Should Government Employees Be Eligible for 100% Subsidised, Expensive Short Courses

Gravy on 30/01/2023 - 09:15

I recently had a conversation with someone regarding a short course they were about to undertake in relation to their work in local government. The person is high up in management.

It struck me that the course seemed quite expensive at approx $15k and only around a week long (unless I misunderstood, perhaps there are additional course days later in the year or additional remote learning, I didn't press for more details).

I understand that the course content may eventually be value for money in that the employee may then be able to use the knowledge to provide a better service or savings to the community that outweigh the cost (outcome dependant on the course content and employee). However I feel that 100% govt department subsidised courses are likely inflating the course costs as people are more likely not to balk at prices when there is no hit to their own wallet.

As such I'm wondering if it would be viable for govt employees to at least pay part of the bill for courses, say 10% minimum, as ultimately it is increasing their own skill set and makes them more employable. This would in turn ensure that employees had personal financial commitment to the course and might help to bring prices down due to increased discernment in course selection. Perhaps something similar is already happening in some departments, I'm not sure.

The downside of this may be that some employees may be less willing to undertake courses and as such the community may miss out on a higher skilled govt workforce.

Interested to hear what others have to say, particularly those who may have some experience with this in their workplace. No poll as I'm more interested in discussion.

Education & Work

Comments

  • Vulgar on 30/01/2023 - 09:25
    +6

    It does depend on the specific course. If it only beenefits you in your particular department or just the government to help you advance then the government should pay for it just like a private company should pay for sending you to a course for using their propietary software.

    If it just benefits you in general e.g. an MBA then the employee should bear part of the cost, I'm thinking more like 50% at least.

    • Cobber870 on 30/01/2023 - 09:46

      Agree. Compulsory - Employer 100%.

      If it is part of an employee's professional development, enhancing skills but not a job requirement - 50% up to a certain $ limit I would suggest. Big difference between your taxpayer dollars attributing 50% of $5,000 vs %50 of $20,000. Should also be capped per year.

    • Gravy on 30/01/2023 - 09:56

      Yeah agree, I'm not sure if the course is optional in this case.

  • bobbified on 30/01/2023 - 09:29
    +10

    If a certain course is a requirement for someone's position, then the organisation should pay for it.

    If it's not a requirement but related, organisations have a process to assess the value of a particular person doing the course and then deciding whether or not to provide funding. This assessment process will stop every man and their dog from doing random courses at the organisation's expense.

    If the organisation refuses to pay it because they see no value or they don't have the budget, then the employee can choose whether or not to do it out of their own pocket.

  • Settero on 30/01/2023 - 09:29
    +14

    Is it optional?if you are in the private sector, work would normally pay for this no ? Why should someone in the public sector be treated differently?

    • Gravy on 30/01/2023 - 09:44

      I'm not sure on whether it is optional and also don't know the content. Also unsure whether private enterprise may be more discerning when it comes to course selection/value compared to public sector.

      • leelemon on 30/01/2023 - 10:59
        +5

        Also unsure whether private enterprise may be more discerning

        Big private companies aren't more 'frugal' when it comes educating their employees. They have budgets for training that are carefully calculated to avoid paying as much tax + get more qualified and skilled workers that contribute their labour in "expending a better product" for the company, in which they draw more profit from.
        That's why some companies even pay for their employees to do a university degree (or multiple).

        I think the bigger issue, when it comes to high education costs, is from privatising education (+ tax write offs for massive companies).

        edit:
        I know people that have worked in companies that have leftover money in the budget that often send employees to do random courses just to eat it up before the end of financial year.
        When it comes to government sectors, they get allocated an amount money each year. If they don't use it all up, there is a possibility that it will get cut the following year. Perhaps this is also a reason why they are okay to pay for your friend to do this course.

        • bobbified on 30/01/2023 - 11:11
          +2

          I know people that have worked in companies that have leftover money in the budget that often send employees to do random courses just to eat it up before the end of financial year.

          This is because the budgeting for departments are done on an annual basis and there's a certain amount allocated for particular things within. If that budget isn't used, the company bean counters go "this department didn't use their training budget last year so they probably won't need it next year and the year after". So that budget gets slashed. With that in mind, managers try and spend what they're allocated so that they can justify the request for more funding the following year. It's counter-productive to the company as a whole, but it's every man to themselves.

          Edit: I should've read your last paragraph before commenting!

          • leelemon on 30/01/2023 - 11:20
            +1

            @bobbified: No, I think I wrote it after you started writing :L

            Either way, I didn't know they did the same thing in the private sector as well. The more you know lol

            • bobbified on 30/01/2023 - 11:23
              +2

              @leelemon: haha they're all run the same - the bean counters are in control! Imagine how much additional profit there would be if there wasn't the last minute splurges! The travel budget is another one - but that one is a lot easier to use!

      • star-ggg on 30/01/2023 - 13:44
        +2

        From my exp working in both, private companies have been the less discerning. In govt, every $ spent is scrutinised and needs to be approved with justification. In private, it's basically "well it takes money to make money".

        • Gravy on 30/01/2023 - 14:11

          Does this also apply in the upper executive level of govt? ie: who scrutinises the scrutineers?

          • MitchPatto on 30/01/2023 - 14:44
            +1

            @Gravy: Their own budget is then the limiting factor. The scrutineers would rather have a worker bee taking load off of their plate with $$ rather than using their budget upskilling themselves.
            Most of these budgets are set anyway, in my experience at least, with a specific amount dedicated to staff development.

  • Adredocto on 30/01/2023 - 09:48
    +11

    Do you want to have a say in every other budget decision in running a public agency?

    Its difficult to retain talent in the public sector. If you dont upskill or maintain capability then it costs you far more in the long run through needing to hire hordes on consultants and contactors.

    • Gravy on 30/01/2023 - 09:55

      Good point. I guess my main issue is with the high cost of short courses at this level.

      Your point regarding retaining talent is also pertinent as departments sometimes spend money on these courses, only to have the employee shift off to another position elsewhere in a relatively short period of time.

      • Adredocto on 30/01/2023 - 10:11
        +5

        Courses for senior exec tend to be more expensive in both industries due to the subject matter and inputs required. E.g. paying other execs to be speakers or contribute to course development.

        Moving to another position can be an immediate loss (remember moving to another role in public sector is still public talent retained!) but most organisations understand this and it's fairly common for exec to move into different roles or industries to diversify and come back later into a leadership position.

        Most orgs don't really benefit from a lifer that has only known one way of doing things for 30 years.

        • Gravy on 30/01/2023 - 10:45
          +1

          I think when it comes to upper level execs, they may tend to lose sight of what is considered good value or affordable as they relate it to their own level of income rather than that of a more average wage earner. They also handle large amounts of funds in their workplace so amounts that seem huge to an average member of the community may seem trifling to them and this in turn adds to the divide.

          When it comes to local govt, an employee moving to another area outside LGA, having received funding for training, is a loss for the local community. I guess that is a known risk whenever an investment is made in an employee.

  • pharkurnell on 30/01/2023 - 10:13
    -4

    Should Government Employees Be Eligible for 100% Subsidised, Expensive Short Courses

    no

  • mbck on 30/01/2023 - 10:37

    Keep in mind, maybe they have professional developments funds/allowance in their contract?

    • Gravy on 30/01/2023 - 10:46

      Good point, had not considered that.

  • klonky on 30/01/2023 - 10:45

    Staff training and development is usually is assigned a portion of the budget per year. If there is not alot of staff taking up training, they will usually justify expensive courses in order to eat up the budget.

    • Gravy on 30/01/2023 - 10:47

      Yeah, this leads to massive wastage in all sorts of areas, not just training.

  • happydude on 30/01/2023 - 10:49

    Absolutory not.

    But this is the reality of the Public Service. Many start at rock the rock bottom entry point and work their way up. For some stupid reason spending 30+ years in the public service is considered to be a point of triumph for the individual and the organisation. It isn't.

    But those that know the organisational systems far are valued more than those with tertiary education and fresh ideas. Rarely are there outside hires into the higher management positions. They justify the promotions by providing courses like these to their preferred applicants. They need to look good on paper and exact course becomes a desirable trait in the job description for the next position.

    Basicly, the HR position is upskilling people is preferred to finding people that are upskilled. That won't stop. My issue isn't the course per say, but how the education schemes become a barrier to personnel rejuvenation and renewal at the senior levels of government departments.

    • Gravy on 30/01/2023 - 10:52

      Interesting perspective thanks.

  • djsweet on 30/01/2023 - 11:05

    Public service pays lower than industry. If they don't pay for staff courses there will be even less reason for staff to stay. 15k for a senior executive week-long course sounds expensive but isn't really out-of-this-world. Majority of specialty courses in my industry (targeted at non-execs) are around 7k for a week. I assume exec courses would be more expensive. Anyway, what money are gov employees going to use to pay for it, they barely get payed enough to pay rent (not talking about sr execs).

  • AustriaBargain on 30/01/2023 - 11:11
    -2

    Governments wants to improve the quality of their workers, workers which will likely be lifelong government workers with any luck, and you have a problem with that? Corruption is rife in government, they need all the improving they can get.

    • Gravy on 30/01/2023 - 11:25

      It's more the cost of the courses being undertaken at a senior level, 15K will go quite a way to paying for a year of Uni.

      • AustriaBargain on 30/01/2023 - 11:28

        A competent government today will mean more capability for free uni tomorrow.

        • Gravy on 30/01/2023 - 11:29
          +2

          Uni used to be free in Australia, going backwards on that front.

  • AngoraFish on 30/01/2023 - 13:30
    +4

    Why do you think that government employees deserve lesser conditions than private sector employees? If training is designed to help you do your job better your employer pays for it, end of story.

    You're focusing on government as if they're personally ripping you off in some way. Both private and public sector employers send their staff on training courses for a variety of management-related reasons, none of which you have any idea about. You've just had a gut reaction based on the idea that public servants are bludgers and slackers despite literally decades of wage freezes and "efficiency dividends", and following years of abuse from conservative politicians furiously finding spurious justifications to direct government funds into the pockets of their mates.

    You know when you need to make a trip to a hospital? That's public servants. The people tracking down international child molesters? Public servants. The military? Public servants. Freeway upgrades? That's public servants too. Why should public servants not get the same opportunities as everyone else, just because your gut reaction is that someting borderline corrupt is going on here.

    The reality is that it's almost always cheaper to pay $15k to train up an existing staff member than to try to recruit someone else with the same skill set and settle them into the organization. Offering professional development opportunities also improves staff retention and ensures that staff are up to date with best practice.

    Frankly, if my employer wasn't paying for me to do training then I have better things to do with my time, like watching television or staring off into space. Half the time these kinds of courses are far too specific to be worth much, if anything, on your resume anyhow.

    • Gravy on 30/01/2023 - 14:05

      What private sector does is of no concern to me as they are not paid for by the community. If I were a shareholder in a company then that would be of more concern.

      In this particular case the person is outside of my LGA, so also does not affect me however I used it as a case in point as I'm sure this happens all around the country and is no doubt also happening in my own LGA.

      My concern isn't with training people, it's with the pricing of some of the training particularly at exec level when that training is ultimately being paid for by the community and may result in less funds to spend on other services.

      • AngoraFish on 30/01/2023 - 15:25
        +3

        If you were a shareholder, even a board member, the CEO would quite rightly tell you to butt out of second guessing their HR policies.

        • Gravy on 30/01/2023 - 16:21

          That seems a little dangerous for shareholders, for all they know an executive could have a financial interest in the training company and be siphoning off company funds by way of expensive courses (certainly not implying that is happening in this situation above though).

          • AngoraFish on 30/01/2023 - 18:31

            @Gravy: As a recipient of one of those $15k training courses, in this case company director training, I can assure you that you would be laughed out of the boardroom with that approach, either that or the CEO would have to resign from your lack of faith in their abilities.

            The responsibility of a board member is to ensure that an organisation has appropriate systems and policies in place to detect the kinds of problems you mention, for example, appointing auditors, ensuring that there are appropriate delegations and independent compliance staff and systems, and policies such as requiring cheques to be signed by more than one person.

            The responsibility of shareholders is to appoint board members and collect dividend cheques.

            CEOs get very shirty about people telling them how to do their jobs. A board hires the CEO, sets strategic goals for the organisation and KPIs for the CEO, and then measures organisational performance against those goals (which may, and should, include goals related financial accountability and compliance). A board doesn't, however, undertake individual investigations or write policies from scratch themselves.

            • Gravy on 30/01/2023 - 19:32

              @AngoraFish: At no point did I mention I would actually take up the issue with a company I held shares in, only that it would be a concern. You also make it sound like fraud doesn't occur at a high level within some companies but that's perhaps getting offtrack with the topic (my fault as I raised the issue).

              With regard to the 15K training course you undertook, how long/extensive was it and do you think it offered value for money for the company? If you had been asked to pay for the training from your own pocket would you have considered it as being expensive?

              • AngoraFish on 30/01/2023 - 20:20

                @Gravy: It was a week, residential, in Canberra, including accommodation, travel and a light breakfast and lunch. The place I was at wanted me to represent it as a company director on the board of a consortia company, which I did for three years.

                The course has been on my resume since then and has opened no doors for me whatsoever, to the point where I recently dropped it off. The program was good quality and I learned a lot, but I wouldn't have done it unless I needed it for work, probably not even if it had been free.

                I know of many two day courses though charging $3K+, particularly technical ones. Make that five days instead of two, add in accommodation, and taking into account that several of the other people doing it were on $500k+ salaries (not me), the cost was consistent with what I would expect.

  • hasher22 on 30/01/2023 - 13:37

    The company should invest in their employees, not tax payers IMO. It's a tax write off as well for the company.

    Also, to my understanding, if the individual decided to take it upon themselves to study and it is in direct-relation to their work, they can claim it on their personal income tax themselves.

  • Drakesy on 30/01/2023 - 14:37

    $15k sounds a bit ridiculous for a 1 week course.
    Yes i agree that they should pay, but a max of say $5-$10k a year depending on level.

    If you start taking away these incentives, then the government will lose what talent it has left (and its not a lot). Private already do it.

  • [Deactivated] on 30/01/2023 - 15:09
    -1

    Where I come from we call it 'behavioural economics' rather than dishonesty, as it is more palatable to the cognitively dissonant and less likely to be shrilled by the emotively affected.

    • Gravy on 30/01/2023 - 16:27

      Interesting. Yeah I'm not implying dishonesty in this case at all, neither on the part of the employee or the trainer. I think it's more a case of "make hay whilst the sun shines".

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join