A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: » Obviously not. Nobody said they have a legal obligation. But I think we should draw a distinction between, say, modern poetry and computer engineering. Where something is so obviously an industrial skill, theres an argument that it should be funded by employers. After all, it is they who will profit from it, it isn't something that people tend to study for personal fulfilment. I had to sit postgraduate exams when I started out in my career. The employer paid for these, and the idea that I'd have to pay out of my own pocket (for their benefit!) would have been obviously absurd.
YellowLead wrote: » Their benefit only? Really? I assume most people take up those courses because they want a better position with better pay. You feel they do it out of the goodness of their heart to benefit their employer???
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: » workers do it because there is a benefit to the employer. They pay for their own training to seek a small reward from that employer. But it is the employer who always wins. There are people queuing up to spend hundreds or thousands of unpaid hours to learn skills that will satisfy some corporation — that's crazy. Often, this training pertains to a very specific skill in the industrial or financial sectors that the worker has no use for outside of his professional life. There is simply no excuse for this cost to be borne by the worker.
deravarra wrote: » That would be fine if the skills were company specific. But many of these courses can be carried from one company to another. Do you think that a company A should pay for an employees education, and does not work during that period of study, and then decides to leave and join company B?
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: » That happens all the time. Yes. My exams were paid for by an employer, and they paid for study time. Over in the healthcare industry, I'm pretty sure that doctors' training is all paid for on a non-committal basis. This is a lot more commonplace than people might expect. You should absolutely not be giving away your free time to make profits for some MNC
fryup wrote: » sounds like they're the aldi/lidl of the manufacturing world
Joe4321 wrote: » Aldi and lidl actually pay above the market rate
McDermotX wrote: » Still have a few issues with people leaving for better prospects and renumeration elsewhere, and even some cases of permanent contracts not being accepted (or offered in a small number of cases), so the job can sometimes not be suitable for everyone. Happens everywhere of course, especially in employment cultures of a similar ilk, but it can be a difficult early few years for some. They've always being a big supporter of people wishing to further their education, job relevant of course, so thats always been an important factor for many who have availed. Bottom line, there are far worse places to work.
fryup wrote: » yaaahhh lets all move to Leixlip what's it like working there anyway? as a production operative?
screamer wrote: » Are you being serious? There's tech people who have skills, qualifications and experience in the field, and wouldn't be earning 100K 5 years down the road. Anyways, the main reason Intel are here is government grants, and tax expediency of being located in the EU, that's it.
fryup wrote: » yes, but they work the @rse off ya for it
kippy wrote: » The main reason intel are here is that it makes financial sense. For whatever reason but Id suggest that after investing Billions into plants and technology over the years on the country it would take a lot for them to up sticks.
Topgear on Dave wrote: » +1 I never see their staff stand still, not a handy number at all I'd say.
ReginaldSmythV wrote: » As big a myth as above. Their massive cohort of “engineers” only leave a desk to go to a meeting or the canteen for a start.
Brian? wrote: » The best thing about being a tech was that if all the machines were up there was nothing to do. Could be incredibly busy sometimes, but mostly it was grand. Plus I go to work to actually work, not look for a handy number to dodge work in.
ReginaldSmythV wrote: » True. You’d have PM’s or engineer work to do on days but that’s about it and there were loads of techs. Nights were extremely long if there wasn’t anything broken (and the plan was always for nothing to be broken), I’d much rather have been working myself so was hoping there would be breakdowns.
ExMachina1000 wrote: » I believe you stated that you were a manager of some description?
ReginaldSmythV wrote: » A huge amount of supervisors, GL’s, managers, etc in there would have started as techs. The company were great for clear development and progression plans so if you wanted to be a manager and hit the expectations laid out for you then it would be very unlikely not to end up one.
ExMachina1000 wrote: » Great stuff.