Payment for training

Johanaf

We are a collections company in Arizona. We have a 1 week training for all collectors and 2 week training for specific customer training. What I mean by that is that some employees have 1 week training and others have a 2 week training before going to the floor. We pay them the hourly rate that was offered at the time of hire. The problem that we are having is that at least 4 people out of 12 don't make it out of training. Reasons are many. For example: job adandonment, quit, didn't pass the training class, etc. My questions is can we pay a lower pay rate for training? I know that we can not do that if we ask an employee for a specific training.
Thanks for the help!

Don D

On the assumption that your training wage would not bring them beneath minimum wage, I suppose you could have a tiered wage and state in the offer that the training wage is 'x' and the wage after training will be 'x'. Or present it in the language that reflects the 'after training' wage as sort of an increase or promotion. That would be more attractive perhaps. The language we use is this: The full rate for this position is 'x'. The entry or training rate is 90% of full rate and the rate at three months is 95% of full rate. Full rate is paid at completion of six months. This is contract language but I don't see that it matters.

Johanaf

So there is no Federal or state law that will regulate this. Just have to make sure the they are at least paid the minimum wage.

Don D

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 08-30-02 AT 04:10PM (CST)[/font][p]There's no federal reg that would prohibit it and I doubt there is an Arizona statute addressing it. As long as you're paying minimum wage, it is your option as to what wage structure the company has. Our progressive wage structure works well for us. Now I think it would be entirely counter productive for you if you tried to pay a lower training wage when seasoned employees are assigned to attend training during the year. Before going on the floor, though, there's no problem with it.

Margaret Morford

If you have a number of people who don't make it out of training, I think you need to look at your hiring process to determine whether you are either not selecting the right kind of people for the positions or if you are not describing the job properly.

Margaret Morford
theHRedge
615-371-8200
[email]mmorford@mleesmith.com[/email]
[url]http://www.thehredge.net[/url]

Johanaf

We are working on this as we speak. I am not the recruter but she is doing a great job. When we started here the turn over was 150% ( can you believed that!) now was something like 75%. However since the problem still there I would like to find some ways to save some $. You know when you are a generalist you have 200 hats. I do appreciate the input. I am a firm believer in process etc.

Pork

I agree with Don, our training wage in "our world of work" is $6.00 per hour and $6.50 per hour depending on the location. It could be $5.15 per hour and we would be within the the Federal Guidelines. Problem is, I could not get any one to take a job with a training wage of $5.15, the competition to work as a hamburger artist paid more than $5.15.

You know, we get the same problem employees, they don't really want to work on our schedule. Within 8 weeks we pretty much weed them out and a few stick it out and become good employees.

We interview, we tour, and we let the candidate/employee see the job task and we pick the ones, who show the most interest; we use the OJT program, and get back 1/2 of the training dollars spent, when they stick it out. We don't worry about the turnover anymore, until they get beyond the 8 weeks. You see there is no other industry out there training our employees for us. In MS, we are it. He have to take what is available at the time the need arises!

I try to encourage my managers to "bump up" the wage after 4 weeks of basic training or decide to get rid of the ones demonstrating "lazyness and dumbness". Probably, our smartest move would be to have the training wage at $7.00 an hour and $7.50 an hour and try and get the better candidate from the "get go" into the OJT Program. That way we could cut back on our recruiting and training and have long term employees that qualify for OJT and get 50% back from the government for the training period of 8 weeks.

If you want to save some bucks, check out the local OJT Program. Pay your trainees better and get reimbursed when they stick it out. It worked in the local area, but the government agent administrating the program in our northern sector, shut us down in the use of the OJT Program because of "HIGH TURNOVER". You see they are required to track these OJT enrollees for several years. A quick turnover meant more work for the contractor so they stopped allowing us to enroll our employees. But that is ok it worked locally, and the HR Department was credited with $8,000.00 to the bottom line last year. We hope to equal that this year or do even better. It is working now because the local contractor is identifying the qualified candidates first, and then we hire them. Our industry makes it pretty simple, all new applicants who have never worked for us will qualify. Regardless, we are training our employees whether they are OJT qualified or not. Those that do not qualify start at the lower wage and work their way up or be terminated for being "untrainable"! Hope this helps, PORK.

Don D

I supported the MDTA, CETA and JTPA OJT training programs for years, having worked for the agency that peddled them. However, I would not touch one of them in the private sector where I now am. I know how intrusive and controlling and nosey the agency can be dictating this and that about how to write job descriptions and training outlines, and auditing and showing up unannounced and dictating regulations and ranting about turnover and layoffs and retention after training. I would think you received far more than $8000 worth of heartache from the administering SDA's or PIC's or whatever they are now, WIN agents? Nothing ever changes but the name. th-down. Hate to be so negative, but sometimes it goes along with honesty.