2022 also has plenty of WTF?!?!? moments.

[Sharpe]

@Telefrog

The TRAP requires the signer to aver that the training “is voluntary, for my personal
benefit, and is transferrable to grooming positions with other employers.”

Well, putting that in the agreement doesn’t bind the courts, so into court this will go.

I actually feel like putting that into the agreement by the employer is kind of cheesy and if I were the attorney suing PetSmart I would lean into that as part of the pattern of behavior being exploitative.

Bottom line: PetSmart is probably going to have to settle and reduce that $5,000. It just seems excessive for a low wage position. It’s like 2 months wages, which is a lot.

[Scrax]

Yea, I would think that they would have to prove that the $5k training program had no real world value when looking for another job. Similar to some of those ITT Tech type schools that couldn’t place students anywhere after their education.

[Sharpe]

@Scrax

they would have to prove that the $5k training program had no real world value

More likely the proof will be comparable training programs, rather than a pure “no value” standard.

What state is this filed in? I didn’t see. Even if filed in federal court, I believe the applicable labor laws will be the state of origin. That’s going to matter quite a bit.

In CA, the plaintiffs would have a pretty decent case but not a slam dunk, IMO. Something that would lead to a compromise/settlement, most likely. Not sure about other states.

[soundnfury]

I’d argue the training is like a uniform. If they want you to wear a suit, which you can wear outside of work, paying for that’s on you. If they want you to wear a Mickey Mouse costume, that’s on them.

[Thrag]

@Scrax

The TRAP acronym is hilarious and whoever came up with it at PetSmart should be reconsidering their position.

Yeah, they should transition to the marketing department!

[Tin_Wisdom]

@Scrax

Eh, plenty of new employees are trained on real life clients. I would say that is to the benefit of the trainee and is a more worthy complaint of the customer. Student dentists and student hair dressers are trained on real people too - although they are usually disclosed and charged a cheaper rate. I know I’d be annoyed if I was paying a new hire full price to groom my dog - but again - that’s a customer complaint - not the students. All sorts of businesses have to train their students in real life circumstances.

• EDIT - Looks like Petsmart charges a reduced rate on trainee dog cuts as well.

Sure, but the point is that it is “on-the-job” training. They aren’t sending the trainees out for three months on the company dime, they are making money on the employee’s labor during this period, so their justification for putting the trainee into debt is shaky to say the least.

And yes, they get less money per dog, but they also pay the employee less – after the probationary period is over, the groomer gets a commission. So PetSmart is likely making the same amount per-dog.

[scottagibson]

@Tin_Wisdom

Sure, but the point is that it is “on-the-job” training. They aren’t sending the trainees out for three months on the company dime, they are making money on the employee’s labor during this period, so their justification for putting the trainee into debt is shaky to say the least.

This is very well said.

[Dejin]

@Tin_Wisdom

Sure, but the point is that it is “on-the-job” training. They aren’t sending the trainees out for three months on the company dime, they are making money on the employee’s labor during this period, so their justification for putting the trainee into debt is shaky to say the least.

And yes, they get less money per dog, but they also pay the employee less – after the probationary period is over, the groomer gets a commission. So PetSmart is likely making the same amount per-dog.

Maybe. It depends on what the training actually looks like. If they have a regular groomer on full pay carefully supervising the trainee, then they’re actually losing money. They pay the trainer full-pay (but trainer isn’t actually grooming a dog they are supervising trainee, so trainer is bringing in no income), they pay the trainee reduced pay, and they receive reduced income because the groom is discounted. So trainee reduced pay and reduced grooming cost even out, but nothing makes up for the cost of paying the trainer.

Having tried to groom my own dog during Covid and having watched a fair amount of grooming videos, it’s not like you can just hand someone a pair of shears and expect good results, unless someone is giving them guidance.

[wisefool]

Nail salons do the same thing. Poor employees have to pay fees as a “training fee”.

new employees must pay $100, then work unpaid for several weeks, before they are started at $30 or $40 a day, according to a worker

I can’t find the article now but learning extra skills was a few hundred dollars, also charged to the employee.

[ShivaX]

@Scrax

That may all be true, but I would still say that having “Petsmart Groomer - Graduate of Grooming Academy” might mean something to other grooming companies as Petsmart is a hugely recognizable name within the industry.

Except for the part where PetSmart Groomers are really, really fucking bad at their jobs. They have a pattern of fucking up and killing people’s pets.

Like if you’re “A PetSmart Grooming Graduate” it’s probably a negative. No private groomer is likely to want to hire your incompetent ass.

[TheWombat]

We used Pet Smart a couple of times long ago for one of our dogs, and it was ok. Hard to believe the training was worth five grand though. Compared to the groomer we use now, Pet Smart was amateur hour…

Not as bad as PetCo, though. During the early pandemic our regular groomer was not seeing clients and our biggest dog needed a grooming, desperately. The only place available with an opening was PetCo. My poor dog came out of the grooming with several nicks on his snout and flanks, and looked like he had been run over by a lawn mower. We got a full refund and they covered our vet bills but still, it was horrifying.

[scottagibson]

“We’ll cover your vet bills!” would be one heck of a slogan for a pet grooming service.

[Ginger_Yellow]

@Dejin

. So trainee reduced pay and reduced grooming cost even out, but nothing makes up for the cost of paying the trainer.

Except, you know, having a trained employee. As someone who trains employees, the idea of charging then for it seems insane.

[TheWombat]

@scottagibson

“We’ll cover your vet bills!” would be one heck of a slogan for a pet grooming service.

Yeah, not a winner really. Luckily Caboose was no worse for wear after a few days, and all of our dogs love our regular groomers.

But if any of these places are valuing their so-called training at $5000, they are dreaming.

[Destarius]

Not so crazy if that training has value and your employees can then leave immediately to find a job elsewhere?

I’m having trouble justifying paying for courses for my team to enhance their value because the company history is that they tend to then use the certifications to find employment elsewhere otherwise we’d have to immediately give them a raise for a course we’d pay for (which is not technically required for the job).

[scottagibson]

@Destarius

I’m having trouble justifying paying for courses for my team to enhance their value because the company history is that they tend to then use the certifications to find employment elsewhere otherwise we’d have to immediately give them a raise for a course we’d pay for (which is not technically required for the job).

This seems a natural part of the employment game to me. If your employees are worth more than you can reasonably pay them, they’re probably going to go elsewhere, unless the labor market makes that impossible. Similarly, if you can’t meet their desire for self-improvement, they’re probably going to to elsewhere; again, unless the labor market makes that impossible. I guess in either case, if they have some other kind of connection to your business — an emotional one, perhaps — then they might stay despite better opportunities elsewhere, but that isn’t entirely fair to them.

[Destarius]

The only compromise I’ve found is to require them to sign a bond to stay longer, and in the interim it is on me to either find them a better paying position or prepare for their eventual departure. I see attrition as a natural event (we all change jobs right?), so succession planning is what I look towards as a more sustainable approach, which also allows me to wish whomever wants to leave the very best and on occasion even be their reference for a new role.

[scottagibson]

@Destarius

The only compromise I’ve found is to require them to sign a bond to stay longer…

I’m curious if this works out well? I would think some employees would resent that enough that you’d lose them as soon as the agreed period was up.

[Destarius]

@scottagibson

I’m curious if this works out well? I would think some employees would resent that enough that you’d lose them as soon as the agreed period was up.

In the previous companies I’ve done this, no one has ever reflected resentment or unhappiness. It’s pretty soft in the sense that the bond can be paid off (price of the course they attended), and it’s usually not longer than a year. The courses are also entirely elective, so it’s more like a perk.

[scottagibson]

Well, if everyone is happy, well done!