PDA

View Full Version : A feeling of entitlement



JBK405
05-03-2011, 02:19 PM
Right now my company is hiring for the summer months and, as the head of the department, I'm personally planning on hiring about thirty people for the upcoming season. Earlier today I gave the first training course of the year, it's a one afternoon affair, about three or four hours, where we go over the details and procedures of the position. This is not a rigorous or intensive event, in essence if you just show up you have the job, but there is one hitch: It's unpaid training. Always has been and, unless something changes drastically, always will be. I don't try to hide that from applicants, if anybody asks I explain that the training is not paid, but I also don't go out of my way to explain to everybody that there's no money, I always asumed that, if they didn't ask, they would assume that the training was unpaid. Afterall, I assume that most of the things I do in life will be unpaid unless somebody tells me othewrise. However, not everyody is on the same wavelength as me, and many people showed up today under the impression that it would be a paid affair. When informed that it would not be paid, after they asked more than halfway through the event, one of the people actually got up and left. Then, and here's the kicker, he called me and left an irate voicemail about how we dare have unpaid training, and what is wrong with us, and he could not believe we thought anybody should be forced to show up without getting paid.

Now, I can completely understand wanting to have paid training. Most of our current employees, when I asked their opinions, explained that they also thought that their training should have been paid, and if I was in their position, I'd want to be paid, too. However, I would have checked. I personally spoke to this applicant a few weeks ago when he first applied, it was a ten-minute meet-and-greet where I outlined the general position, and I mentioned that there was a one-day training session. During this meeting I asked, it must have been ten times, if he had any questions. Asking if he had any questions was literally the first and last things I said to him, not counting "Thanks for coming" and "Have a nice day." Last week our secretaries called him to inform him of the training date and time and when to come in. When he got here earlier today he spent close to an hour in the front office filling out additional paperwork, then about five minutes with me before we began the actual course. At no point during any of this, which is spoken conversations on three separate occasions, did he ask in any way, shape or form if there was compensation for this days course. Then, when we were already two hours into the session and after we had already finished the training and were about to move onto their demonstration of capablity, he asks if it's paid, and leaves in a huff when he learns it wasn't. Two hours in.

Like I said, I have absolutely no objection to a person wanting paid training. This is a low-paying job (I managed to get a raise into the position for this year, but it's still low-paying) and I'd want as much more money as I could get, but to assume that you are automatically entitled to paid training? Before you've demonstrated that you can do the job? To be insulted when we don't offer paid training? To actually call and berate me over that?

I completely understand deciding to pass on the job if there isn't paid training, some people are looking for work to supplement jobs they already have and need to take time off and can't afford to just skip a day of work, but if you don't bother to check, I don't think you have a right to complain afterwards. I won't hold it against you to not come to the training, but to come and leave tells me one thing: You're a doche. Everybody I spoke to about the incident, including those who also believe that the training should be paid, agree that he should have checked himself, and not bothered to show up if it mattered that much to him. As it is, when he didn't even think to ask the question in advance, he was not entitled to anything.

Thoughts?

Corrina
05-03-2011, 02:46 PM
First, the guy was totally out of line to behave like that when he found out. That's completely unprofessional and wrong.

Second, if I was filling out paperwork and going to a company site, yeah, I'd absolutely assume I was getting paid. You've in a business environment, there's no clue to lead you to believe that you are not being paid.

I think that's something you should tell people right up front "you have the job but there's a one-day training session that is not paid." I would state it explicitly so there's no misunderstanding. If someone objects and refuses to show up for an unpaid session, well, then you'll weed out the troublemakers right away.

Reverend Smooth
05-03-2011, 02:55 PM
What she said.

Jose
05-03-2011, 03:14 PM
Absolutely, you should tell people that they are not getting paid for training.

Ravenwing263
05-03-2011, 03:26 PM
I believe that whether or not training is paid says a lot about what a company thinks about it's employees. To be more specific (and more blunt), I think that mandatory, unpaid training is a major indicator that a company does not in any way have it's new employees' best interests at heart and that the company should be avoided as a workplace at all costs. In fact I would go so far as to argue that unpaid training constitutes an unethical business practice and ought to be illegal.

As for whether one ought to check, I can see where you're coming from, but I can also see (and, in fact, am far more sympathetic to) the view that the day your boss tells you to show up for work the first time is the day you start earning your salary, and that unpaid training, not paid, is the anomaly. I'd argue that in any contract agreement, the person asking for the unusual/potentially problematic concession should be the one to bring that concession up, and that the other party should not be expected to intuit that they are being asked to make such a concession.

Sorry.

Edit:

I'm afraid I'm going to have to part with Corrina where she says the fellow's behavior was unprofessional and wrong. While it's certainly possible that he behaved inappropriately, given the description, we have no reason to believe he did. If the OP cares to elaborate on his behavior, I may be able to make a better assessment, but it seems to me that unless he yelled, cursed or offered insult, he was perfectly within his rights to exit the premises when he suddenly found out we was being asked to work for no pay, and perfectly within the compass of good form to let the folks around him know that he was dissatisfied to be treated so, without notice.. I guess it depends what "in a huff" means. For me, "a huff" is a mild demonstration of anger, characterized by walking at a quick pace, having a sullen expression, and maybe grumbling under the breath. Perhaps Corrina understands the word differently, or the OP meant it differently, then I understand it, and if so, I apologize. But it seems to be that a few "huffs" are in order when people are being asked to worth without pay.

Corrina
05-03-2011, 03:53 PM
It was the irate voicemail that I would call unprofessional, not so much leaving the session, huff or not. I read "irate" to mean that the person who left lost his temper on the phone--and that's *never* a good thing to do in a professional setting.

But, yes, definitely start telling people up front, JBK. I've had training before. It's always been paid.

Pia Guerra
05-03-2011, 04:00 PM
When I was young and looking for one of my first jobs I responded to an ad to a PR company to hand out fliers. I arrived at the office, filled out the forms and was put into a group of four or five people to head over to a music/stereo equipment store to hand out fliers. We were given train tickets to get to the site, got onboard and on the bridge to Surrey the group leader tells us this was going to be a training day with no pay. I believe he said it wasn't just that day either, that it was more than a couple of days unpaid work. I told him this wasn't what I signed up for, got off the train, went back to office and complained to the person who hired me that it was ridiculous to profit off my work handing out fliers in the freezing cold and call it 'training'. He tried to explain that was how it was done and I told him he should have been up front so I could have spent my time instead looking for paying work. The whole thing just seemed fishy to me, like they knew people would quit the work before making it to being paid and therefore saved money.

Sorry, but if a company profits off the work of a trainee, the trainee needs to be paid.

Ravenwing263
05-03-2011, 04:04 PM
Yeah, I once had to spend an hour at a T.G.I. Friday's filling out paperwork. I was paid. I did have one job that withheld my training pay until I completed my training (the training involved two days of classroom work before I got out onto the floor and started making the company money) and had started to work for real, but it was paid and the unusual circumstances were detailed to me at the end of my interview, once they had decided to hire me.

And, I'm sorry, I actually missed the voicemail part of the story. I suppose it's possible his tone or something went past the line, but all the things JBK405 says he said, ("how we dare have unpaid training, and what is wrong with us, and he could not believe we thought anybody should be forced to show up without getting paid.") are not only within the compass of good behavior ("good" being distinct from "polite" in that in "good behavior", one only reacts with anger when one is treated unfairly while in "polite behavior", one never reacts with anger at all) but things that people absolutely should be saying to a company that has mandatory, unpaid training and doesn't tell its prospective employees about it.

It seems to me that his behavior - again, allowing for the possibility that he yelled, or cursed, or offered threat or insult or did something else beyond the pale that has not been detailed - is completely appropriate given his treatment by JBK405's company.

Again, sorry.

Cassandra
05-03-2011, 04:08 PM
I must admit I'm with Corrina on this one too, sure the guy acted like a jerk but I don't think it was up to him to ask if the training was paid or not. He didn't know; you guys did, so why didn't you tell him? I suspect it's because you're assuming that if you tell people they won't show up. Which they are well with-in their rights to do.

I once did a full-day's worth of on-the-job training in a cafe and beforehand the boss informed me it was unpaid which I was cool with but during that entire day he basically threw me into the deep end and berated me all day on how I should be thankful that he 'gave me this opportunity' because having me there was 'costing him money.' (Yeah, free staff are weird like that.) I'm fine with attending free training at my pre-existing job but I do appreciate that my employers are up-front about it and it's usually not a full day's worth of work.

Andreas
05-03-2011, 04:22 PM
In low-paying jobs it has almost become standard to have new employees work a couple of days without pay. Many companies count on you not wanting to go through the hassle with your papers and the employment agency and then having to wait for your papers again, if you decide not to return after a day or two. So these companies are getting hundreds of hours for free this way.

The company should definitely mention it in the job advertisement, so it's not a waste of time for both sides.

saintsaucey
05-03-2011, 05:21 PM
I've never not been paid for training. The closest to that was a job that bussed us to a town an hour away. We didn't get paid for the trip but we didn't pay for the bus either.

CutterMike
05-03-2011, 05:35 PM
JBK --

I have one question. You said:

(...)
Then, when we were already two hours into the session and after we had already finished the training and were about to move onto their demonstration of capablity, he asks if it's paid, and leaves in a huff when he learns it wasn't.
(...)

I took this to mean that if, after receiving the training, the prospective employees couldn't show that they were capable of doing the work, that they would be thanked for coming in and sent on their ways. Is this a correct assumption or an incorrect one?

Because, if that IS the case -- that this session was essentially an exam to see whether they could do the job -- then I see no problem with it being unpaid. If I have to take an aptitude test as part of applying for a job, I wouldn't expect to be paid for it. Note, here, that your "demonstration of capability" should be one or two repetitions of the task -- any more than that sounds like profiting from the free labor.

OTOH, I think that telling prospective employees -- or even implying to them -- that "...if you just show up you have the job," sets you up for EXACTLY this sort of situation. If they have the impression that, if they're there they're hired, then a situation is set up where people EXPECT to be treated like employees, and that includes getting paid.

I think that you should probably say upfront -- at the bare minimum -- "As part of the process, we want to be sure that you can do the work. Therefore, we'll train you in how to do the job and then we'll test you on it. AFTER you pass the test, we can hire you."

This at least implies that the training and test are part of the (unpaid) hiring process, and not part of the (paid) job.

OTOOH -- A separate interview, followed on another day by a half-day test -- which is what this is -- for a low-end summer temp job DOES begin to make the company sound a bit... i don't know... "manipulative" isn't quite the word that I'm looking for... "dismissive" is more like it, but not exactly... I think "like doesn't really give a crap" may be as close as I'm going to be able to come to the concept.

JBK405
05-03-2011, 06:45 PM
Ah, okay, I think I can clear some things up.

It's been made pretty clear to me that my basic assumption (That prospective employees would assume the training is unpaid) was way off. Trust me, I'm clear on that now. It never came up last year or the year before, but I'm going to be explicit from here on out with everyone that the training is not paid. The thing is, I didn't get paid when I was trained (I held the position under discussion for four years before I moved up), and I wasn't paid for any other training in my life (Yes, all two other jobs. Marvel at my vast experience!). When I was a "trainee" and actually doing work, yes, but not when I was filling out paperwork and watching instructional videos on how to do the job properly. I assumed that other people, unless told differently, would take that for granted...apparently not such a wise move.

Secondly, we in no way profit from what they do during the training. We don't have them in the field, we don't have them working with clients, it's all on-site and simple reviewing procedures, and the work they do to demonstrate that they can do the job is not packaged, sold, marketed, etc. If we in any way, shape or form actually benefited from having them in the building, then I am in full support of unpaid "training" being illegal, since that's not training, that's just work. Heck, moral stance aside, I'm pretty sure that's just plain illegal already.

Regarding the out-of-line behavior, it wasn't that he left, or even the manner in which he left. Another person left, too, albeit for diferent reasons (I think he just decided he didn't want the job, but he said it was because he thought other people needed it more, as he already had a job and was looking for some supplemental income), and that was no problem. It was that he then called, apparently argued with the receptionist up front (She has no input or say in any of this, even if I was completely out of line he had no business making trouble with her), and when she managed to transfer him to my voice-mail the message he left me was so loud I needed to hold the receiver away from my ears. He didn't curse or threaten, but he was offended, as if I had lied to him and purposefully deceived him. Like I was profiting from what he'd done, as if I'd actually had him do work for me and then withheld the reward. I was offended here, insulted, because first of all, it's not my decision on whether or not we pay for training (I had to fight just to get pay and expense increases for this year), and secondly, even if it was all in my hand, I never lied or misled him, never purposefully withheld this information. I was mistaken by thinking he was aware it was unpaid, yes, but I've never even tried to take advantage of an employee. I do what I can to treat all my employes fairly and honestly and, if I make a mistake (And I do, I'm human), it's a mistake, not a deception or maneuver. He was yelling like I knew he thought he'd be getting paid, like this was on purpose.

CutterMike, you're completely correct on what the demonstration of capability that I mentioned is. After the procedures and policies are reviewed (Usually about an hour and a half into the the whole session) we have them perform here in the office to make sure they were paying attention and can do the job. If they can't, then we have them do it again, and if they just can't get it then they are sent on their way. That I was clear about up front, because some people thought that showing up to the training was the final hiring. I told everybody in that first meet and greet that they would need to do the DOC succesfully to get the job. The reason I mentioned in my opening post that showing up "in essence" gets you the job is because, in the two years I've been manager and four years working in the department, I've seen one person fail the DOC, and I'm pretty sure she could have gotten it on retry if she hadn't decided to not bother. However, even being so easy it is not a formality, they really do need to perform this in order to get the job, and I made it perfectly clear to everybody that this would cap off the day, that they need to pass the test before they can be hired. That's not my choice, and this one isn't even company choice, either, it's the law.

I'm under no illusions, this is a low-paying job for a company that is not falling over itself to win over prospective employees, but we're not exploiting them, we're not misleading them (At least, not deliberately. Like I said, I'm going to be clearer on the payment point from here on out), and we're not profiting from their training. I'm upfront with all of them that this is a temporary position and that the pay is not excellent, but I take time out of my own day to meet with every applicant in person, answer any questions they have, and give my honest opinion about the job from my experience both as an employee and as the manager. Everybody who applies is given the opportunity to go to the training and perform the DOC, and I prepare them for that as best I can. If they don't want the job that's fine, and if they think it should be paid that's fine, too, but I try to bring everybody in with their eyes open.

saintsaucey
05-03-2011, 06:49 PM
Can you tell me what kind a work and what the base pay was? I'm just curious. If you can't say that's fine.

JBK405
05-03-2011, 06:59 PM
I try to keep it vague, but we do scientific work out in the field. That's why the training that we had them do wasn't work that we profit by, it wasn't "real" work, we had them do the science to bits in our laboratory, not what they would actually do science to if they were working. It's like operating on cadavers to train to be a surgeon; for all their cutting and stitching, nobody is getting a free operation (Holy...did I seriously just use operating on cadavers as an analogy? What the heck is wrong with me?) The pay is two-fold, but it includes a flat per-day base pay in addition to work-performed pay.

The position, despite its science-ness, doesn't require any previous training or experience (I have a history degree, ask how well that meshes), as this training includes all the science that you'll need to know, and the DOC tests if they can actually do it.

Of course, that actually raises a whole other problem, as I get many applicants that are way overqualiied for this position, people with Masters Degrees and phD's, and I've got to sit there and lecture them on how to properly hold their equipment. They're more qualified for my position than I am, but they're stuck with me as a boss.

saintsaucey
05-03-2011, 07:02 PM
I have no fucking idea what you just said but that's okay. It's probably way too far away for me to consider it.

Cam63
05-03-2011, 10:48 PM
When all fails, think like a marine.

Treacle
05-03-2011, 10:50 PM
Second, if I was filling out paperwork and going to a company site, yeah, I'd absolutely assume I was getting paid. You've in a business environment, there's no clue to lead you to believe that you are not being paid.

I think that's something you should tell people right up front "you have the job but there's a one-day training session that is not paid." I would state it explicitly so there's no misunderstanding. If someone objects and refuses to show up for an unpaid session, well, then you'll weed out the troublemakers right away.

Ditto.

It is not out of line at all for people to expect to be paid for, basically, showing up to work.

Treacle
05-03-2011, 10:55 PM
I must admit I'm with Corrina on this one too, sure the guy acted like a jerk but I don't think it was up to him to ask if the training was paid or not. He didn't know; you guys did, so why didn't you tell him? I suspect it's because you're assuming that if you tell people they won't show up. Which they are well with-in their rights to do.

This. Not telling people the training isn't paid is deceptive...because you know that 1) people are assuming they will be paid and 2) most people will not show up if you tell them in advance that it won't be. I would be unhappy too if I spent several hours at a jobsite, only to find out I wasn't being paid for my time.


In low-paying jobs it has almost become standard to have new employees work a couple of days without pay. Many companies count on you not wanting to go through the hassle with your papers and the employment agency and then having to wait for your papers again, if you decide not to return after a day or two. So these companies are getting hundreds of hours for free this way.

The company should definitely mention it in the job advertisement, so it's not a waste of time for both sides.

That is probably illegal, depending on the state you live in.

That feels really, really unethical to me.

Ziggy Stardust
05-04-2011, 04:26 AM
First, the guy was totally out of line to behave like that when he found out. That's completely unprofessional and wrong.

Second, if I was filling out paperwork and going to a company site, yeah, I'd absolutely assume I was getting paid. You've in a business environment, there's no clue to lead you to believe that you are not being paid.

I think that's something you should tell people right up front "you have the job but there's a one-day training session that is not paid." I would state it explicitly so there's no misunderstanding. If someone objects and refuses to show up for an unpaid session, well, then you'll weed out the troublemakers right away.

Total agreement with this.

Shurato2099
05-04-2011, 04:57 AM
I guess one of the considerations is whether or not they're actually hired at the time they do this training and take this performance test. If they are expressly -not- hired until they pass this basic competency training then I, for one, wouldn't automatically assume that the day's work was paid. If they -are- hired at the time during the time they do this training then, yes, I would assume that there was some sort of compensation (pay, travel, food, whatever). I have never had a day of post-hire training that wasn't paid, in fact my previous employer was kind of anal about making sure everyone either clocked in or filled out a time sheet for anything outside of their normal schedule.

Ravenwing263
05-04-2011, 06:52 AM
Can we look at the thread title for a minute?

The term "a sense of entitlement" - a which is very similar to the title and had essentially the same meaning - as developed a negative connotation. It is used constantly to refer to a sense of undeserved entitlement. We think that it means thinking you deserve something you don't deserve, and acting negatively when you don't get it.

That's not what means. It ACTUALLY means going after something you feel you deserve. When you're wrong, you're being a brat. But when you're right, then fighting for what you deserve in entirely appropriate.

I propose that when you put in a days work, you actually are entitled to a day's wages.

HamsterRage
05-04-2011, 08:17 AM
Can we look at the thread title for a minute?

The term "a sense of entitlement" - a which is very similar to the title and had essentially the same meaning - as developed a negative connotation. It is used constantly to refer to a sense of undeserved entitlement. We think that it means thinking you deserve something you don't deserve, and acting negatively when you don't get it.

That's not what means. It ACTUALLY means going after something you feel you deserve. When you're wrong, you're being a brat. But when you're right, then fighting for what you deserve in entirely appropriate.

I propose that when you put in a days work, you actually are entitled to a day's wages.

Completely agree.

I think what was done here was wrong and if anything JBK should be calling the guy and apologizing profusely for his deception.

Andreas
05-04-2011, 08:50 AM
That is probably illegal, depending on the state you live in.

That feels really, really unethical to me.

There are many shady companies in Germany that are making money by exploiting the working poor, and the laws that were passed in the last decade by corrupt governments support these practices. One of the politicians who passed the laws is now a chairman of one of the big temporary employment agencies. There is no general minimum wage here unless branches/industries have agreed on a minimum wage for their branch of work. If there is a minimum wage in a certain branch, it doesn't exist for people who are hired through a temporary employment agency.

When there's a temporary employment agency involved, you are dealing with three organisations: the state's employment agency, the temporary employment agency, and the company that offers the job. Each of these three can create a situation where you lose a third of your unemployment benefits (that is already below minimum subsistence level), which puts a lot of extra pressure on the person looking for a job.

One of the profeteers is the state itself that hires many people in low-paying jobs below minimum wage with the argument there's not enough money and the local communities are broke anyway, etc. but the work needs to be done. So let's have people who are without a job do the work for up to 30% below minimum wage (there's a consensus that 30% less is the amount that is tolerated by judges) or for a $1/hour for up to a year. The argument is that it's better to have a job at all than to sit at home doing nothing and feeling useless. But it leads to a situation where people aren't paid fair wages, where there's a constant pressure on people who are still paid fair wages, where the government massively subsidizes low-paying jobs, and where people are stuck below minimum subsistence level even if they have a job and work full-time.

A period of probation to see if you can do the job is fine, but there are those companies that decide to not pay people for the first few days as they still have to be trained for the job. It's ok when it's only an afternoon to see if people can actually do the job, if it is part of the hiring process as JBK described, and if it ends in a longer employment.

Reverend Smooth
05-04-2011, 08:56 AM
Andreas is a really lovely name. ^^

Lester C.
05-04-2011, 09:28 AM
I've never been paid for training in any of the jobs I've had, so I can see why an employer wouldn't mention it as I would automatically assume it given my background.

BClayMoore
05-04-2011, 09:34 AM
Back in my day job years, I never went through unpaid training and would probably expect that it was paid. But I'd also probably ask.

-BCM

Andreas
05-04-2011, 09:49 AM
Andreas is a really lovely name. ^^

It was given to me by a lovely woman. ;)

omega8932
05-04-2011, 10:49 AM
I've never been paid for training in any of the jobs I've had, so I can see why an employer wouldn't mention it as I would automatically assume it given my background.

Balance that with I have been paid for training for every job I've had, so I can't see why an employer WOULDN'T mention it. People's experiences tend to vary. Not being paid for showing up for a job is always something that needs mentioned in my opinion. I'm not there for charity.

Treacle
05-04-2011, 11:16 AM
Balance that with I have been paid for training for every job I've had, so I can't see why an employer WOULDN'T mention it. People's experiences tend to vary. Not being paid for showing up for a job is always something that needs mentioned in my opinion. I'm not there for charity.

Ditto.

I've had my share of low-paying jobs and training was still paid for...because you are at work.

JBK405
05-04-2011, 03:19 PM
I gave the second class today, and to make sure that there was no repeat of yesterday, the very first thing I did was explain, to the group as a whole, that this day would not be paid. If we'd had time I would have had them all called at home so they wouldn't have had to come in if they weren't interested, but this was all scheduled last week and they arrived without any communication between yesterday and today. When I made the announcement everybody reacted the same way: Well, duh (And variations to that effect). Only one or two people actually said anything, but nobody complained, expressed surprise or anger. The only people who spoke essentially said "We didn't expect to be paid for this" and the expressions on everybody else's face said the same thing (Of course, I could have mis-read their expressions and missed their steaming thoughts of fury, but I'm going to give myself the benefit of the doubt on that one). Nobody left and the class overall went smoother than yesterday.

Now, some of the people here were absolutely desperate for work (One of them, when we spoke a few weeks ago and discussed the position, flat out said that anything would be acceptable) so they might have been thinking "I'll take the day, because I'll get paid eventually," but most of the applicants already have full or at least part-time work and are just looking for supplemental income, not desperate enough to put up with something they feel is unfair. Their mentality was exactly what I expected yesterday.


I guess one of the considerations is whether or not they're actually hired at the time they do this training and take this performance test. If they are expressly -not- hired until they pass this basic competency training then I, for one, wouldn't automatically assume that the day's work was paid. If they -are- hired at the time during the time they do this training then, yes, I would assume that there was some sort of compensation (pay, travel, food, whatever). I have never had a day of post-hire training that wasn't paid, in fact my previous employer was kind of anal about making sure everyone either clocked in or filled out a time sheet for anything outside of their normal schedule.

Everyody was aware that they would need to perform adequately in order to get hired, I explained that this was a training session to prepare them for the position and see if they could handle the DOC. I told them it was not difficult, but that there was no final hiring until afterwards. If somebody showed up with the assumption that they aleady had the job, that's on them. I can be blamed for not thinking to mention something, but not if they get the facts wrong on what I did say.


I think what was done here was wrong and if anything JBK should be calling the guy and apologizing profusely for his deception.

I'm sorry, but deception? An assumption, yes, but the very thing that I took offense at from his call (Apart from his overall tone and volume, not to mention the hassle he gave the receptionist before his message got to me) was the fact that he also called it a deception. I never said it was paid, never even implied it was paid, and didn't gain anything from his time in the office. You can call me naive for assuming he would know this wasn't paid, but the mere fact that I didn't go out of my way to explain what I thought he aleady knew doesn't count as a deception by any measure.

Lester C.
05-04-2011, 08:13 PM
Balance that with I have been paid for training for every job I've had, so I can't see why an employer WOULDN'T mention it. People's experiences tend to vary. Not being paid for showing up for a job is always something that needs mentioned in my opinion. I'm not there for charity.

Despite the low pay and status Security Officers in Illinois need something called a PERC card and after 9/11 most people fail the background checks for the card. Thus most employers don't pay for training because the people being trained are going to be kicked out once their background was processed and it turns out they were arrested for something. Not tried or convicted mind you but simply being charged is enough to disqualify you, it's ridiculous. I've even seen people be disqualified because they were ordered to pay child support, ordered mind you not in default for not paying. On the plus side demand is always higher than the supply and I never have to worry about finding a low paying security job as long as I have my Perc card.

Jose
05-04-2011, 09:03 PM
Despite the low pay and status Security Officers in Illinois need something called a PERC card and after 9/11 most people fail the background checks for the card. Thus most employers don't pay for training because the people being trained are going to be kicked out once their background was processed and it turns out they were arrested for something. Not tried or convicted mind you but simply being charged is enough to disqualify you, it's ridiculous. I've even seen people be disqualified because they were ordered to pay child support, ordered mind you not in default for not paying. On the plus side demand is always higher than the supply and I never have to worry about finding a low paying security job as long as I have my Perc card.

High five.

Getting that PERC is the best career move I ever made.