Is it my responsibility to learn a new technology in my own time my employer wants to implement? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowLearn on the (new) job or take time off (and how much) to learn?Need Advice: Transitioning from Public Scientist to Private ProgrammerLearn new (related) technologies or get certified?Negotiating a huge change in responsibility - new start upEmployer wants me to learn new language/system - how can I refuse to do this?How can I convince people to take time from their schedule to learn other things?Should I extend my time in office to learn new things?What to do when you do not learn anything newCan employer require me learn a new technology that I have no interest to learn?Will the technology I first learn determine the direction of my future career?
Why did we only see the N-1 starfighters in one film?
Anatomically Correct Mesopelagic Aves
Can a caster that cast polymorph on itself end it at any point even if their Int is low?
Visit to the USA with ESTA approved before trip to Iran
Why is Miller's case titled R (Miller)?
Grabbing quick drinks
Is there a good way to store credentials outside of a password manager?
Opamp stability given in not inverting configuration
Only print output after finding pattern
Return of the Riley Riddles in Reverse
Apart from "berlinern", do any other German dialects have a corresponding verb?
How should I support this large drywall patch?
How to draw fully connected graph link picture bellow in latex?
How to make a software documentation "officially" citable?
Anatomically Correct Strange Women In Ponds Distributing Swords
How do I get the green key off the shelf in the Dobby level of Lego Harry Potter 2?
Should I tutor a student who I know has cheated on their homework?
How can I get through very long and very dry, but also very useful technical documents when learning a new tool?
How to pronounce the slash sign
Opposite of a diet
How do we know the LHC results are robust?
How do spells that require an ability check vs spell save DC work?
What does "colonia" and "interior/dpto" means in Mexico on address lines?
What is the difference between "behavior" and "behaviour"?
Is it my responsibility to learn a new technology in my own time my employer wants to implement?
The Next CEO of Stack OverflowLearn on the (new) job or take time off (and how much) to learn?Need Advice: Transitioning from Public Scientist to Private ProgrammerLearn new (related) technologies or get certified?Negotiating a huge change in responsibility - new start upEmployer wants me to learn new language/system - how can I refuse to do this?How can I convince people to take time from their schedule to learn other things?Should I extend my time in office to learn new things?What to do when you do not learn anything newCan employer require me learn a new technology that I have no interest to learn?Will the technology I first learn determine the direction of my future career?
I work as web developer in the US. My company recently hired on someone with the intent of having them get us swapped over to using a new technology I have no experience with. This new team member can be quoted as saying "It's not upon your employer to give you time to learn" and that we should all be doing this in our spare time at home. He even went so far as to suggesting that we all create GitHub projects and submit them to him for code review.
Is this normal? I understand that companies can and do introduce new technologies/frameworks/etc, but is it really on me to spend my non-work hours to learn these? I should indicate that I'm not against learning the new stuff, and honestly, in my free time (which, I have a spouse and a teenage daughter, so its rare) I probably will play around and see what I can learn. I just feel that the onus is on the employer to give some time to learn and adapt.
career-development learning corporate-responsibility
|
show 2 more comments
I work as web developer in the US. My company recently hired on someone with the intent of having them get us swapped over to using a new technology I have no experience with. This new team member can be quoted as saying "It's not upon your employer to give you time to learn" and that we should all be doing this in our spare time at home. He even went so far as to suggesting that we all create GitHub projects and submit them to him for code review.
Is this normal? I understand that companies can and do introduce new technologies/frameworks/etc, but is it really on me to spend my non-work hours to learn these? I should indicate that I'm not against learning the new stuff, and honestly, in my free time (which, I have a spouse and a teenage daughter, so its rare) I probably will play around and see what I can learn. I just feel that the onus is on the employer to give some time to learn and adapt.
career-development learning corporate-responsibility
12
What power does this person have in your organization exactly? Do they actually have the power, to make their expectations of learning this new technology in your free time, something that will impact your performance review in the future?
– Ramhound
4 hours ago
2
Yes, I agree. But, I live and work in Germany; cultural norms and legislation might be different where you work.
– Roland
4 hours ago
5
It's not upon your employer to give you time to learnSure, and is not my trouble if the system goes down while I'm at home, want me to study on my free time? Pay me.
– William-H-M
3 hours ago
Are you salaried or hourly?
– EJoshuaS
3 hours ago
Who is this "someone"? Do they have any actual power? They will be hard-pressed to force an entire team to switch technology if they don't plan on supporting the transition properly.
– MonkeyZeus
1 hour ago
|
show 2 more comments
I work as web developer in the US. My company recently hired on someone with the intent of having them get us swapped over to using a new technology I have no experience with. This new team member can be quoted as saying "It's not upon your employer to give you time to learn" and that we should all be doing this in our spare time at home. He even went so far as to suggesting that we all create GitHub projects and submit them to him for code review.
Is this normal? I understand that companies can and do introduce new technologies/frameworks/etc, but is it really on me to spend my non-work hours to learn these? I should indicate that I'm not against learning the new stuff, and honestly, in my free time (which, I have a spouse and a teenage daughter, so its rare) I probably will play around and see what I can learn. I just feel that the onus is on the employer to give some time to learn and adapt.
career-development learning corporate-responsibility
I work as web developer in the US. My company recently hired on someone with the intent of having them get us swapped over to using a new technology I have no experience with. This new team member can be quoted as saying "It's not upon your employer to give you time to learn" and that we should all be doing this in our spare time at home. He even went so far as to suggesting that we all create GitHub projects and submit them to him for code review.
Is this normal? I understand that companies can and do introduce new technologies/frameworks/etc, but is it really on me to spend my non-work hours to learn these? I should indicate that I'm not against learning the new stuff, and honestly, in my free time (which, I have a spouse and a teenage daughter, so its rare) I probably will play around and see what I can learn. I just feel that the onus is on the employer to give some time to learn and adapt.
career-development learning corporate-responsibility
career-development learning corporate-responsibility
edited 2 hours ago
EJoshuaS
1,060316
1,060316
asked 4 hours ago
PiousVenomPiousVenom
472614
472614
12
What power does this person have in your organization exactly? Do they actually have the power, to make their expectations of learning this new technology in your free time, something that will impact your performance review in the future?
– Ramhound
4 hours ago
2
Yes, I agree. But, I live and work in Germany; cultural norms and legislation might be different where you work.
– Roland
4 hours ago
5
It's not upon your employer to give you time to learnSure, and is not my trouble if the system goes down while I'm at home, want me to study on my free time? Pay me.
– William-H-M
3 hours ago
Are you salaried or hourly?
– EJoshuaS
3 hours ago
Who is this "someone"? Do they have any actual power? They will be hard-pressed to force an entire team to switch technology if they don't plan on supporting the transition properly.
– MonkeyZeus
1 hour ago
|
show 2 more comments
12
What power does this person have in your organization exactly? Do they actually have the power, to make their expectations of learning this new technology in your free time, something that will impact your performance review in the future?
– Ramhound
4 hours ago
2
Yes, I agree. But, I live and work in Germany; cultural norms and legislation might be different where you work.
– Roland
4 hours ago
5
It's not upon your employer to give you time to learnSure, and is not my trouble if the system goes down while I'm at home, want me to study on my free time? Pay me.
– William-H-M
3 hours ago
Are you salaried or hourly?
– EJoshuaS
3 hours ago
Who is this "someone"? Do they have any actual power? They will be hard-pressed to force an entire team to switch technology if they don't plan on supporting the transition properly.
– MonkeyZeus
1 hour ago
12
12
What power does this person have in your organization exactly? Do they actually have the power, to make their expectations of learning this new technology in your free time, something that will impact your performance review in the future?
– Ramhound
4 hours ago
What power does this person have in your organization exactly? Do they actually have the power, to make their expectations of learning this new technology in your free time, something that will impact your performance review in the future?
– Ramhound
4 hours ago
2
2
Yes, I agree. But, I live and work in Germany; cultural norms and legislation might be different where you work.
– Roland
4 hours ago
Yes, I agree. But, I live and work in Germany; cultural norms and legislation might be different where you work.
– Roland
4 hours ago
5
5
It's not upon your employer to give you time to learn Sure, and is not my trouble if the system goes down while I'm at home, want me to study on my free time? Pay me.– William-H-M
3 hours ago
It's not upon your employer to give you time to learn Sure, and is not my trouble if the system goes down while I'm at home, want me to study on my free time? Pay me.– William-H-M
3 hours ago
Are you salaried or hourly?
– EJoshuaS
3 hours ago
Are you salaried or hourly?
– EJoshuaS
3 hours ago
Who is this "someone"? Do they have any actual power? They will be hard-pressed to force an entire team to switch technology if they don't plan on supporting the transition properly.
– MonkeyZeus
1 hour ago
Who is this "someone"? Do they have any actual power? They will be hard-pressed to force an entire team to switch technology if they don't plan on supporting the transition properly.
– MonkeyZeus
1 hour ago
|
show 2 more comments
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
Is this normal?
In my experience, this is not normal.
What typically happens is your employer would work with you in the transition by supporting you with training. Or alternatively, you employer could allow you a bit more time to do tasks in this new technology to account for the learning curve.
I will say however, as a developer myself, it is on me to stay current in my chosen stack and to not become out dated.
I would also suggest you talk to you manager about a cooperative training effort to move towards this new technology that would include some of your time, the companies time, and maybe even a bit of paid training (instructor lead or online).
61
For me an easy rule of thumb is: If I want to learn something, it's on my time and dime. If the company needs me to learn something, it's on their time and dime.
– Stig Tore
4 hours ago
1
Also it's a good hint about the job itself. With myriad of things you can choose as your stack it should be understandable that YOUR thing is not the one company have chosen. So it's your thing or company thing that you would need to put your time into. And company should somehow reimburse you or pay for the help for forfeiting your own thing.
– SZCZERZO KŁY
4 hours ago
@StigTore Sadly the employer may think it's easier to just hire new staff which are versed in the new technology. Their ill-guided perspective could lead them to think "Well if a new employee already knows this stuff because they did it in their spare time then my current employees should be able to follow suit if they wish to keep their job." Even further sadly is that when a new employee is undoubtedly hired in the near future then the employer will wonder "Why the heck is this guy so much better than my guys? I paid for their training for crying out loud!"
– MonkeyZeus
1 hour ago
1
@MonkeyZeus The employer had a product before the switch. The knowledge that the dev's acquired over time working on the previous iterations is extremely valuable. They should have a better understanding of the direction the product is going and what unique challenges the industry their coding for brings. Old staff might not code as fast but I would never replace someone unless I felt that they were regressing or stagnating in their professional development. You stop learning and I'll stop considering you for better positions. (Sending employees on good training courses is usually a win win)
– Tolure
56 mins ago
I agree 100% with what you are saying; that's why I said "ill-guided perspective". Following through with what OP described would be absolutely detrimental and destined to fail. Reading further into their post it appears that this is all coming from some gung-ho new hire so all of this might just be a moot point once the decision makers of the company realize that this person is trying to uproot the technology stack.
– MonkeyZeus
51 mins ago
add a comment |
Good companies invest in their staff.
Technology is a rapidly changing industry - there is always something new to learn. It is much cheaper to keep a current member of staff up to standard than to replace them with a new hire, which costs time and money in recruitment and getting up to speed. Good companies recognize this, and provide their staff with training in whatever technologies they use. It is therefore reasonable for you to hope that your employer will give you time and resources to learn new technologies during work hours.
Not every employer realizes this, they see the obvious cost of providing training and do not recognize the hidden costs of failing to do that. Sadly this is common.
However...
Your employer won't care more about your career than you do - it's your career.
When you first got a developer job, you (probably) didn't turn up on their doorstep saying, "I know nothing about development, pay me while I learn, then eventually I'll do some work for you!". You probably learned how to develop on your own time, maybe as part of full-time education, maybe getting some qualifications (which may have included a degree), before you got the job. You chose your career, and invested in it.
Now, some time later, your current knowledge is not enough. You need to learn more. Although a good employer will help you with this... ultimately, it's you that needs to learn it. This may involve learning on your own time, putting your own energy and resources (time/money/etc.) into it. It is your career, after all. If you don't want to keep up to date with new technologies, your employer may decide to replace you with someone who will. Then, when you are looking for a new job, you may be competing with other candidates who have already learned those new technologies, while you will be left explaining that your former employer didn't give you training so you never did.
Therefore, while both employer and employee should invest in ongoing professional development and learning, whether the employer does this or not, the employee must, or else they will find themselves lacking skills and knowledge that are needed in modern development.
2
For me, this is the right response. It's an odd middle ground. Yes, we should learn. Yes, an employer should provide training. But assuming worst case, you have to take responsibility and keep up to date and stay sharp on your skills because your employer WILL replace you. That's the nature of the beast.
– ShinEmperor
3 hours ago
15
There's a big difference between failing to keep up with the state of the art and not feeling compelled to jump on the bandwagon of every "monster of the week" JS framework your project lead digs up. What if what the company picked isn't career advancing, would you still recommend to learn it in your free time?
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
3 hours ago
2
Agreed. Hence why I specifically mentioned that good employers will provide training. But not all employers are good employers, and not everyone can afford to leave a bad employer at the drop of a hat. Sometimes, "what's best for my job" is the right question. Other times, "what's best for my career" is the right question. It changes per person, and over time.
– BittermanAndy
3 hours ago
2
There is a bit of a caveat here if OP's employer is focusing over very niche stacks that the developer isn't interested in (careerwise), or when the company wants to train the employee in outdated technologies (but new to the employee whose employer still wants to use that outdated stack). If the employee has no interest in learning a new stack for their own career benefit, they cannot be forced to do so outside of working hours.
– Flater
3 hours ago
2
There is a huge difference in learning something to get hired and learning something to do your job. So you learn java, get a job as a java dev and then your company switches to erlang. Does that mean that you should now go out and learn erlang in your own time ? no. Why ? You're an employee, you need to learn erlang to do your job. That means it's work time. This is not a grey area. You learn for work, you're doing something your employer asked you to do. It's clearly work time.
– xyious
1 hour ago
|
show 6 more comments
This new team member can be quoted as saying "It's not upon your
employer to give you time to learn" and that we should all be doing
this in our spare time at home.
This new team member is confused.
And unless this new team member is your boss, or is funding your paycheck, then this new team member can be safely ignored.
If an employer wants you to learn something new, then your employer should be happy to pay for that learning on company time.
Of course if the new technology interests you or hold long term promise for your career, you may wish to augment that with your own learning in your own time - that's just good career advice. And that's your personal choice to make.
Is this normal?
Sadly, there are some confused people we all get to work with.
That doesn't make any of them right.
1
Indeed, simply continue to work hard, and politely ignore these "rantings" from new employee.
– Fattie
2 hours ago
3
^ this. Your boss asks you to do something. That means it's your job.
– xyious
1 hour ago
add a comment |
As a rule of thumb, what you do in your free time is none of your employer's business. Their right to assign tasks is limited to work hours. They hired you for a specific position, presumably after interviewing you for that position, and the skill set that you had at that time. They have since then changed their mind and decided they want a different skill set. Whether that means hiring someone else or training existing employees, it is a strategic decision the business made and any expenses related to that are theirs to cover.
Now, learning new technologies is part of the job, and your employer would have reason to complain if you refused to learn the new tech stack at all. Considering the resources available today, one could also argue that it is reasonable to expect an experienced software developer to familiarize themself with a new language or framework without the employer providing extensive training. However, the key difference between training that you do of your own accord and training mandated by your employer is who gets to decide if, what, when and how much you learn. If they pay for it, they get to choose. If not, it's your time to do with as you will.
Personally, if I consider the tech in question worthwhile and the company is otherwise decent, I don't mind "throwing them a bone" and picking that language or framework for my next hobby project, but to demand this kind of unpaid overtime raises all sorts of red flags.
In my experience, the generally accepted practice is to factor learning time into the estimates of any project that requires employees to learn a new technology. Adding a team member with the desired skill set is a good way to speed up that process, but it will still delay the project. Whether or not that's worth it is up to the business to decide.
add a comment |
Totally not. Not even worth discussing it.
Your free time is yours. If they want you to spend extra time - they have to pay overtime.
If you agree to study for free for them next time they may ask you to do accounting for them on your spare time.
add a comment |
Broadly speaking, I feel like the responses to these sorts of questions don't consider the reality of the market.
In short, being a developer is all about knowledge and experience and often knowing more means you can experience more which then reinforces what you know. It makes you extraordinarily valuable if you can do this.
That said, consider your options. Ok, fine your employer won't train you. Are you ready to bust your quotes? Are you ready to be slower than other team members who went ahead and DID do the learning on their own time.
My issue with the responses here is they're not pragmatic. If I were told "Learn this tech in your spare time." and I overheard another dev saying "I'm not going to do that. It's MY time.", I'm learning that tech in my free time. Because I'm ambitious and I know I'll perform more effectively if I do so.
This is the REALITY of things. If you don't, someone else will. I'm not saying it's right or fair, I'm saying that's how this goes. But my perspective is: To be a developer, you must ALWAYS be learning. ALWAYS. It never stops, not even a little. Put in the time and you'll get a comfortable job and good money.
In a perfect world, we would be trained and taken care of and all would be well.But the world is an imperfect place. But more basically, the way I see it is: I'm a dev, I should be learning in my free time anyways because my career depends on it.
Would you say that this line of reasoning still applies if e.g. you consider the new tech stack the company picked to be a dead end? There are more options than just "learn what the company picked" and "learn nothing at all".
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
3 hours ago
1
A particular tech might be a career dead end, but not learning it might be a dead end in the current job. It then becomes a strategic question of whether the employee's job or career is more important to them, at that time of their life. (For most people the answer to that question varies over time).
– BittermanAndy
3 hours ago
add a comment |
In all the discussions, I see people debating norms concerning right and wrong. While these ideas are good compasses to keep us well regulated when nobody is looking, it rarely serves us well when another party is involved and exercising leverage against us (ie paycheck).
Generally speaking, what is okay and isn't okay is based on the perspective of the individual being requested action of.
In my experience, I've been asked to do things I wasn't entirely pleased with. When those things happen, I feel that the energy of being spurred to action by an overly demanding employer is to look for your next place to land at. Outwardly complaining will weaken your negotiating position as they will have time to try and replace you before you get to ultimatums. Don't tell them your looking. Just spring it up when the opportunity is in your hands (and not kind of, but you have your first day of new work scheduled). If notice isn't possible, don't worry about it. You don't owe courtesies to people who disrespect your time.
Emotional events can really have us looking for divine justice, but here in the real world, we tend to get what we get. Don't let pride or a sense of justice weaken your position with a boss who wants off the clock work with no compensation. And if you worry about the team when your on the way out the door & your boss asks you to stay, ask for what staying is REALLY worth (at this point) to you (and staying might now be worth it at this point, but I like putting dollar signs on things) and negotiate work conditions at that time. If negotiations fall apart, remind your boss that he has at least one employee who doesn't mind doing stuff for free. If he looks like he/she is considering it, you would have made the world a better place with a loud mouth in check.
As you consider this answer, I would like to refer you to MC Hawking because I believe laughing is super important in stressful situations https://youtu.be/WUguUhKoVjI
New contributor
Super-WhyDoYouWantToDoThat-Man is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
The new guy is almost right, the following statement is true in general:
"It's not upon your employer to give you time to learn"
and we should all be [learning] in our spare time at home.
Although this is correct from a certain perspective, it is not correct in your circumstance.
In general:
- It is actually on you to be familiar with new things.
This is a part of having a long career in IT. I don't mean that you should know all the new stuff, just that a web developer should be aware of anything big that comes out of Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
By "aware" I mean that you should know approximately what it is and what the supposed advantages are (why people are choosing it).
I do not mean that you should learn each thing that comes out (that's not even possible).
In your case:
- You are competent with your current work, and your employer wants to pivot in a new direction.
In this case it is appropriate for you to expect work time to be used learning the "new thing".
I just feel that the onus is on the employer to give some time to learn and adapt
You are correct.
However, I would recommend that in the near term (until you are competent in the new tech) that you take some time from your spouse and daughter and invest it "in your career" so you will be ahead of the other people learning this, instead of the laggard.
This answer assumes that the "new thing" is (in your opinion) worth learning.
If that isn't true then the "home time away from your family" might be better spent looking for a new job (or learning something that your next job might need).
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "423"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: false,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f132802%2fis-it-my-responsibility-to-learn-a-new-technology-in-my-own-time-my-employer-wan%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(function ()
$("#show-editor-button input, #show-editor-button button").click(function ()
var showEditor = function()
$("#show-editor-button").hide();
$("#post-form").removeClass("dno");
StackExchange.editor.finallyInit();
;
var useFancy = $(this).data('confirm-use-fancy');
if(useFancy == 'True')
var popupTitle = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-title');
var popupBody = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-body');
var popupAccept = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-accept-button');
$(this).loadPopup(
url: '/post/self-answer-popup',
loaded: function(popup)
var pTitle = $(popup).find('h2');
var pBody = $(popup).find('.popup-body');
var pSubmit = $(popup).find('.popup-submit');
pTitle.text(popupTitle);
pBody.html(popupBody);
pSubmit.val(popupAccept).click(showEditor);
)
else
var confirmText = $(this).data('confirm-text');
if (confirmText ? confirm(confirmText) : true)
showEditor();
);
);
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Is this normal?
In my experience, this is not normal.
What typically happens is your employer would work with you in the transition by supporting you with training. Or alternatively, you employer could allow you a bit more time to do tasks in this new technology to account for the learning curve.
I will say however, as a developer myself, it is on me to stay current in my chosen stack and to not become out dated.
I would also suggest you talk to you manager about a cooperative training effort to move towards this new technology that would include some of your time, the companies time, and maybe even a bit of paid training (instructor lead or online).
61
For me an easy rule of thumb is: If I want to learn something, it's on my time and dime. If the company needs me to learn something, it's on their time and dime.
– Stig Tore
4 hours ago
1
Also it's a good hint about the job itself. With myriad of things you can choose as your stack it should be understandable that YOUR thing is not the one company have chosen. So it's your thing or company thing that you would need to put your time into. And company should somehow reimburse you or pay for the help for forfeiting your own thing.
– SZCZERZO KŁY
4 hours ago
@StigTore Sadly the employer may think it's easier to just hire new staff which are versed in the new technology. Their ill-guided perspective could lead them to think "Well if a new employee already knows this stuff because they did it in their spare time then my current employees should be able to follow suit if they wish to keep their job." Even further sadly is that when a new employee is undoubtedly hired in the near future then the employer will wonder "Why the heck is this guy so much better than my guys? I paid for their training for crying out loud!"
– MonkeyZeus
1 hour ago
1
@MonkeyZeus The employer had a product before the switch. The knowledge that the dev's acquired over time working on the previous iterations is extremely valuable. They should have a better understanding of the direction the product is going and what unique challenges the industry their coding for brings. Old staff might not code as fast but I would never replace someone unless I felt that they were regressing or stagnating in their professional development. You stop learning and I'll stop considering you for better positions. (Sending employees on good training courses is usually a win win)
– Tolure
56 mins ago
I agree 100% with what you are saying; that's why I said "ill-guided perspective". Following through with what OP described would be absolutely detrimental and destined to fail. Reading further into their post it appears that this is all coming from some gung-ho new hire so all of this might just be a moot point once the decision makers of the company realize that this person is trying to uproot the technology stack.
– MonkeyZeus
51 mins ago
add a comment |
Is this normal?
In my experience, this is not normal.
What typically happens is your employer would work with you in the transition by supporting you with training. Or alternatively, you employer could allow you a bit more time to do tasks in this new technology to account for the learning curve.
I will say however, as a developer myself, it is on me to stay current in my chosen stack and to not become out dated.
I would also suggest you talk to you manager about a cooperative training effort to move towards this new technology that would include some of your time, the companies time, and maybe even a bit of paid training (instructor lead or online).
61
For me an easy rule of thumb is: If I want to learn something, it's on my time and dime. If the company needs me to learn something, it's on their time and dime.
– Stig Tore
4 hours ago
1
Also it's a good hint about the job itself. With myriad of things you can choose as your stack it should be understandable that YOUR thing is not the one company have chosen. So it's your thing or company thing that you would need to put your time into. And company should somehow reimburse you or pay for the help for forfeiting your own thing.
– SZCZERZO KŁY
4 hours ago
@StigTore Sadly the employer may think it's easier to just hire new staff which are versed in the new technology. Their ill-guided perspective could lead them to think "Well if a new employee already knows this stuff because they did it in their spare time then my current employees should be able to follow suit if they wish to keep their job." Even further sadly is that when a new employee is undoubtedly hired in the near future then the employer will wonder "Why the heck is this guy so much better than my guys? I paid for their training for crying out loud!"
– MonkeyZeus
1 hour ago
1
@MonkeyZeus The employer had a product before the switch. The knowledge that the dev's acquired over time working on the previous iterations is extremely valuable. They should have a better understanding of the direction the product is going and what unique challenges the industry their coding for brings. Old staff might not code as fast but I would never replace someone unless I felt that they were regressing or stagnating in their professional development. You stop learning and I'll stop considering you for better positions. (Sending employees on good training courses is usually a win win)
– Tolure
56 mins ago
I agree 100% with what you are saying; that's why I said "ill-guided perspective". Following through with what OP described would be absolutely detrimental and destined to fail. Reading further into their post it appears that this is all coming from some gung-ho new hire so all of this might just be a moot point once the decision makers of the company realize that this person is trying to uproot the technology stack.
– MonkeyZeus
51 mins ago
add a comment |
Is this normal?
In my experience, this is not normal.
What typically happens is your employer would work with you in the transition by supporting you with training. Or alternatively, you employer could allow you a bit more time to do tasks in this new technology to account for the learning curve.
I will say however, as a developer myself, it is on me to stay current in my chosen stack and to not become out dated.
I would also suggest you talk to you manager about a cooperative training effort to move towards this new technology that would include some of your time, the companies time, and maybe even a bit of paid training (instructor lead or online).
Is this normal?
In my experience, this is not normal.
What typically happens is your employer would work with you in the transition by supporting you with training. Or alternatively, you employer could allow you a bit more time to do tasks in this new technology to account for the learning curve.
I will say however, as a developer myself, it is on me to stay current in my chosen stack and to not become out dated.
I would also suggest you talk to you manager about a cooperative training effort to move towards this new technology that would include some of your time, the companies time, and maybe even a bit of paid training (instructor lead or online).
edited 1 hour ago
answered 4 hours ago
Mister Positive♦Mister Positive
62.5k33206250
62.5k33206250
61
For me an easy rule of thumb is: If I want to learn something, it's on my time and dime. If the company needs me to learn something, it's on their time and dime.
– Stig Tore
4 hours ago
1
Also it's a good hint about the job itself. With myriad of things you can choose as your stack it should be understandable that YOUR thing is not the one company have chosen. So it's your thing or company thing that you would need to put your time into. And company should somehow reimburse you or pay for the help for forfeiting your own thing.
– SZCZERZO KŁY
4 hours ago
@StigTore Sadly the employer may think it's easier to just hire new staff which are versed in the new technology. Their ill-guided perspective could lead them to think "Well if a new employee already knows this stuff because they did it in their spare time then my current employees should be able to follow suit if they wish to keep their job." Even further sadly is that when a new employee is undoubtedly hired in the near future then the employer will wonder "Why the heck is this guy so much better than my guys? I paid for their training for crying out loud!"
– MonkeyZeus
1 hour ago
1
@MonkeyZeus The employer had a product before the switch. The knowledge that the dev's acquired over time working on the previous iterations is extremely valuable. They should have a better understanding of the direction the product is going and what unique challenges the industry their coding for brings. Old staff might not code as fast but I would never replace someone unless I felt that they were regressing or stagnating in their professional development. You stop learning and I'll stop considering you for better positions. (Sending employees on good training courses is usually a win win)
– Tolure
56 mins ago
I agree 100% with what you are saying; that's why I said "ill-guided perspective". Following through with what OP described would be absolutely detrimental and destined to fail. Reading further into their post it appears that this is all coming from some gung-ho new hire so all of this might just be a moot point once the decision makers of the company realize that this person is trying to uproot the technology stack.
– MonkeyZeus
51 mins ago
add a comment |
61
For me an easy rule of thumb is: If I want to learn something, it's on my time and dime. If the company needs me to learn something, it's on their time and dime.
– Stig Tore
4 hours ago
1
Also it's a good hint about the job itself. With myriad of things you can choose as your stack it should be understandable that YOUR thing is not the one company have chosen. So it's your thing or company thing that you would need to put your time into. And company should somehow reimburse you or pay for the help for forfeiting your own thing.
– SZCZERZO KŁY
4 hours ago
@StigTore Sadly the employer may think it's easier to just hire new staff which are versed in the new technology. Their ill-guided perspective could lead them to think "Well if a new employee already knows this stuff because they did it in their spare time then my current employees should be able to follow suit if they wish to keep their job." Even further sadly is that when a new employee is undoubtedly hired in the near future then the employer will wonder "Why the heck is this guy so much better than my guys? I paid for their training for crying out loud!"
– MonkeyZeus
1 hour ago
1
@MonkeyZeus The employer had a product before the switch. The knowledge that the dev's acquired over time working on the previous iterations is extremely valuable. They should have a better understanding of the direction the product is going and what unique challenges the industry their coding for brings. Old staff might not code as fast but I would never replace someone unless I felt that they were regressing or stagnating in their professional development. You stop learning and I'll stop considering you for better positions. (Sending employees on good training courses is usually a win win)
– Tolure
56 mins ago
I agree 100% with what you are saying; that's why I said "ill-guided perspective". Following through with what OP described would be absolutely detrimental and destined to fail. Reading further into their post it appears that this is all coming from some gung-ho new hire so all of this might just be a moot point once the decision makers of the company realize that this person is trying to uproot the technology stack.
– MonkeyZeus
51 mins ago
61
61
For me an easy rule of thumb is: If I want to learn something, it's on my time and dime. If the company needs me to learn something, it's on their time and dime.
– Stig Tore
4 hours ago
For me an easy rule of thumb is: If I want to learn something, it's on my time and dime. If the company needs me to learn something, it's on their time and dime.
– Stig Tore
4 hours ago
1
1
Also it's a good hint about the job itself. With myriad of things you can choose as your stack it should be understandable that YOUR thing is not the one company have chosen. So it's your thing or company thing that you would need to put your time into. And company should somehow reimburse you or pay for the help for forfeiting your own thing.
– SZCZERZO KŁY
4 hours ago
Also it's a good hint about the job itself. With myriad of things you can choose as your stack it should be understandable that YOUR thing is not the one company have chosen. So it's your thing or company thing that you would need to put your time into. And company should somehow reimburse you or pay for the help for forfeiting your own thing.
– SZCZERZO KŁY
4 hours ago
@StigTore Sadly the employer may think it's easier to just hire new staff which are versed in the new technology. Their ill-guided perspective could lead them to think "Well if a new employee already knows this stuff because they did it in their spare time then my current employees should be able to follow suit if they wish to keep their job." Even further sadly is that when a new employee is undoubtedly hired in the near future then the employer will wonder "Why the heck is this guy so much better than my guys? I paid for their training for crying out loud!"
– MonkeyZeus
1 hour ago
@StigTore Sadly the employer may think it's easier to just hire new staff which are versed in the new technology. Their ill-guided perspective could lead them to think "Well if a new employee already knows this stuff because they did it in their spare time then my current employees should be able to follow suit if they wish to keep their job." Even further sadly is that when a new employee is undoubtedly hired in the near future then the employer will wonder "Why the heck is this guy so much better than my guys? I paid for their training for crying out loud!"
– MonkeyZeus
1 hour ago
1
1
@MonkeyZeus The employer had a product before the switch. The knowledge that the dev's acquired over time working on the previous iterations is extremely valuable. They should have a better understanding of the direction the product is going and what unique challenges the industry their coding for brings. Old staff might not code as fast but I would never replace someone unless I felt that they were regressing or stagnating in their professional development. You stop learning and I'll stop considering you for better positions. (Sending employees on good training courses is usually a win win)
– Tolure
56 mins ago
@MonkeyZeus The employer had a product before the switch. The knowledge that the dev's acquired over time working on the previous iterations is extremely valuable. They should have a better understanding of the direction the product is going and what unique challenges the industry their coding for brings. Old staff might not code as fast but I would never replace someone unless I felt that they were regressing or stagnating in their professional development. You stop learning and I'll stop considering you for better positions. (Sending employees on good training courses is usually a win win)
– Tolure
56 mins ago
I agree 100% with what you are saying; that's why I said "ill-guided perspective". Following through with what OP described would be absolutely detrimental and destined to fail. Reading further into their post it appears that this is all coming from some gung-ho new hire so all of this might just be a moot point once the decision makers of the company realize that this person is trying to uproot the technology stack.
– MonkeyZeus
51 mins ago
I agree 100% with what you are saying; that's why I said "ill-guided perspective". Following through with what OP described would be absolutely detrimental and destined to fail. Reading further into their post it appears that this is all coming from some gung-ho new hire so all of this might just be a moot point once the decision makers of the company realize that this person is trying to uproot the technology stack.
– MonkeyZeus
51 mins ago
add a comment |
Good companies invest in their staff.
Technology is a rapidly changing industry - there is always something new to learn. It is much cheaper to keep a current member of staff up to standard than to replace them with a new hire, which costs time and money in recruitment and getting up to speed. Good companies recognize this, and provide their staff with training in whatever technologies they use. It is therefore reasonable for you to hope that your employer will give you time and resources to learn new technologies during work hours.
Not every employer realizes this, they see the obvious cost of providing training and do not recognize the hidden costs of failing to do that. Sadly this is common.
However...
Your employer won't care more about your career than you do - it's your career.
When you first got a developer job, you (probably) didn't turn up on their doorstep saying, "I know nothing about development, pay me while I learn, then eventually I'll do some work for you!". You probably learned how to develop on your own time, maybe as part of full-time education, maybe getting some qualifications (which may have included a degree), before you got the job. You chose your career, and invested in it.
Now, some time later, your current knowledge is not enough. You need to learn more. Although a good employer will help you with this... ultimately, it's you that needs to learn it. This may involve learning on your own time, putting your own energy and resources (time/money/etc.) into it. It is your career, after all. If you don't want to keep up to date with new technologies, your employer may decide to replace you with someone who will. Then, when you are looking for a new job, you may be competing with other candidates who have already learned those new technologies, while you will be left explaining that your former employer didn't give you training so you never did.
Therefore, while both employer and employee should invest in ongoing professional development and learning, whether the employer does this or not, the employee must, or else they will find themselves lacking skills and knowledge that are needed in modern development.
2
For me, this is the right response. It's an odd middle ground. Yes, we should learn. Yes, an employer should provide training. But assuming worst case, you have to take responsibility and keep up to date and stay sharp on your skills because your employer WILL replace you. That's the nature of the beast.
– ShinEmperor
3 hours ago
15
There's a big difference between failing to keep up with the state of the art and not feeling compelled to jump on the bandwagon of every "monster of the week" JS framework your project lead digs up. What if what the company picked isn't career advancing, would you still recommend to learn it in your free time?
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
3 hours ago
2
Agreed. Hence why I specifically mentioned that good employers will provide training. But not all employers are good employers, and not everyone can afford to leave a bad employer at the drop of a hat. Sometimes, "what's best for my job" is the right question. Other times, "what's best for my career" is the right question. It changes per person, and over time.
– BittermanAndy
3 hours ago
2
There is a bit of a caveat here if OP's employer is focusing over very niche stacks that the developer isn't interested in (careerwise), or when the company wants to train the employee in outdated technologies (but new to the employee whose employer still wants to use that outdated stack). If the employee has no interest in learning a new stack for their own career benefit, they cannot be forced to do so outside of working hours.
– Flater
3 hours ago
2
There is a huge difference in learning something to get hired and learning something to do your job. So you learn java, get a job as a java dev and then your company switches to erlang. Does that mean that you should now go out and learn erlang in your own time ? no. Why ? You're an employee, you need to learn erlang to do your job. That means it's work time. This is not a grey area. You learn for work, you're doing something your employer asked you to do. It's clearly work time.
– xyious
1 hour ago
|
show 6 more comments
Good companies invest in their staff.
Technology is a rapidly changing industry - there is always something new to learn. It is much cheaper to keep a current member of staff up to standard than to replace them with a new hire, which costs time and money in recruitment and getting up to speed. Good companies recognize this, and provide their staff with training in whatever technologies they use. It is therefore reasonable for you to hope that your employer will give you time and resources to learn new technologies during work hours.
Not every employer realizes this, they see the obvious cost of providing training and do not recognize the hidden costs of failing to do that. Sadly this is common.
However...
Your employer won't care more about your career than you do - it's your career.
When you first got a developer job, you (probably) didn't turn up on their doorstep saying, "I know nothing about development, pay me while I learn, then eventually I'll do some work for you!". You probably learned how to develop on your own time, maybe as part of full-time education, maybe getting some qualifications (which may have included a degree), before you got the job. You chose your career, and invested in it.
Now, some time later, your current knowledge is not enough. You need to learn more. Although a good employer will help you with this... ultimately, it's you that needs to learn it. This may involve learning on your own time, putting your own energy and resources (time/money/etc.) into it. It is your career, after all. If you don't want to keep up to date with new technologies, your employer may decide to replace you with someone who will. Then, when you are looking for a new job, you may be competing with other candidates who have already learned those new technologies, while you will be left explaining that your former employer didn't give you training so you never did.
Therefore, while both employer and employee should invest in ongoing professional development and learning, whether the employer does this or not, the employee must, or else they will find themselves lacking skills and knowledge that are needed in modern development.
2
For me, this is the right response. It's an odd middle ground. Yes, we should learn. Yes, an employer should provide training. But assuming worst case, you have to take responsibility and keep up to date and stay sharp on your skills because your employer WILL replace you. That's the nature of the beast.
– ShinEmperor
3 hours ago
15
There's a big difference between failing to keep up with the state of the art and not feeling compelled to jump on the bandwagon of every "monster of the week" JS framework your project lead digs up. What if what the company picked isn't career advancing, would you still recommend to learn it in your free time?
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
3 hours ago
2
Agreed. Hence why I specifically mentioned that good employers will provide training. But not all employers are good employers, and not everyone can afford to leave a bad employer at the drop of a hat. Sometimes, "what's best for my job" is the right question. Other times, "what's best for my career" is the right question. It changes per person, and over time.
– BittermanAndy
3 hours ago
2
There is a bit of a caveat here if OP's employer is focusing over very niche stacks that the developer isn't interested in (careerwise), or when the company wants to train the employee in outdated technologies (but new to the employee whose employer still wants to use that outdated stack). If the employee has no interest in learning a new stack for their own career benefit, they cannot be forced to do so outside of working hours.
– Flater
3 hours ago
2
There is a huge difference in learning something to get hired and learning something to do your job. So you learn java, get a job as a java dev and then your company switches to erlang. Does that mean that you should now go out and learn erlang in your own time ? no. Why ? You're an employee, you need to learn erlang to do your job. That means it's work time. This is not a grey area. You learn for work, you're doing something your employer asked you to do. It's clearly work time.
– xyious
1 hour ago
|
show 6 more comments
Good companies invest in their staff.
Technology is a rapidly changing industry - there is always something new to learn. It is much cheaper to keep a current member of staff up to standard than to replace them with a new hire, which costs time and money in recruitment and getting up to speed. Good companies recognize this, and provide their staff with training in whatever technologies they use. It is therefore reasonable for you to hope that your employer will give you time and resources to learn new technologies during work hours.
Not every employer realizes this, they see the obvious cost of providing training and do not recognize the hidden costs of failing to do that. Sadly this is common.
However...
Your employer won't care more about your career than you do - it's your career.
When you first got a developer job, you (probably) didn't turn up on their doorstep saying, "I know nothing about development, pay me while I learn, then eventually I'll do some work for you!". You probably learned how to develop on your own time, maybe as part of full-time education, maybe getting some qualifications (which may have included a degree), before you got the job. You chose your career, and invested in it.
Now, some time later, your current knowledge is not enough. You need to learn more. Although a good employer will help you with this... ultimately, it's you that needs to learn it. This may involve learning on your own time, putting your own energy and resources (time/money/etc.) into it. It is your career, after all. If you don't want to keep up to date with new technologies, your employer may decide to replace you with someone who will. Then, when you are looking for a new job, you may be competing with other candidates who have already learned those new technologies, while you will be left explaining that your former employer didn't give you training so you never did.
Therefore, while both employer and employee should invest in ongoing professional development and learning, whether the employer does this or not, the employee must, or else they will find themselves lacking skills and knowledge that are needed in modern development.
Good companies invest in their staff.
Technology is a rapidly changing industry - there is always something new to learn. It is much cheaper to keep a current member of staff up to standard than to replace them with a new hire, which costs time and money in recruitment and getting up to speed. Good companies recognize this, and provide their staff with training in whatever technologies they use. It is therefore reasonable for you to hope that your employer will give you time and resources to learn new technologies during work hours.
Not every employer realizes this, they see the obvious cost of providing training and do not recognize the hidden costs of failing to do that. Sadly this is common.
However...
Your employer won't care more about your career than you do - it's your career.
When you first got a developer job, you (probably) didn't turn up on their doorstep saying, "I know nothing about development, pay me while I learn, then eventually I'll do some work for you!". You probably learned how to develop on your own time, maybe as part of full-time education, maybe getting some qualifications (which may have included a degree), before you got the job. You chose your career, and invested in it.
Now, some time later, your current knowledge is not enough. You need to learn more. Although a good employer will help you with this... ultimately, it's you that needs to learn it. This may involve learning on your own time, putting your own energy and resources (time/money/etc.) into it. It is your career, after all. If you don't want to keep up to date with new technologies, your employer may decide to replace you with someone who will. Then, when you are looking for a new job, you may be competing with other candidates who have already learned those new technologies, while you will be left explaining that your former employer didn't give you training so you never did.
Therefore, while both employer and employee should invest in ongoing professional development and learning, whether the employer does this or not, the employee must, or else they will find themselves lacking skills and knowledge that are needed in modern development.
edited 4 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
BittermanAndyBittermanAndy
3,042417
3,042417
2
For me, this is the right response. It's an odd middle ground. Yes, we should learn. Yes, an employer should provide training. But assuming worst case, you have to take responsibility and keep up to date and stay sharp on your skills because your employer WILL replace you. That's the nature of the beast.
– ShinEmperor
3 hours ago
15
There's a big difference between failing to keep up with the state of the art and not feeling compelled to jump on the bandwagon of every "monster of the week" JS framework your project lead digs up. What if what the company picked isn't career advancing, would you still recommend to learn it in your free time?
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
3 hours ago
2
Agreed. Hence why I specifically mentioned that good employers will provide training. But not all employers are good employers, and not everyone can afford to leave a bad employer at the drop of a hat. Sometimes, "what's best for my job" is the right question. Other times, "what's best for my career" is the right question. It changes per person, and over time.
– BittermanAndy
3 hours ago
2
There is a bit of a caveat here if OP's employer is focusing over very niche stacks that the developer isn't interested in (careerwise), or when the company wants to train the employee in outdated technologies (but new to the employee whose employer still wants to use that outdated stack). If the employee has no interest in learning a new stack for their own career benefit, they cannot be forced to do so outside of working hours.
– Flater
3 hours ago
2
There is a huge difference in learning something to get hired and learning something to do your job. So you learn java, get a job as a java dev and then your company switches to erlang. Does that mean that you should now go out and learn erlang in your own time ? no. Why ? You're an employee, you need to learn erlang to do your job. That means it's work time. This is not a grey area. You learn for work, you're doing something your employer asked you to do. It's clearly work time.
– xyious
1 hour ago
|
show 6 more comments
2
For me, this is the right response. It's an odd middle ground. Yes, we should learn. Yes, an employer should provide training. But assuming worst case, you have to take responsibility and keep up to date and stay sharp on your skills because your employer WILL replace you. That's the nature of the beast.
– ShinEmperor
3 hours ago
15
There's a big difference between failing to keep up with the state of the art and not feeling compelled to jump on the bandwagon of every "monster of the week" JS framework your project lead digs up. What if what the company picked isn't career advancing, would you still recommend to learn it in your free time?
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
3 hours ago
2
Agreed. Hence why I specifically mentioned that good employers will provide training. But not all employers are good employers, and not everyone can afford to leave a bad employer at the drop of a hat. Sometimes, "what's best for my job" is the right question. Other times, "what's best for my career" is the right question. It changes per person, and over time.
– BittermanAndy
3 hours ago
2
There is a bit of a caveat here if OP's employer is focusing over very niche stacks that the developer isn't interested in (careerwise), or when the company wants to train the employee in outdated technologies (but new to the employee whose employer still wants to use that outdated stack). If the employee has no interest in learning a new stack for their own career benefit, they cannot be forced to do so outside of working hours.
– Flater
3 hours ago
2
There is a huge difference in learning something to get hired and learning something to do your job. So you learn java, get a job as a java dev and then your company switches to erlang. Does that mean that you should now go out and learn erlang in your own time ? no. Why ? You're an employee, you need to learn erlang to do your job. That means it's work time. This is not a grey area. You learn for work, you're doing something your employer asked you to do. It's clearly work time.
– xyious
1 hour ago
2
2
For me, this is the right response. It's an odd middle ground. Yes, we should learn. Yes, an employer should provide training. But assuming worst case, you have to take responsibility and keep up to date and stay sharp on your skills because your employer WILL replace you. That's the nature of the beast.
– ShinEmperor
3 hours ago
For me, this is the right response. It's an odd middle ground. Yes, we should learn. Yes, an employer should provide training. But assuming worst case, you have to take responsibility and keep up to date and stay sharp on your skills because your employer WILL replace you. That's the nature of the beast.
– ShinEmperor
3 hours ago
15
15
There's a big difference between failing to keep up with the state of the art and not feeling compelled to jump on the bandwagon of every "monster of the week" JS framework your project lead digs up. What if what the company picked isn't career advancing, would you still recommend to learn it in your free time?
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
3 hours ago
There's a big difference between failing to keep up with the state of the art and not feeling compelled to jump on the bandwagon of every "monster of the week" JS framework your project lead digs up. What if what the company picked isn't career advancing, would you still recommend to learn it in your free time?
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
3 hours ago
2
2
Agreed. Hence why I specifically mentioned that good employers will provide training. But not all employers are good employers, and not everyone can afford to leave a bad employer at the drop of a hat. Sometimes, "what's best for my job" is the right question. Other times, "what's best for my career" is the right question. It changes per person, and over time.
– BittermanAndy
3 hours ago
Agreed. Hence why I specifically mentioned that good employers will provide training. But not all employers are good employers, and not everyone can afford to leave a bad employer at the drop of a hat. Sometimes, "what's best for my job" is the right question. Other times, "what's best for my career" is the right question. It changes per person, and over time.
– BittermanAndy
3 hours ago
2
2
There is a bit of a caveat here if OP's employer is focusing over very niche stacks that the developer isn't interested in (careerwise), or when the company wants to train the employee in outdated technologies (but new to the employee whose employer still wants to use that outdated stack). If the employee has no interest in learning a new stack for their own career benefit, they cannot be forced to do so outside of working hours.
– Flater
3 hours ago
There is a bit of a caveat here if OP's employer is focusing over very niche stacks that the developer isn't interested in (careerwise), or when the company wants to train the employee in outdated technologies (but new to the employee whose employer still wants to use that outdated stack). If the employee has no interest in learning a new stack for their own career benefit, they cannot be forced to do so outside of working hours.
– Flater
3 hours ago
2
2
There is a huge difference in learning something to get hired and learning something to do your job. So you learn java, get a job as a java dev and then your company switches to erlang. Does that mean that you should now go out and learn erlang in your own time ? no. Why ? You're an employee, you need to learn erlang to do your job. That means it's work time. This is not a grey area. You learn for work, you're doing something your employer asked you to do. It's clearly work time.
– xyious
1 hour ago
There is a huge difference in learning something to get hired and learning something to do your job. So you learn java, get a job as a java dev and then your company switches to erlang. Does that mean that you should now go out and learn erlang in your own time ? no. Why ? You're an employee, you need to learn erlang to do your job. That means it's work time. This is not a grey area. You learn for work, you're doing something your employer asked you to do. It's clearly work time.
– xyious
1 hour ago
|
show 6 more comments
This new team member can be quoted as saying "It's not upon your
employer to give you time to learn" and that we should all be doing
this in our spare time at home.
This new team member is confused.
And unless this new team member is your boss, or is funding your paycheck, then this new team member can be safely ignored.
If an employer wants you to learn something new, then your employer should be happy to pay for that learning on company time.
Of course if the new technology interests you or hold long term promise for your career, you may wish to augment that with your own learning in your own time - that's just good career advice. And that's your personal choice to make.
Is this normal?
Sadly, there are some confused people we all get to work with.
That doesn't make any of them right.
1
Indeed, simply continue to work hard, and politely ignore these "rantings" from new employee.
– Fattie
2 hours ago
3
^ this. Your boss asks you to do something. That means it's your job.
– xyious
1 hour ago
add a comment |
This new team member can be quoted as saying "It's not upon your
employer to give you time to learn" and that we should all be doing
this in our spare time at home.
This new team member is confused.
And unless this new team member is your boss, or is funding your paycheck, then this new team member can be safely ignored.
If an employer wants you to learn something new, then your employer should be happy to pay for that learning on company time.
Of course if the new technology interests you or hold long term promise for your career, you may wish to augment that with your own learning in your own time - that's just good career advice. And that's your personal choice to make.
Is this normal?
Sadly, there are some confused people we all get to work with.
That doesn't make any of them right.
1
Indeed, simply continue to work hard, and politely ignore these "rantings" from new employee.
– Fattie
2 hours ago
3
^ this. Your boss asks you to do something. That means it's your job.
– xyious
1 hour ago
add a comment |
This new team member can be quoted as saying "It's not upon your
employer to give you time to learn" and that we should all be doing
this in our spare time at home.
This new team member is confused.
And unless this new team member is your boss, or is funding your paycheck, then this new team member can be safely ignored.
If an employer wants you to learn something new, then your employer should be happy to pay for that learning on company time.
Of course if the new technology interests you or hold long term promise for your career, you may wish to augment that with your own learning in your own time - that's just good career advice. And that's your personal choice to make.
Is this normal?
Sadly, there are some confused people we all get to work with.
That doesn't make any of them right.
This new team member can be quoted as saying "It's not upon your
employer to give you time to learn" and that we should all be doing
this in our spare time at home.
This new team member is confused.
And unless this new team member is your boss, or is funding your paycheck, then this new team member can be safely ignored.
If an employer wants you to learn something new, then your employer should be happy to pay for that learning on company time.
Of course if the new technology interests you or hold long term promise for your career, you may wish to augment that with your own learning in your own time - that's just good career advice. And that's your personal choice to make.
Is this normal?
Sadly, there are some confused people we all get to work with.
That doesn't make any of them right.
answered 3 hours ago
Joe StrazzereJoe Strazzere
252k1277301040
252k1277301040
1
Indeed, simply continue to work hard, and politely ignore these "rantings" from new employee.
– Fattie
2 hours ago
3
^ this. Your boss asks you to do something. That means it's your job.
– xyious
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1
Indeed, simply continue to work hard, and politely ignore these "rantings" from new employee.
– Fattie
2 hours ago
3
^ this. Your boss asks you to do something. That means it's your job.
– xyious
1 hour ago
1
1
Indeed, simply continue to work hard, and politely ignore these "rantings" from new employee.
– Fattie
2 hours ago
Indeed, simply continue to work hard, and politely ignore these "rantings" from new employee.
– Fattie
2 hours ago
3
3
^ this. Your boss asks you to do something. That means it's your job.
– xyious
1 hour ago
^ this. Your boss asks you to do something. That means it's your job.
– xyious
1 hour ago
add a comment |
As a rule of thumb, what you do in your free time is none of your employer's business. Their right to assign tasks is limited to work hours. They hired you for a specific position, presumably after interviewing you for that position, and the skill set that you had at that time. They have since then changed their mind and decided they want a different skill set. Whether that means hiring someone else or training existing employees, it is a strategic decision the business made and any expenses related to that are theirs to cover.
Now, learning new technologies is part of the job, and your employer would have reason to complain if you refused to learn the new tech stack at all. Considering the resources available today, one could also argue that it is reasonable to expect an experienced software developer to familiarize themself with a new language or framework without the employer providing extensive training. However, the key difference between training that you do of your own accord and training mandated by your employer is who gets to decide if, what, when and how much you learn. If they pay for it, they get to choose. If not, it's your time to do with as you will.
Personally, if I consider the tech in question worthwhile and the company is otherwise decent, I don't mind "throwing them a bone" and picking that language or framework for my next hobby project, but to demand this kind of unpaid overtime raises all sorts of red flags.
In my experience, the generally accepted practice is to factor learning time into the estimates of any project that requires employees to learn a new technology. Adding a team member with the desired skill set is a good way to speed up that process, but it will still delay the project. Whether or not that's worth it is up to the business to decide.
add a comment |
As a rule of thumb, what you do in your free time is none of your employer's business. Their right to assign tasks is limited to work hours. They hired you for a specific position, presumably after interviewing you for that position, and the skill set that you had at that time. They have since then changed their mind and decided they want a different skill set. Whether that means hiring someone else or training existing employees, it is a strategic decision the business made and any expenses related to that are theirs to cover.
Now, learning new technologies is part of the job, and your employer would have reason to complain if you refused to learn the new tech stack at all. Considering the resources available today, one could also argue that it is reasonable to expect an experienced software developer to familiarize themself with a new language or framework without the employer providing extensive training. However, the key difference between training that you do of your own accord and training mandated by your employer is who gets to decide if, what, when and how much you learn. If they pay for it, they get to choose. If not, it's your time to do with as you will.
Personally, if I consider the tech in question worthwhile and the company is otherwise decent, I don't mind "throwing them a bone" and picking that language or framework for my next hobby project, but to demand this kind of unpaid overtime raises all sorts of red flags.
In my experience, the generally accepted practice is to factor learning time into the estimates of any project that requires employees to learn a new technology. Adding a team member with the desired skill set is a good way to speed up that process, but it will still delay the project. Whether or not that's worth it is up to the business to decide.
add a comment |
As a rule of thumb, what you do in your free time is none of your employer's business. Their right to assign tasks is limited to work hours. They hired you for a specific position, presumably after interviewing you for that position, and the skill set that you had at that time. They have since then changed their mind and decided they want a different skill set. Whether that means hiring someone else or training existing employees, it is a strategic decision the business made and any expenses related to that are theirs to cover.
Now, learning new technologies is part of the job, and your employer would have reason to complain if you refused to learn the new tech stack at all. Considering the resources available today, one could also argue that it is reasonable to expect an experienced software developer to familiarize themself with a new language or framework without the employer providing extensive training. However, the key difference between training that you do of your own accord and training mandated by your employer is who gets to decide if, what, when and how much you learn. If they pay for it, they get to choose. If not, it's your time to do with as you will.
Personally, if I consider the tech in question worthwhile and the company is otherwise decent, I don't mind "throwing them a bone" and picking that language or framework for my next hobby project, but to demand this kind of unpaid overtime raises all sorts of red flags.
In my experience, the generally accepted practice is to factor learning time into the estimates of any project that requires employees to learn a new technology. Adding a team member with the desired skill set is a good way to speed up that process, but it will still delay the project. Whether or not that's worth it is up to the business to decide.
As a rule of thumb, what you do in your free time is none of your employer's business. Their right to assign tasks is limited to work hours. They hired you for a specific position, presumably after interviewing you for that position, and the skill set that you had at that time. They have since then changed their mind and decided they want a different skill set. Whether that means hiring someone else or training existing employees, it is a strategic decision the business made and any expenses related to that are theirs to cover.
Now, learning new technologies is part of the job, and your employer would have reason to complain if you refused to learn the new tech stack at all. Considering the resources available today, one could also argue that it is reasonable to expect an experienced software developer to familiarize themself with a new language or framework without the employer providing extensive training. However, the key difference between training that you do of your own accord and training mandated by your employer is who gets to decide if, what, when and how much you learn. If they pay for it, they get to choose. If not, it's your time to do with as you will.
Personally, if I consider the tech in question worthwhile and the company is otherwise decent, I don't mind "throwing them a bone" and picking that language or framework for my next hobby project, but to demand this kind of unpaid overtime raises all sorts of red flags.
In my experience, the generally accepted practice is to factor learning time into the estimates of any project that requires employees to learn a new technology. Adding a team member with the desired skill set is a good way to speed up that process, but it will still delay the project. Whether or not that's worth it is up to the business to decide.
edited 3 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
Ruther RendommeleighRuther Rendommeleigh
90039
90039
add a comment |
add a comment |
Totally not. Not even worth discussing it.
Your free time is yours. If they want you to spend extra time - they have to pay overtime.
If you agree to study for free for them next time they may ask you to do accounting for them on your spare time.
add a comment |
Totally not. Not even worth discussing it.
Your free time is yours. If they want you to spend extra time - they have to pay overtime.
If you agree to study for free for them next time they may ask you to do accounting for them on your spare time.
add a comment |
Totally not. Not even worth discussing it.
Your free time is yours. If they want you to spend extra time - they have to pay overtime.
If you agree to study for free for them next time they may ask you to do accounting for them on your spare time.
Totally not. Not even worth discussing it.
Your free time is yours. If they want you to spend extra time - they have to pay overtime.
If you agree to study for free for them next time they may ask you to do accounting for them on your spare time.
answered 4 hours ago
DimaDima
1514
1514
add a comment |
add a comment |
Broadly speaking, I feel like the responses to these sorts of questions don't consider the reality of the market.
In short, being a developer is all about knowledge and experience and often knowing more means you can experience more which then reinforces what you know. It makes you extraordinarily valuable if you can do this.
That said, consider your options. Ok, fine your employer won't train you. Are you ready to bust your quotes? Are you ready to be slower than other team members who went ahead and DID do the learning on their own time.
My issue with the responses here is they're not pragmatic. If I were told "Learn this tech in your spare time." and I overheard another dev saying "I'm not going to do that. It's MY time.", I'm learning that tech in my free time. Because I'm ambitious and I know I'll perform more effectively if I do so.
This is the REALITY of things. If you don't, someone else will. I'm not saying it's right or fair, I'm saying that's how this goes. But my perspective is: To be a developer, you must ALWAYS be learning. ALWAYS. It never stops, not even a little. Put in the time and you'll get a comfortable job and good money.
In a perfect world, we would be trained and taken care of and all would be well.But the world is an imperfect place. But more basically, the way I see it is: I'm a dev, I should be learning in my free time anyways because my career depends on it.
Would you say that this line of reasoning still applies if e.g. you consider the new tech stack the company picked to be a dead end? There are more options than just "learn what the company picked" and "learn nothing at all".
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
3 hours ago
1
A particular tech might be a career dead end, but not learning it might be a dead end in the current job. It then becomes a strategic question of whether the employee's job or career is more important to them, at that time of their life. (For most people the answer to that question varies over time).
– BittermanAndy
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Broadly speaking, I feel like the responses to these sorts of questions don't consider the reality of the market.
In short, being a developer is all about knowledge and experience and often knowing more means you can experience more which then reinforces what you know. It makes you extraordinarily valuable if you can do this.
That said, consider your options. Ok, fine your employer won't train you. Are you ready to bust your quotes? Are you ready to be slower than other team members who went ahead and DID do the learning on their own time.
My issue with the responses here is they're not pragmatic. If I were told "Learn this tech in your spare time." and I overheard another dev saying "I'm not going to do that. It's MY time.", I'm learning that tech in my free time. Because I'm ambitious and I know I'll perform more effectively if I do so.
This is the REALITY of things. If you don't, someone else will. I'm not saying it's right or fair, I'm saying that's how this goes. But my perspective is: To be a developer, you must ALWAYS be learning. ALWAYS. It never stops, not even a little. Put in the time and you'll get a comfortable job and good money.
In a perfect world, we would be trained and taken care of and all would be well.But the world is an imperfect place. But more basically, the way I see it is: I'm a dev, I should be learning in my free time anyways because my career depends on it.
Would you say that this line of reasoning still applies if e.g. you consider the new tech stack the company picked to be a dead end? There are more options than just "learn what the company picked" and "learn nothing at all".
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
3 hours ago
1
A particular tech might be a career dead end, but not learning it might be a dead end in the current job. It then becomes a strategic question of whether the employee's job or career is more important to them, at that time of their life. (For most people the answer to that question varies over time).
– BittermanAndy
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Broadly speaking, I feel like the responses to these sorts of questions don't consider the reality of the market.
In short, being a developer is all about knowledge and experience and often knowing more means you can experience more which then reinforces what you know. It makes you extraordinarily valuable if you can do this.
That said, consider your options. Ok, fine your employer won't train you. Are you ready to bust your quotes? Are you ready to be slower than other team members who went ahead and DID do the learning on their own time.
My issue with the responses here is they're not pragmatic. If I were told "Learn this tech in your spare time." and I overheard another dev saying "I'm not going to do that. It's MY time.", I'm learning that tech in my free time. Because I'm ambitious and I know I'll perform more effectively if I do so.
This is the REALITY of things. If you don't, someone else will. I'm not saying it's right or fair, I'm saying that's how this goes. But my perspective is: To be a developer, you must ALWAYS be learning. ALWAYS. It never stops, not even a little. Put in the time and you'll get a comfortable job and good money.
In a perfect world, we would be trained and taken care of and all would be well.But the world is an imperfect place. But more basically, the way I see it is: I'm a dev, I should be learning in my free time anyways because my career depends on it.
Broadly speaking, I feel like the responses to these sorts of questions don't consider the reality of the market.
In short, being a developer is all about knowledge and experience and often knowing more means you can experience more which then reinforces what you know. It makes you extraordinarily valuable if you can do this.
That said, consider your options. Ok, fine your employer won't train you. Are you ready to bust your quotes? Are you ready to be slower than other team members who went ahead and DID do the learning on their own time.
My issue with the responses here is they're not pragmatic. If I were told "Learn this tech in your spare time." and I overheard another dev saying "I'm not going to do that. It's MY time.", I'm learning that tech in my free time. Because I'm ambitious and I know I'll perform more effectively if I do so.
This is the REALITY of things. If you don't, someone else will. I'm not saying it's right or fair, I'm saying that's how this goes. But my perspective is: To be a developer, you must ALWAYS be learning. ALWAYS. It never stops, not even a little. Put in the time and you'll get a comfortable job and good money.
In a perfect world, we would be trained and taken care of and all would be well.But the world is an imperfect place. But more basically, the way I see it is: I'm a dev, I should be learning in my free time anyways because my career depends on it.
answered 3 hours ago
ShinEmperorShinEmperor
2,942518
2,942518
Would you say that this line of reasoning still applies if e.g. you consider the new tech stack the company picked to be a dead end? There are more options than just "learn what the company picked" and "learn nothing at all".
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
3 hours ago
1
A particular tech might be a career dead end, but not learning it might be a dead end in the current job. It then becomes a strategic question of whether the employee's job or career is more important to them, at that time of their life. (For most people the answer to that question varies over time).
– BittermanAndy
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Would you say that this line of reasoning still applies if e.g. you consider the new tech stack the company picked to be a dead end? There are more options than just "learn what the company picked" and "learn nothing at all".
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
3 hours ago
1
A particular tech might be a career dead end, but not learning it might be a dead end in the current job. It then becomes a strategic question of whether the employee's job or career is more important to them, at that time of their life. (For most people the answer to that question varies over time).
– BittermanAndy
3 hours ago
Would you say that this line of reasoning still applies if e.g. you consider the new tech stack the company picked to be a dead end? There are more options than just "learn what the company picked" and "learn nothing at all".
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
3 hours ago
Would you say that this line of reasoning still applies if e.g. you consider the new tech stack the company picked to be a dead end? There are more options than just "learn what the company picked" and "learn nothing at all".
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
3 hours ago
1
1
A particular tech might be a career dead end, but not learning it might be a dead end in the current job. It then becomes a strategic question of whether the employee's job or career is more important to them, at that time of their life. (For most people the answer to that question varies over time).
– BittermanAndy
3 hours ago
A particular tech might be a career dead end, but not learning it might be a dead end in the current job. It then becomes a strategic question of whether the employee's job or career is more important to them, at that time of their life. (For most people the answer to that question varies over time).
– BittermanAndy
3 hours ago
add a comment |
In all the discussions, I see people debating norms concerning right and wrong. While these ideas are good compasses to keep us well regulated when nobody is looking, it rarely serves us well when another party is involved and exercising leverage against us (ie paycheck).
Generally speaking, what is okay and isn't okay is based on the perspective of the individual being requested action of.
In my experience, I've been asked to do things I wasn't entirely pleased with. When those things happen, I feel that the energy of being spurred to action by an overly demanding employer is to look for your next place to land at. Outwardly complaining will weaken your negotiating position as they will have time to try and replace you before you get to ultimatums. Don't tell them your looking. Just spring it up when the opportunity is in your hands (and not kind of, but you have your first day of new work scheduled). If notice isn't possible, don't worry about it. You don't owe courtesies to people who disrespect your time.
Emotional events can really have us looking for divine justice, but here in the real world, we tend to get what we get. Don't let pride or a sense of justice weaken your position with a boss who wants off the clock work with no compensation. And if you worry about the team when your on the way out the door & your boss asks you to stay, ask for what staying is REALLY worth (at this point) to you (and staying might now be worth it at this point, but I like putting dollar signs on things) and negotiate work conditions at that time. If negotiations fall apart, remind your boss that he has at least one employee who doesn't mind doing stuff for free. If he looks like he/she is considering it, you would have made the world a better place with a loud mouth in check.
As you consider this answer, I would like to refer you to MC Hawking because I believe laughing is super important in stressful situations https://youtu.be/WUguUhKoVjI
New contributor
Super-WhyDoYouWantToDoThat-Man is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
In all the discussions, I see people debating norms concerning right and wrong. While these ideas are good compasses to keep us well regulated when nobody is looking, it rarely serves us well when another party is involved and exercising leverage against us (ie paycheck).
Generally speaking, what is okay and isn't okay is based on the perspective of the individual being requested action of.
In my experience, I've been asked to do things I wasn't entirely pleased with. When those things happen, I feel that the energy of being spurred to action by an overly demanding employer is to look for your next place to land at. Outwardly complaining will weaken your negotiating position as they will have time to try and replace you before you get to ultimatums. Don't tell them your looking. Just spring it up when the opportunity is in your hands (and not kind of, but you have your first day of new work scheduled). If notice isn't possible, don't worry about it. You don't owe courtesies to people who disrespect your time.
Emotional events can really have us looking for divine justice, but here in the real world, we tend to get what we get. Don't let pride or a sense of justice weaken your position with a boss who wants off the clock work with no compensation. And if you worry about the team when your on the way out the door & your boss asks you to stay, ask for what staying is REALLY worth (at this point) to you (and staying might now be worth it at this point, but I like putting dollar signs on things) and negotiate work conditions at that time. If negotiations fall apart, remind your boss that he has at least one employee who doesn't mind doing stuff for free. If he looks like he/she is considering it, you would have made the world a better place with a loud mouth in check.
As you consider this answer, I would like to refer you to MC Hawking because I believe laughing is super important in stressful situations https://youtu.be/WUguUhKoVjI
New contributor
Super-WhyDoYouWantToDoThat-Man is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
In all the discussions, I see people debating norms concerning right and wrong. While these ideas are good compasses to keep us well regulated when nobody is looking, it rarely serves us well when another party is involved and exercising leverage against us (ie paycheck).
Generally speaking, what is okay and isn't okay is based on the perspective of the individual being requested action of.
In my experience, I've been asked to do things I wasn't entirely pleased with. When those things happen, I feel that the energy of being spurred to action by an overly demanding employer is to look for your next place to land at. Outwardly complaining will weaken your negotiating position as they will have time to try and replace you before you get to ultimatums. Don't tell them your looking. Just spring it up when the opportunity is in your hands (and not kind of, but you have your first day of new work scheduled). If notice isn't possible, don't worry about it. You don't owe courtesies to people who disrespect your time.
Emotional events can really have us looking for divine justice, but here in the real world, we tend to get what we get. Don't let pride or a sense of justice weaken your position with a boss who wants off the clock work with no compensation. And if you worry about the team when your on the way out the door & your boss asks you to stay, ask for what staying is REALLY worth (at this point) to you (and staying might now be worth it at this point, but I like putting dollar signs on things) and negotiate work conditions at that time. If negotiations fall apart, remind your boss that he has at least one employee who doesn't mind doing stuff for free. If he looks like he/she is considering it, you would have made the world a better place with a loud mouth in check.
As you consider this answer, I would like to refer you to MC Hawking because I believe laughing is super important in stressful situations https://youtu.be/WUguUhKoVjI
New contributor
Super-WhyDoYouWantToDoThat-Man is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
In all the discussions, I see people debating norms concerning right and wrong. While these ideas are good compasses to keep us well regulated when nobody is looking, it rarely serves us well when another party is involved and exercising leverage against us (ie paycheck).
Generally speaking, what is okay and isn't okay is based on the perspective of the individual being requested action of.
In my experience, I've been asked to do things I wasn't entirely pleased with. When those things happen, I feel that the energy of being spurred to action by an overly demanding employer is to look for your next place to land at. Outwardly complaining will weaken your negotiating position as they will have time to try and replace you before you get to ultimatums. Don't tell them your looking. Just spring it up when the opportunity is in your hands (and not kind of, but you have your first day of new work scheduled). If notice isn't possible, don't worry about it. You don't owe courtesies to people who disrespect your time.
Emotional events can really have us looking for divine justice, but here in the real world, we tend to get what we get. Don't let pride or a sense of justice weaken your position with a boss who wants off the clock work with no compensation. And if you worry about the team when your on the way out the door & your boss asks you to stay, ask for what staying is REALLY worth (at this point) to you (and staying might now be worth it at this point, but I like putting dollar signs on things) and negotiate work conditions at that time. If negotiations fall apart, remind your boss that he has at least one employee who doesn't mind doing stuff for free. If he looks like he/she is considering it, you would have made the world a better place with a loud mouth in check.
As you consider this answer, I would like to refer you to MC Hawking because I believe laughing is super important in stressful situations https://youtu.be/WUguUhKoVjI
New contributor
Super-WhyDoYouWantToDoThat-Man is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Super-WhyDoYouWantToDoThat-Man is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 33 mins ago
Super-WhyDoYouWantToDoThat-ManSuper-WhyDoYouWantToDoThat-Man
111
111
New contributor
Super-WhyDoYouWantToDoThat-Man is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Super-WhyDoYouWantToDoThat-Man is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Super-WhyDoYouWantToDoThat-Man is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
The new guy is almost right, the following statement is true in general:
"It's not upon your employer to give you time to learn"
and we should all be [learning] in our spare time at home.
Although this is correct from a certain perspective, it is not correct in your circumstance.
In general:
- It is actually on you to be familiar with new things.
This is a part of having a long career in IT. I don't mean that you should know all the new stuff, just that a web developer should be aware of anything big that comes out of Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
By "aware" I mean that you should know approximately what it is and what the supposed advantages are (why people are choosing it).
I do not mean that you should learn each thing that comes out (that's not even possible).
In your case:
- You are competent with your current work, and your employer wants to pivot in a new direction.
In this case it is appropriate for you to expect work time to be used learning the "new thing".
I just feel that the onus is on the employer to give some time to learn and adapt
You are correct.
However, I would recommend that in the near term (until you are competent in the new tech) that you take some time from your spouse and daughter and invest it "in your career" so you will be ahead of the other people learning this, instead of the laggard.
This answer assumes that the "new thing" is (in your opinion) worth learning.
If that isn't true then the "home time away from your family" might be better spent looking for a new job (or learning something that your next job might need).
add a comment |
The new guy is almost right, the following statement is true in general:
"It's not upon your employer to give you time to learn"
and we should all be [learning] in our spare time at home.
Although this is correct from a certain perspective, it is not correct in your circumstance.
In general:
- It is actually on you to be familiar with new things.
This is a part of having a long career in IT. I don't mean that you should know all the new stuff, just that a web developer should be aware of anything big that comes out of Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
By "aware" I mean that you should know approximately what it is and what the supposed advantages are (why people are choosing it).
I do not mean that you should learn each thing that comes out (that's not even possible).
In your case:
- You are competent with your current work, and your employer wants to pivot in a new direction.
In this case it is appropriate for you to expect work time to be used learning the "new thing".
I just feel that the onus is on the employer to give some time to learn and adapt
You are correct.
However, I would recommend that in the near term (until you are competent in the new tech) that you take some time from your spouse and daughter and invest it "in your career" so you will be ahead of the other people learning this, instead of the laggard.
This answer assumes that the "new thing" is (in your opinion) worth learning.
If that isn't true then the "home time away from your family" might be better spent looking for a new job (or learning something that your next job might need).
add a comment |
The new guy is almost right, the following statement is true in general:
"It's not upon your employer to give you time to learn"
and we should all be [learning] in our spare time at home.
Although this is correct from a certain perspective, it is not correct in your circumstance.
In general:
- It is actually on you to be familiar with new things.
This is a part of having a long career in IT. I don't mean that you should know all the new stuff, just that a web developer should be aware of anything big that comes out of Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
By "aware" I mean that you should know approximately what it is and what the supposed advantages are (why people are choosing it).
I do not mean that you should learn each thing that comes out (that's not even possible).
In your case:
- You are competent with your current work, and your employer wants to pivot in a new direction.
In this case it is appropriate for you to expect work time to be used learning the "new thing".
I just feel that the onus is on the employer to give some time to learn and adapt
You are correct.
However, I would recommend that in the near term (until you are competent in the new tech) that you take some time from your spouse and daughter and invest it "in your career" so you will be ahead of the other people learning this, instead of the laggard.
This answer assumes that the "new thing" is (in your opinion) worth learning.
If that isn't true then the "home time away from your family" might be better spent looking for a new job (or learning something that your next job might need).
The new guy is almost right, the following statement is true in general:
"It's not upon your employer to give you time to learn"
and we should all be [learning] in our spare time at home.
Although this is correct from a certain perspective, it is not correct in your circumstance.
In general:
- It is actually on you to be familiar with new things.
This is a part of having a long career in IT. I don't mean that you should know all the new stuff, just that a web developer should be aware of anything big that comes out of Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
By "aware" I mean that you should know approximately what it is and what the supposed advantages are (why people are choosing it).
I do not mean that you should learn each thing that comes out (that's not even possible).
In your case:
- You are competent with your current work, and your employer wants to pivot in a new direction.
In this case it is appropriate for you to expect work time to be used learning the "new thing".
I just feel that the onus is on the employer to give some time to learn and adapt
You are correct.
However, I would recommend that in the near term (until you are competent in the new tech) that you take some time from your spouse and daughter and invest it "in your career" so you will be ahead of the other people learning this, instead of the laggard.
This answer assumes that the "new thing" is (in your opinion) worth learning.
If that isn't true then the "home time away from your family" might be better spent looking for a new job (or learning something that your next job might need).
answered 10 mins ago
J. Chris ComptonJ. Chris Compton
5,4421233
5,4421233
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to The Workplace Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f132802%2fis-it-my-responsibility-to-learn-a-new-technology-in-my-own-time-my-employer-wan%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
12
What power does this person have in your organization exactly? Do they actually have the power, to make their expectations of learning this new technology in your free time, something that will impact your performance review in the future?
– Ramhound
4 hours ago
2
Yes, I agree. But, I live and work in Germany; cultural norms and legislation might be different where you work.
– Roland
4 hours ago
5
It's not upon your employer to give you time to learnSure, and is not my trouble if the system goes down while I'm at home, want me to study on my free time? Pay me.– William-H-M
3 hours ago
Are you salaried or hourly?
– EJoshuaS
3 hours ago
Who is this "someone"? Do they have any actual power? They will be hard-pressed to force an entire team to switch technology if they don't plan on supporting the transition properly.
– MonkeyZeus
1 hour ago