China-Singapore Jingwei, December 23 Question: Is it feasible for Dong Mingzhu to suggest charging training fees for job-hopping employees?
Author: Xu Xiongjun, founder of Jiude Positioning Consulting.
Recently, the remarks of "Dong Mingzhu's proposal to legislate to charge training fees for employees to change jobs" have aroused heated discussions among netizens. It is true that the company's investment in employee training is huge, and once the employee changes jobs, the company's loss is obvious. On the surface, this charge may indeed reduce the company's individual training investment, but its core starting point is to compensate for the long-term loss of value caused by frequent employee turnover.
The implementation of job-hopping training fees should balance the interests of all parties.
However, in the current legal and market environment, employees' career development and freedom of choice are protected. If the mechanism of job-hopping training fees is introduced, it may limit the career choices of employees to a certain extent.
In addition, the question of how to define the cost of training is also a complex one. The training content and investment of different companies vary greatly, from simple internal coaching to sending foreign students for further study, and the cost varies greatly. This makes it legally difficult to establish a uniform standard or definition of training costs.
When we look at this proposal from an ethical perspective, we can see the concerns and rationale behind it. Taking Gree as an example, the loss of its core employees has undoubtedly brought significant losses to the company, and also made the company face greater risks in terms of employment. In this context, the proposal to charge job-hopping training fees can be regarded as a measure to protect the rights and interests of enterprises.
But it also raises the question of whether frequent employee turnover and job hopping are morally reprehensibleIn traditional Chinese culture, loyalty is a highly emphasized value. However, in modern society, employee mobility is seen as the norm, which is somewhat in conflict with traditional culture. From this point of view, the company's proposal to charge job-hopping training fees may be understood as a call or return to the traditional concept of loyalty. But at the same time, we also need to balance the rights and interests of our employees with those of the company, and ensure that any measures are carried out within a legal and reasonable framework.
Job-hopping training fees are a complex issue with economic, legal and ethical dimensions. Before considering implementation, it is necessary to think deeply and balance the interests of all parties to ensure that the legitimate rights and interests of the enterprise can be protected, and the legitimate rights and interests of employees and the freedom of career development can not be harmed.
The purpose and outcome of corporate training should be a win-win situation.
In recent years, with the development of China's economy and the adjustment of industrial structure, more people may choose to become long-term employees of enterprises rather than entrepreneurs. In Japan, for example, employees are more likely to spend their careers in one or a handful of companies. In this context, the professional ethics, professional ethics of employees and the concept of employment of enterprises are particularly important. These not only need to be regulated and constrained from the legal level, but also need to be guided and cultivated from the moral level. Otherwise, it may fall into the whirlpool of inefficient internal friction and vicious competition, which will damage the interests of all parties and be detrimental to the long-term development of enterprises and employees.
From the perspective of social value, the essence of corporate training is to improve the working ability and experience of employees, so as to create greater value for the enterprise and society. As a result, the company's training expenses will ultimately be rewarded through the improvement of employees' performance and business capabilities. This investment is a win-win situation, i.e., employees get opportunities for personal growth and better job performance, while the company gets higher economic and social benefits through the efforts of employees.
In addition, in addition to charging job-hopping training fees, there are other ways to protect the company's return on training investment. For example, entering into a service term contract or a non-compete agreement. However, each of these methods has its own advantages and disadvantages, and a service term contract can ensure that employees are serving the business for a certain period of time, but they may be subject to a higher fee;Non-compete agreements can prevent employees from divulging confidential information or poaching customer resources from competitors, but they can also limit employees' career development and freedom of employment. (Zhongxin Jingwei app).
This article is selected and edited by the Sino-Singapore Jingwei Research Institute, and the works produced by the selection are all rights reserved, and no unit or individual may use it in any other way without written authorization. The views involved in the selected content only represent those of the original author and do not necessarily represent the views of Sino-Singapore Jingwei.
Editor in charge: Sun Qingyang.
For more exciting content, please pay attention to the official WeChat of JWVIEW***