and avoid the 80%. It's just not possible.

And maybe that's why some companies fall asleep. It would be curious to research that. Maybe some companies try super super hard to hire only the best employees on the planet, and they still end up with 20/80 like all companies do.... and so then they give up and just hire anyone, because they don't see working hard to pick and choose results in 50/50 instead of 20/80.

It would be interesting to see some research on that.

80% of all business failures are due to poor management but blamed on poor workforce performance 100% of the time.

 

[Andylusion]

80% of all business failures are due to poor management but blamed on poor workforce performance 100% of the time.

Yeah, I don't think so.

 

[JohnDB]

So a bit after posting my last comment, I realized to my horror that I had completely answered out of context. Brilliant for me. You are right, I was scatter brained.

If you'll give me a second change, I'd like to answer more relevant to what you said.

So have you ever trained anyone in a professional environment? I have. I worked at about four different jobs where I was tasked with training people to do fairly complex jobs. I also worked at a job at a dealership, where I was not training, but I was friends with manager of the entire repair department. And we talked about why the dealership was phasing out all of their apprenticeship positions.

So to the question, why are people who are trained or apprenticeships, paid less money for the same job as other people, which can result in those trained employees without a non-compete, going and working for a competitor?

The manager told me this, and I've found it to be true in all my jobs where I trained people to do various positions.

Having a trainee, or having an apprenticeship, is basically you paying people to lose money and break things.

You have to pay them to not be productive. They don't know what is going on, they don't know how to do the job, and you have to pay them knowing they are likely to make a tons of mistakes that you have to fix.

And not only do you pay people to lose money, and break stuff, but you also have to take your productive employees that are making the company money, and use them to train, which means they are making the company less money.

I remember one job in particular where I was the top employee on the production floor, producing 60 to 70 units a day. Well they put me in charge of the entire project, and had me train 4 new employees. My production for the following month fell to about 20. Because every time I sat down at my desk, someone was yell "help help, this isn't working!" and I'd have to go put out the fire.

That's what training people, and apprenticeship programs are like.

Now if you can understand that, then you have to ask the question, why would any company hire a trainee over anyone that has any experience in the business or career? Most companies are getting 10 to 20 job applicants for every position. Why would they hire someone that needed trained over someone with any experience? They would just be losing money.

Well... they pay less. You earn a lower wage for the first year or two after being trained, and that offsets the loss the company experiences training you.

But that means not having you get trained and running off to a competitor. So you just lose money training, and then you get nothing in return for that training. They go to a competitor and the company losses money, and then trained their competition.

The non-compete was largely a remedy for this problem. Without that, companies have no reason to ever train anyone.

However I have seen situations where sending a "trained" employee to a competitor was absolutely the best thing you could do to ensure the competition was at a disadvantage.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So a bit after posting my last comment, I realized to my horror that I had completely answered out of context. Brilliant for me. You are right, I was scatter brained.

If you'll give me a second change, I'd like to answer more relevant to what you said.

So have you ever trained anyone in a professional environment? I have. I worked at about four different jobs where I was tasked with training people to do fairly complex jobs. I also worked at a job at a dealership, where I was not training, but I was friends with manager of the entire repair department. And we talked about why the dealership was phasing out all of their apprenticeship positions.

So to the question, why are people who are trained or apprenticeships, paid less money for the same job as other people, which can result in those trained employees without a non-compete, going and working for a competitor?

The manager told me this, and I've found it to be true in all my jobs where I trained people to do various positions.

Having a trainee, or having an apprenticeship, is basically you paying people to lose money and break things.

You have to pay them to not be productive. They don't know what is going on, they don't know how to do the job, and you have to pay them knowing they are likely to make a tons of mistakes that you have to fix.

And not only do you pay people to lose money, and break stuff, but you also have to take your productive employees that are making the company money, and use them to train, which means they are making the company less money.

I remember one job in particular where I was the top employee on the production floor, producing 60 to 70 units a day. Well they put me in charge of the entire project, and had me train 4 new employees. My production for the following month fell to about 20. Because every time I sat down at my desk, someone was yell "help help, this isn't working!" and I'd have to go put out the fire.

That's what training people, and apprenticeship programs are like.

Now if you can understand that, then you have to ask the question, why would any company hire a trainee over anyone that has any experience in the business or career? Most companies are getting 10 to 20 job applicants for every position. Why would they hire someone that needed trained over someone with any experience? They would just be losing money.

Well... they pay less. You earn a lower wage for the first year or two after being trained, and that offsets the loss the company experiences training you.

But that means not having you get trained and running off to a competitor. So you just lose money training, and then you get nothing in return for that training. They go to a competitor and the company losses money, and then trained their competition.

The non-compete was largely a remedy for this problem. Without that, companies have no reason to ever train anyone.

I have trained people, and I do see what you are saying.

But every new employee has to be trained, even ones with lots of experience. In some areas this might be less, I am not all that mechanical in nature, but I assume if you work for one garage repairing vehicles you can work for a different one without much training needed. The same would be true I assume for plumbers and such.

In many other areas it is very different. My wife is a nurse and even if they get a new nurse with 20 years of experience there is a training phase as they learn the new rules and new charting system and the like. Yes, it last less time than if you have a new grad nurse, but the nurse with 20 years is getting paid a lot more off the top.

I am a data analyst who now mostly works as a Project Manager with a team of 90ish people under me. No matter how much experience someone has when they come to work for us, every company doing what I do does things differently so there is a learning curve.

And I know my first post was a bit curt, so I will say that perhaps companies need to be quicker to increase the pay of those newly trained so that they will stick around. In an economy with something like 10 million open jobs there will always be someone trying to take your employee

 

[JohnDB]

I have trained people, and I do see what you are saying.

But every new employee has to be trained, even ones with lots of experience. In some areas this might be less, I am not all that mechanical in nature, but I assume if you work for one garage repairing vehicles you can work for a different one without much training needed. The same would be true I assume for plumbers and such.

In many other areas it is very different. My wife is a nurse and even if they get a new nurse with 20 years of experience there is a training phase as they learn the new rules and new charting system and the like. Yes, it last less time than if you have a new grad nurse, but the nurse with 20 years is getting paid a lot more off the top.

I am a data analyst who now mostly works as a Project Manager with a team of 90ish people under me. No matter how much experience someone has when they come to work for us, every company doing what I do does things differently so there is a learning curve.

And I know my first post was a bit curt, so I will say that perhaps companies need to be quicker to increase the pay of those newly trained so that they will stick around. In an economy with something like 10 million open jobs there will always be someone trying to take your employee

Trade skills are of course going to be required for any employment. And learning company systems and processes is going to be proprietary.
However, now that companies cannot restrict trade skill usage with NCA's....let's the market grow and change organically.

And the era of having a reasonable supervisor (for a change) is upon us.

We don't need management to coddle people...just be reasonable. Allow workers to grow and develop new skills for their career paths. Give credit for good work done instead of blatantly stealing credit. (And token raises when no money exists for real ones)

Of course a$$hoe bosses will still exist....but it is past time to realize how expensive these people are. Especially when dealing with hard to find specialty skilled staff. Golden handcuffs have always worked better than insults and being dismissive of talents.

 

[Moonglow]

The Federal Trade Commission has made almost all Non-compete agreements null and void. Mostly because these were being used to hold employees as slaves for slave wages. You couldn't quit, get another job in the same field without 18-24 months of not using your career expertise.

More here:

FTC Announces Rule Banning Noncompetes

Today, the Federal Trade Commission issued a final rule to promote competition by banning noncompetes nationwide, protecting the fundamen

www.ftc.gov

It's fifty years too late

 

[Moonglow]

already a thread on this

So they should not compete for posters?

 

[martybegan]

I agree...but the skill-set belongs to the worker--who is free to shop his expertise to the highest bidder.
Non-compete clauses are just one way for a company to hoard its pool of talent...instead of paying them top-dollar.

The thing is the person with the clause is usually compensated with a big severance if they are let go.

 

[Moonglow]

The thing is the person with the clause is usually compensated with a big severance if they are let go.

No, we were not.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So they should not compete for posters?

Well played

 

[Andylusion]

I have trained people, and I do see what you are saying.

But every new employee has to be trained, even ones with lots of experience. In some areas this might be less, I am not all that mechanical in nature, but I assume if you work for one garage repairing vehicles you can work for a different one without much training needed. The same would be true I assume for plumbers and such.

In many other areas it is very different. My wife is a nurse and even if they get a new nurse with 20 years of experience there is a training phase as they learn the new rules and new charting system and the like. Yes, it last less time than if you have a new grad nurse, but the nurse with 20 years is getting paid a lot more off the top.

I am a data analyst who now mostly works as a Project Manager with a team of 90ish people under me. No matter how much experience someone has when they come to work for us, every company doing what I do does things differently so there is a learning curve.

And I know my first post was a bit curt, so I will say that perhaps companies need to be quicker to increase the pay of those newly trained so that they will stick around. In an economy with something like 10 million open jobs there will always be someone trying to take your employee

Right right, of course. I'm not talking about policies and procedures, that are unique to the company, and have to be trained to every employee. Because knowing how Xcorp files their weekly productivity reports, isn't useful anywhere else. I'm talking about transferable skills.

You are dead on right, that every employee has to be trained in the systems and work flow of that specific company. Yes.

But I have spent possibly 3 weeks, training a guy on how to install, configure and setup, a fortune 500 mainframe. I've taught people to assemble and test, electronic equipment, who prior to, had never seen or used a multi-meter.

These are transferable skills. And that costs money.

I've even watched a company send someone to go get certified training on particular hardware in high-tech fields, who then found other employment the following month. The company paid for them to be at a hotel, paid for the certification training, and paid for their food, 3 day certification program... and 4 weeks later, and one of them was gone.

I remember thinking specifically at that time, we just trained and certified another companies employee. We literally spent a ton of money, gave them useful skills, and we got zero from them because the project that needed that certification had not started by the time they left. So we literally got zero. Nothing.

This is what I'm talking about. We just trained and certified another companies employee.

And I'm not entirely sure that non-competes are a solution. And maybe there is no solution. I remember at the time, thinking that not having those employees sign a non-compete was a mistake. And I am not a company man myself. I'm no longer there obviously. But even just as a trainer, I was irritated that I spent all those weeks getting these people into being productive members of the team, and they just ran off to whoever offered another 50¢.

And maybe non-competes are bad. Perhaps the other people are right. I just can't imagine training people without a non-compete now. I'd skip all the people trying to get into a career, for anyone with a few years experience. And that would fix my problem, but then we're locking out the next generation of workers. Because who is going to hire them?

 

[JohnDB]

Right right, of course. I'm not talking about policies and procedures, that are unique to the company, and have to be trained to every employee. Because knowing how Xcorp files their weekly productivity reports, isn't useful anywhere else. I'm talking about transferable skills.

You are dead on right, that every employee has to be trained in the systems and work flow of that specific company. Yes.

But I have spent possibly 3 weeks, training a guy on how to install, configure and setup, a fortune 500 mainframe. I've taught people to assemble and test, electronic equipment, who prior to, had never seen or used a multi-meter.

These are transferable skills. And that costs money.

I've even watched a company send someone to go get certified training on particular hardware in high-tech fields, who then found other employment the following month. The company paid for them to be at a hotel, paid for the certification training, and paid for their food, 3 day certification program... and 4 weeks later, and one of them was gone.

I remember thinking specifically at that time, we just trained and certified another companies employee. We literally spent a ton of money, gave them useful skills, and we got zero from them because the project that needed that certification had not started by the time they left. So we literally got zero. Nothing.

This is what I'm talking about. We just trained and certified another companies employee.

And I'm not entirely sure that non-competes are a solution. And maybe there is no solution. I remember at the time, thinking that not having those employees sign a non-compete was a mistake. And I am not a company man myself. I'm no longer there obviously. But even just as a trainer, I was irritated that I spent all those weeks getting these people into being productive members of the team, and they just ran off to whoever offered another 50¢.

And maybe non-competes are bad. Perhaps the other people are right. I just can't imagine training people without a non-compete now. I'd skip all the people trying to get into a career, for anyone with a few years experience. And that would fix my problem, but then we're locking out the next generation of workers. Because who is going to hire them?

As a person with trade skills similar to what you discussed...

0.50/hr is not enough to make a jump.

It requires at least a 10% pay increase before I'd even consider it.

Because with a new company there exists a lot of risks on my part. People have lost jobs after only a couple of weeks at a new company often enough that it's a real concern. Because hiring managers aren't always knowledgeable about what's coming from upper management next.
Also a pleasant work environment is always worth 5-10% less pay. Hostile, micromanagement is not something anyone enjoys. I'd take a cut in pay to leave every time if I hadn't already walked out at that point.

A job is just a job....and where I am concerned about my family's future they are the reason I go to work. And if the job comes between me and my family the job takes second place (which is last) every time. I can and will find a new job when I need to....unconcerned as I have skills desired just about in every marketplace.

Golden Handcuffs are how you keep people. Sure, you paid for training and they left shortly after...but jobs are not obtained that quickly. This job change was being considered long before the training started.

 

[Andylusion]

As a person with trade skills similar to what you discussed...

0.50/hr is not enough to make a jump.

It requires at least a 10% pay increase before I'd even consider it.

Because with a new company there exists a lot of risks on my part. People have lost jobs after only a couple of weeks at a new company often enough that it's a real concern. Because hiring managers aren't always knowledgeable about what's coming from upper management next.
Also a pleasant work environment is always worth 5-10% less pay. Hostile, micromanagement is not something anyone enjoys. I'd take a cut in pay to leave every time if I hadn't already walked out at that point.

A job is just a job....and where I am concerned about my family's future they are the reason I go to work. And if the job comes between me and my family the job takes second place (which is last) every time. I can and will find a new job when I need to....unconcerned as I have skills desired just about in every marketplace.

Golden Handcuffs are how you keep people. Sure, you paid for training and they left shortly after...but jobs are not obtained that quickly. This job change was being considered long before the training started.

Of course I was being flippant. Yes, I would hope.... that most people won't leave a job for 50¢ and hour. Although I have to admit I have seen that. Rarely.

And everything you said I generally agree with.

The only problem I have in general is that, I think many employees have short term thinking, and while I could be wrong, I think people harm their own futures for the short term.

Even if you get a 10% raise, you move to another company where now you start at the bottom as an outsider. If you say at the company that trained you, automatically you have a better chance for a promotion in the future, just because the company invested in you.

It might not happen this year, or even next year, but by being trained, you are on the fast track to moving up. You have an automatic edge over all other potentials for any future position, that were not trained by the company.

I think people give that up way too fast on that long term gain, for the short term gain.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

So a bit after posting my last comment, I realized to my horror that I had completely answered out of context. Brilliant for me. You are right, I was scatter brained.

If you'll give me a second change, I'd like to answer more relevant to what you said.

So have you ever trained anyone in a professional environment? I have. I worked at about four different jobs where I was tasked with training people to do fairly complex jobs. I also worked at a job at a dealership, where I was not training, but I was friends with manager of the entire repair department. And we talked about why the dealership was phasing out all of their apprenticeship positions.

So to the question, why are people who are trained or apprenticeships, paid less money for the same job as other people, which can result in those trained employees without a non-compete, going and working for a competitor?

The manager told me this, and I've found it to be true in all my jobs where I trained people to do various positions.

Having a trainee, or having an apprenticeship, is basically you paying people to lose money and break things.

You have to pay them to not be productive. They don't know what is going on, they don't know how to do the job, and you have to pay them knowing they are likely to make a tons of mistakes that you have to fix.

And not only do you pay people to lose money, and break stuff, but you also have to take your productive employees that are making the company money, and use them to train, which means they are making the company less money.

I remember one job in particular where I was the top employee on the production floor, producing 60 to 70 units a day. Well they put me in charge of the entire project, and had me train 4 new employees. My production for the following month fell to about 20. Because every time I sat down at my desk, someone was yell "help help, this isn't working!" and I'd have to go put out the fire.

That's what training people, and apprenticeship programs are like.

Now if you can understand that, then you have to ask the question, why would any company hire a trainee over anyone that has any experience in the business or career? Most companies are getting 10 to 20 job applicants for every position. Why would they hire someone that needed trained over someone with any experience? They would just be losing money.

Well... they pay less. You earn a lower wage for the first year or two after being trained, and that offsets the loss the company experiences training you.

But that means not having you get trained and running off to a competitor. So you just lose money training, and then you get nothing in return for that training. They go to a competitor and the company losses money, and then trained their competition.

The non-compete was largely a remedy for this problem. Without that, companies have no reason to ever train anyone.

Hmmm..one would think that increased productivity and higher profits would be incentive enough?

I get that this is one to the few wrinkles in the market that actively favor the worker--and companies hate it.
The answer is to give newbies a stake in the company...convince them to invest long-term in their job.
Stock options for your rainmakers---and a Pension with a 15 year investment. Gross salary is just one sort of carrot.
There are many more.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Of course I was being flippant. Yes, I would hope.... that most people won't leave a job for 50¢ and hour. Although I have to admit I have seen that. Rarely.

And everything you said I generally agree with.

The only problem I have in general is that, I think many employees have short term thinking, and while I could be wrong, I think people harm their own futures for the short term.

Even if you get a 10% raise, you move to another company where now you start at the bottom as an outsider. If you say at the company that trained you, automatically you have a better chance for a promotion in the future, just because the company invested in you.

It might not happen this year, or even next year, but by being trained, you are on the fast track to moving up. You have an automatic edge over all other potentials for any future position, that were not trained by the company.

I think people give that up way too fast on that long term gain, for the short term gain.

Judicious job-hopping is often the only way a worker can rise.

 

[Andylusion]

Hmmm..one would think that increased productivity and higher profits would be incentive enough?

I get that this is one to the few wrinkles in the market that actively favor the worker--and companies hate it.
The answer is to give newbies a stake in the company...convince them to invest long-term in their job.
Stock options for your rainmakers---and a Pension with a 15 year investment. Gross salary is just one sort of carrot.
There are many more.

Well pensions are out. That's not a thing. No company is going to go back to pensions and end up bankrupt. That time is done, gone, and over with. You get a 401k with a company match, and that's it.

It's not that companies hate it, but rather that they just don't have apprenticeships anymore, or do much company training.

It's the workers that are the ones penalized. Not the company so much. The workers end up not being able to get a job at all, or they are only offered low wages with no hope of being trained.

Or they have to go pay massive tuition to pay for their own training, and end up in debt. So the company is doing to adapt to the situation as it exists. And that means the workers are the ones screwed.

Specifically the example I saw was a local dealership that used to have 5 full time apprenticeship programs. 3 in repair, and 2 in auto body repair. Today they have zero. Instead, the local community college has a auto repair program you can go through, and the dealership started telling people who formerly applied for apprenticeships to go to the college and get their own training. So go spend tens of thousands for training, instead of working for a pay check while trained.

The wrinkle in the market that favors the employees, has now harmed the employees.

Most of the companies have profit sharing plans already. Even Walmart has a profit sharing plan.

Now Dealership does not, because it's not usually a public corporation where it's possible to be given stock in the company.

 

[JohnDB]

Well pensions are out. That's not a thing. No company is going to go back to pensions and end up bankrupt. That time is done, gone, and over with. You get a 401k with a company match, and that's it.

It's not that companies hate it, but rather that they just don't have apprenticeships anymore, or do much company training.

It's the workers that are the ones penalized. Not the company so much. The workers end up not being able to get a job at all, or they are only offered low wages with no hope of being trained.

Or they have to go pay massive tuition to pay for their own training, and end up in debt. So the company is doing to adapt to the situation as it exists. And that means the workers are the ones screwed.

Specifically the example I saw was a local dealership that used to have 5 full time apprenticeship programs. 3 in repair, and 2 in auto body repair. Today they have zero. Instead, the local community college has a auto repair program you can go through, and the dealership started telling people who formerly applied for apprenticeships to go to the college and get their own training. So go spend tens of thousands for training, instead of working for a pay check while trained.

The wrinkle in the market that favors the employees, has now harmed the employees.

Most of the companies have profit sharing plans already. Even Walmart has a profit sharing plan.

Now Dealership does not, because it's not usually a public corporation where it's possible to be given stock in the company.

As far as training and short term thinking.

I've seen more than one company that the management had that sort of thinking. Didn't want to pay for ongoing education for the staff....and if the staff did it on their own (because they needed it for the tasks required of them and wanted to be better at it) management absolutely didn't care...in fact took those assignments away in the future because they did so well that they became shining stars.

Of course they left and got a 50% pay bump. Some even doubled their pay.