This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
Certainly by KeoughCharles05
That is, certainly there's the potential for abuse, given subjective debates about what constitutes robust enough training. There's obviously real costs to taking on an untrained apprentice, and fully training them up in terms of both time, lost productivity, etc... But rules put in place to provide exceptions here could be gamed by employers to put in place sham training programs that don't require that much effort solely as a way to lock in new hires and depress wages.
I don't agree that the incentive is always there for the company to train well. There's an incentive to free-ride, not put in the effort in training, and then go poach employees with slightly higher pay because you don't have the underlying costs associated with training.