SoSickOfIt
New Member
My main question: Is it legal for a company to offer and provide specialized training only to certain employees, but not to others who have the same job description and function, which will provide those employees with additional skills that will clearly give them an advantage in securing future positions and/or projects, or obtaining advancement within the company?
The people that the training is not being offered to are not minority, disabled, etc. which I know would be a case under EEO laws. It is just that they aren't the boss's favorites.
There has been blatant favoritism going on at my work for 6 years now, since the boss and "his" people merged with our existing department from a client. Aside from certain people getting free training (which is essentially continuing education to learn new software and technology), the favoritism also results in the non-favorites having more unbillable time on their time sheets, because the boss controls who gets all the work and makes sure the favorites are always busy and get the newer and better projects. The non-favorites get the leftovers or crap work or if it's slow, they get nothing, resulting in down time (unbillable). And having more unbillable time than others I believe can be a factor in the decision making when in comes to job cuts.
One of the non-favorites, a friend of mine, was just laid off. Of course he got the runaround as to why he was the one picked to be laid off. They were vague but said they looked at people's "different skills" and "non-billable time" among other things in making the decision. (Everyone has been essentially on equal footing in that regard, same job description, skill level and type of work. Now though, some people have gotten or are getting the extra training. So, those people probably weren't considered for lay-offs because they now have those new skills. Also, the others were probably not considered because they had more billable time). We also think he may have been picked because he has a higher salary than others and was costly to the company for benefits. He had 15 years at the company. Could any of this be grounds for wrongful termination for my friend?
My boss told me straight out, the prevailing thought here is, why invest in training people who have been here a long time and require a higher salary, when you can hire recent graduates who will work for less money and are already more up-to-date with their technology training? By the way, the two most recent graduates are the ones getting the additional training. They were chosen for it because they had SOME (MINIMAL) experience in college in that area. So they were considered the best prospects to go further with it. Without giving anyone else even a chance.
I think it is very unfair because I think this training should be offered to everyone who wants it. They explain it by saying, there's not enough of this type of work to justify the time and cost of training any more than two people.
I have rambled too long. Is there possibly anything against the law going on here or am I just stuck in a crappy work environment? I am one who would really LOVE to be getting this training, and my boss knows it. I have clearly expressed this to him on more than one occasion. But it looks like I am SOL to get this training through work like the favorites are.
Would love to work somewhere else but job prospects are VERY dim in this economy, I have been looking, trust me. Thanks for reading, I look forward to your input.
The people that the training is not being offered to are not minority, disabled, etc. which I know would be a case under EEO laws. It is just that they aren't the boss's favorites.
There has been blatant favoritism going on at my work for 6 years now, since the boss and "his" people merged with our existing department from a client. Aside from certain people getting free training (which is essentially continuing education to learn new software and technology), the favoritism also results in the non-favorites having more unbillable time on their time sheets, because the boss controls who gets all the work and makes sure the favorites are always busy and get the newer and better projects. The non-favorites get the leftovers or crap work or if it's slow, they get nothing, resulting in down time (unbillable). And having more unbillable time than others I believe can be a factor in the decision making when in comes to job cuts.
One of the non-favorites, a friend of mine, was just laid off. Of course he got the runaround as to why he was the one picked to be laid off. They were vague but said they looked at people's "different skills" and "non-billable time" among other things in making the decision. (Everyone has been essentially on equal footing in that regard, same job description, skill level and type of work. Now though, some people have gotten or are getting the extra training. So, those people probably weren't considered for lay-offs because they now have those new skills. Also, the others were probably not considered because they had more billable time). We also think he may have been picked because he has a higher salary than others and was costly to the company for benefits. He had 15 years at the company. Could any of this be grounds for wrongful termination for my friend?
My boss told me straight out, the prevailing thought here is, why invest in training people who have been here a long time and require a higher salary, when you can hire recent graduates who will work for less money and are already more up-to-date with their technology training? By the way, the two most recent graduates are the ones getting the additional training. They were chosen for it because they had SOME (MINIMAL) experience in college in that area. So they were considered the best prospects to go further with it. Without giving anyone else even a chance.
I think it is very unfair because I think this training should be offered to everyone who wants it. They explain it by saying, there's not enough of this type of work to justify the time and cost of training any more than two people.
I have rambled too long. Is there possibly anything against the law going on here or am I just stuck in a crappy work environment? I am one who would really LOVE to be getting this training, and my boss knows it. I have clearly expressed this to him on more than one occasion. But it looks like I am SOL to get this training through work like the favorites are.
Would love to work somewhere else but job prospects are VERY dim in this economy, I have been looking, trust me. Thanks for reading, I look forward to your input.
