Tom Kelman writes > There is a risk of training new talent. <<>> We found a very > good person in the applications programming area, transferred him to > technical support, and sent him away to the two week MVS internals class > and then the JES2 internals class. Just 2 months after he got back from > that class he left the company for a more lucrative position. Of course > then we were in the 70s when everyone was moving around for more money. > However, we had put a lot of financial and time resources into training > this guy and he up and quit. It soured management on internal transfers > and training for a while.
This is pretty much exactly what happened across the industry in the late '70s through the mid '80s. Even to peons like me. I got a metric boatload of formal classroom training, for which I was (and am) very grateful. But the company that sent me off to that training evidently did not recognize that they had made me more valuable and for several years, they declined to pay me any more than I had been getting beforehand. As you can imagine, loyalty only goes so far! So I think the reality here is that the companies that were "losing out" after providing training were just idiots! If they had simply made a few market adjustments to their own staff, this would have been a non-problem, or a much less severe problem. Economics 101 dictates that they're going to end up paying the same (or more) than the rest of the market anyway. Holding the line, in this case, just made it much worse. Goes to show bean-counters should never be allowed to run corporate policy. CC ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
