change my mind - everyone should be resonible to up keep their skills financially

[avg guy]

What I am trying to say is that you are responsible to keep your self relevant in your chosen profession. Examples:

If you are in the construction fields, you have done your safety and tool handling certifications so that you are desirable for hire. Once hired you are responsible to up keep those certifications, not the company you work for.

If in the data world, you keep up with programming language etc.

It seems that in the public service sector, the tax payer is responsible to pay for an individuals upgrade in skills, maintenance in skills, so on. Why should we pay for teachers PD days (professional days) or Nurses who want to take courses. To zero in on nurses as an example, they are covered by many hospitals under public unions which allow for subsidy of education for any topic. Meaning they can take any subject education (regardless of the health care or not) and it is covered by the tax payer.

Thoughts?

 

[bazokajoe]

Where I work if you take a course that's related to your job they will reimburse you if you pass.

 

[fall]

PD days are not for "learning skills", but for stepping back and thinking about how the course is going and if any adjustment is needed. teachers do not just teach in the classroom, there is lots of preparation and reflection involved. Otherwise it will be just "read pages 37-43".

Programming languages: where do you thing the IT guys who employed full time (i.e., not contractors) study all the updates. Definitely not at hope. This studying is part of the job. Same for anyone employed full time.

Surely, contractors have to study on "their own time", but their rates take into account that they do not work 40 hours a week. E.g., take any small car mechanic with $75/hour labour charge (and usually it takes them much less time tan they claim on the bill). 40 hours a week, 48 weeks (exclude 4 week vacation) totals to $144,000 a year. Of cause they do not make that much since half of the time that are not actually working. So, effectively, they are making $37.50 per hour but some of this hours are spent on finding customers and "studying". Same with SPs: assuming business expense of $150/day (hotel + direct advertising costs), working 5 days a week for 48 weeks at $250/hour should net (after expenses) 250*40*48-150*5*48=$444,000 a year. But they do not spend 8 hours a day in "direct" work: some of this time is spent to communicate with clients, some (hopeful), to take shower between clients, and some just sitting and waiting.

 

[avg guy]

Where I work if you take a course that's related to your job they will reimburse you if you pass.

This is true for many well established private companies and even more true for public sector work forces. That said, shouldn't the individual employee be responsible for their own up keep, advanced education or certification for their relative position or advancement? Don't get me wrong. If a company needs you to be certified for a project that is not in their usual scope of practice then they should be paying for the certification of the employees assigned to that project for the expansion of their practice. On the flip side, if you take it upon yourself to be certified beyond your employers scope of practice and they want to expand in growth, you are more worthy than then guy/girl next to you.

I have personally always taken it upon myself to make sure that I am multi-qualified so that I am worth a negotiable amount with my employers. I find that now a days, the younger work force want to be paid top dollar before earning there stripes and justification of pay.

 

[oldjones]

What I am trying to say is that you are responsible to keep your self relevant in your chosen profession. Examples:

If you are in the construction fields, you have done your safety and tool handling certifications so that you are desirable for hire. Once hired you are responsible to up keep those certifications, not the company you work for.

If in the data world, you keep up with programming language etc.

It seems that in the public service sector, the tax payer is responsible to pay for an individuals upgrade in skills, maintenance in skills, so on. Why should we pay for teachers PD days (professional days) or Nurses who want to take courses. To zero in on nurses as an example, they are covered by many hospitals under public unions which allow for subsidy of education for any topic. Meaning they can take any subject education (regardless of the health care or not) and it is covered by the tax payer.

Thoughts?

Lots of employers give their workers help in keeping up their skills, not just government. Construction companies are among them. Skilled workers are more useful and productive; they save employers time and expense.

Any individual is free to ask their employer for that sort of help in upgrading, whether it's approved (or even paid) time off, all the way up to direct financial assistance with costs. Better organized workplaces have actual unions that speak for all workers and deal with the management side in a less piece-meal fashion, so arrangements like those got written into their contracts some time ago. And of course really smart employers have been known to conduct such training themselves, to make sure it's done right.

If it seems that your fellow workers in the public sector are getting a better deal, envy won't make your situation better. Perhaps you should talk with others in your workplace about organizing to get a better deal for yourselves, and how you can show your employer the potential quality improvement and profit they can reap by investing in workers who upgrade.

Or just go yourself, and ask them to hold a job for you, if you take that course.