Hiring an experienced applicant vs a trainee

[Alexandoy]

This is a no brainer when it comes to ordinary people like us. Why hire a trainee when you can hire an experienced employee? But for HR officers there is a debate in the mind between the experienced and the trainee.

First is the salary. The trainee is paid minimum while the experienced applicant has an asking price that is usually based on his present salary. Second issue is the capability. The experienced applicant can do the job starting now while the trainee needs to undergo training for months before he can reach a satisfactory performance level. Third consideration is the attitude. The trainee is usually submissive and eager to learn while the experienced can be over confident with his skills. This is always a dilemma for an HR hiring officer because he needs to fully justify why he hired the trainee or the experienced.

 

[Sammyesx]

Experience is a very important attribute in the labour market, it usurp most other quality, firms tend to tilt toward employing trainee as a means of reducing cost, but personally I still feel the process of training a newbie will also come at a cost. And more so trainees are more easier to infuse into different roles.

 

[Lens1000]

Experience is very important and an experience employee already knows the onions of the said business but don't let us forget that there are young sharp with not work experience on the relevant field. These young sharp just need a little push and they will do exploit, improve the business far more the so called experienced employees.
My take is that I prefer innovative individuals

 

[Cinderella]

I would go for the attitude and the potential of an individual. It doesn't matter whether he is experienced or not. A person with good character will always be a good choice. The tasks can be learned but the character is inherent in every individual and most of the time, cannot be changed.