The Tasmanian Police is using long-term contracts to justify expensive training for its cyber cops.
The 10-year contracts are a big commitment, but allow the police to invest in its people. As I understand it, such contracts need a reasonable exit clause to be possible but do increase the likelihood of people staying.
Many would say that this will stop hiring in its tracks as Gen Y shies away from something that ties them down.
Yet on the other hand, companies and governments are tearing their hair out about employees who learn the rudiments of a job, then let themselves be poached by another more desperate company that's willing to pay more.
This forcibly turns firms or government departments, which can't afford to poach, into training houses.
Given this situation, can we really be upset at companies that refuse to train and instead wanting to hire ready-to-go skills?
Can we blame them for throwing up their hands and offshoring work?
With employee loyalty becoming almost non-existent, how can we expect reciprocal loyalty in the form of training?
That's why I think enforced loyalty in the form of contracts may be necessary. It allows companies to take a punt on a keen, bright yet untrained person without losing out.
For the employee, it allows them to change their direction into an occupation they really want so that they don't have to just take a job for which they have the know-how. Let's face it, most of us don't want to do what we thought we did years ago when we underwent our studies.
Enabling companies to train again will also take the heat off universities, which are currently being blamed for not producing graduates who are immediately ready to work. It's not always possible for universities to do this and many people believe that isn't their job in the first place.