When do they get a return on investment? - Page 3

Because nobody would take the job if they didn't pay you while you were being oriented.

While you are paired with a preceptor (2 nurses taking care of a "1 nurse assignment), your pressence is not adding any value. You may be working very hard, but you could go home and the patients would still get good care. The preceptor could take that assignment by herself. Therefore, the expense of your salary and benefits (and any other expensed related to your education) are "extra" over what is actually needed to provide care that day.

Employers pay you while you get oriented/educated only because they think they will benefit in the long run by making that investment in your education. It's only worth it to them if you stay and work for them after you have received your education from them. The OP's question was essentially, "How long does a person have to work for an employer for that employer to feel they have gotten a suitable return on their investment in the new hire's education/orientation?"

I'm still confused by the point of this thread. Is it just purely rhetoric wonderings of how much a facility invests into a new hire during orientation? THAT I get, if it's based on pure curiosity.

But are some of you actually feeling some sort of moral obligation to "pay off" some sort of financial debt just cause you received an orientation? This baffles me. It's a job. All you owe them is to show up, work hard and give a proper notice if you quit. My first job was in a local nursing home. I gave my two weeks two days after a month of orientation because I got a job offer at my current job making 4.00 more an hr. Should I have turned down a better opportunity in order to "pay back" my month of training?? Should I have cut them a check or something?? That seems absurd to me...

Yes, some people feel a moral obligation to be a good employee and "be worth" the investment that the employer has made in their education. They recognize that in accepting the offer of employment and "paid for" education, there is an implied agreement between the employer and the orientee. "The employer will provide free education and pay me a salary while I am being educated and in exchange, I will use that education to take care of their patients."

Many people also realize that when they leave a job too soon, they are developing a bad reputation for themselves among employers -- and if they do that very often, employers will stop wanting to hire them. Employers don't want to hire staff members who have a track record of taking the free education and experience, but leaving before they have worked enough to make that investment worthwhile for the people who paid for it. If enough people do that, employers stop offering the free education and/or stop hiring the classification of employees for whom the investment does not "pay off."

Now, I will concede that an employer who abuses the employees is not owed anything ... and I would not hesitate to leave an abusive employer ASAP ... but an employer who has treated me well deserves to be treated well in return.

It goes both ways. What goes around, comes around.

That's a good point and I agree. But what more could an employer possibly want than for an employee to give a formal two weeks notice? To expect us to stay until we've "paid off" our orientation is unreasonable.

Hi, LLG. You know I love your posts.

Think the standard laid out above is a bit too lenient. Employees aren't justified in departing from a facility only because they're abused. This is way too high a standard.

It appears posters to this thread are split between focusing on the employer's end of the relationship or the employees' side.

Sure new hires have a implied obligation to their employers, and it's prudent for them to be concerned with how a short stay may be interpreted by future employers.

But employers too have obligations and responsibilities to new, and existing, staff... from orientation and beyond. And prudent facilities assess and react to the working environment and the treatment of staff... again no matter whether new or otherwise.

A nurse doesn't typically wake up one day and thinks: "hey, you know what? I'm tendering my resignation today."

Most nurses leave for specific reasons... most of which employers have some control over. Usual culprits: crappy orientation, work environment / relationships, conditions of employment, wages, other reasons... for all these, fill in whatever the specific issue may be.

Some on the thread have mentioned an "insular" work environment, lesser compensation, etc.

If employers truly care about protecting their investment in new hires, then they need to do a good job themselves in making sure everything goes well during orientation. Similarly, if they wish to safeguard the years of experience existing staff have accumulated at their expense.

This whole deal is a two-way street, with employers having the most control over the... "street."

Nurses quit for various reasons. If the original hiring decision was a good one, then employers have to presume those reasons are oftentimes very valid. That then raises the question: What did management do, or not do, that may have impacted on the quit?

You know, my husband works in the engineering/IT field. The idea of worker loyalty went out the window years and years ago -- along with salaries, decent benefits, pensions, and the expectation that one could expect to be employed with the same company for more than two or three years.

How is nursing any different?

I do not think cost should be an issue. For one thing, you are not considering costs related to marketing and HR for each person hired. If you are going to leave, do so. Think of it like this, if the employer wanted to fire you would they wait till a certain period when it was cost-effective? No.

I am actually "in the middle" on the overall issue. While I have tried to explain the cost factors in this thread, I am not 100% "on the side" of the employer. As I said, "it's a 2-way street." I believe both parties have obligations.

I think it is wrong for employers to treat their employees badly -- and I think it is wrong to treat your employer badly. I don't think people are obligated to work long enough to "pay back" the full costs of their orientation, but I truly don't believe that the "s**** them" attitude is a good one to have, either. It gives you, the individual, a bad reputation and may cause the employer to be less generous with future new hires. Nobody wins.

Sometimes, circumstances exist that justify leaving very quickly during or immediately after orientation. But it is not something that should be done lightly -- and should not be the norm.

Agree with ya LLG.

We as managers need to do more to ensure the overall environment is good and remains that way.

We lost an excellent, experienced nurse this month for a dumb reason. She continued to get piled on with work at changeover, without getting the needed help. She had previously notified management of the prob, but was ignored for months.

In essence, we "handed over" a great employee to another facility.

She was smart, knowledgeable, likeable, courteous, a pleasure to work with, and lightning fast. What a shame.