Train, Retain, and Motivate: A Guide to Finding and Keeping Maintenance Talent

I hear complaints of not being able to find people to work or train as technicians. When I suggest some one with technical background out of the military, I sense that among employers there is a hesitancy due to fears that this person may not be stable. I have asked directly and found this to be true. Even by those who profess to "support our troops". There should be a post or board to be used to communicate skills to organisations looking for them.

Interesting. My experience has been that employers prefer people with a military background, because they at least have some proven level of self discipline. But then again, I'm an older fart, and the attitudes may have changed. Possibly because of the media coverage of PTSD.

I can't say what it is today, there was a time, if someone was in the reserve, some companies would pass them up just due to the 2 weeks they had to be excused for training.

The other side of the spectrum, there were also companies that kept the jobs open for the military personnel that were called up to serve, so that they would have a position when they returned and a great determent not only for the military personnel (because he/she had to serve), but also the company.

In most cases, the reservists were dedicated people, dedicated to the military and dedicated to the company. We gave the best we could for both. The companies want to keep those quality people.

In most cases, the reservists were dedicated people,

Maybe,... I have felt that as a cross section there is no better or worse.

I like to add what I experience. the company where we worked hire a person, he did not share that he was a reservist until have he was hired. And how he let the company know is the week after he started, he informed the company that he will be taking off two weeks for the reserves the following week.

Sure I would say that HR should have asked about his schedule. This employee volunteered that he intentionally did not tell the employer for fear he would be passed over. I myself could not see this. As an employee and a past business owner, I released that there are always commitments to be settled when changing a path in life.

And with this new status of this employee there was a need for rescheduling, trip cancelations to other facilities orientations, etc....

It should have be brought forward in the interview process, it would not have had any effect. What was broken was to a certain degree the initial trust. One can say it was lack of experience because he was young, but at 24, he still should have been more considerate.

And as a co-worker, I told him that. Unfortunately, the first impression he gave to his co-workers was that he was irresponsible. He was there for 1 1/2 years, but he could shake off that first impression.

Technical training in the military may be some of the best. It is taught under controlled and disciplined conditions. In relatively short time they are assigned to positions requiring the use of that training. Most are not trained to be warriors as a primary mission. That is for the infantry be it army or marines. For many, especially Navy and Air Force, are trained to repair, maintain, build or to prepare what the military needs for its many personnel to perform its many missions. Their technical schools are some of the best and the OJT they receive from their experienced and dedicated NCO's or senior enlisted specialists gives them quality experience with ongoing training as they travel up in their specialty. They know what its like to work all night to get and aircraft ready for launch the next morning and that peoples lives depend on how they perform. That is what you get from military trained technicians be they jet mechanics or cooks or anything in between. If I sound partial, that's because I am, 39 years in the Navy Reserve.

While technical in nature, military training for personnel is surely good enough to get the job done in the military.

But, upon entering the civilian workforce, the military member is constantly grilled about their education and certifications. If the education is all military, then it is a zero quantity as the prospective employer likely has no way to determine if the education is "enough" to qualify an individual. The military, with rare exception, does not provide certifications which have a civilian equivalent.

A military member could have 25 years of experience as an electronics technician, but when trying to get a job in the same field (even some government jobs) they are turned away due to lack of formal education or certification.

Anyone who has been in the military knows that it is great at record keeping. Why not have HR ask the applicant for copies of his records. He should have copies of them. Also it shouldn't be hard for him or her to provide professional references from those he worked under. Many of us veterans kept contact over the years.

I say give the veteran a break. Many employers have a 90 day evaluation period before an employee is permanent. If they cannot see his true value in that time then the problem is with the employer.

While trying to align military experience with the two states I have personally tried, the States are less than gracious.

For example, with over 27 years of work in the electrical/electronic field and working in the journeyman program for the military (Navy and Army), the Washington state L&I board will only give half of the necessary hours towards electrical apprenticeship, and still requires full time work as an electrician to move forward, plus all of the basic education required for an 18-year old high-school graduate.

L&I doesn't even want to see what I accomplished in the military (training and education), only that I have been in the military (DD-214). An NEC, rank or rating doesn't explain what an individual actually did in the service.

This is one of the primary reasons I stay with the Federal government...because that is where my experience counts.

To assume this training and experience is only useful in a military, where for instance it involves an aircraft with crew members considered friends and teammates, launched from catapults, over the North Atlantic at night, seems to be an elitist assumption. And the fact that one has the option to carry evaluations and records with one upon leaving, whereby These records are discounted by the elitists even to the point that one is denied the opportunity to take the final exams only.

Just remember to support our troops and be all you can be.

Motivation is the easiest to attain. One of my former employers once told me;"shape up or ship out". That was all the motivation I needed to keep my job. It might not work today. Law suits, union rules, discrimination are the tools used today to keep from being fired. Training is more difficult. There are less trade schools around today. It seems that young people either want to start at the top or not work at all. What happened to the "starting-at-the-bottom" and working yourself up. People just don't want to do the hard work, like studying.

The military appears to be the best place for talent. The problem with military is, military technicians have a "mindset" that has been developed through their military discipline. That mindset may make it difficult for an employer to be able to train former military. There is not any "former military". A military man(or woman) is military for life, even as a civilian.

Retention is a matter of promotion, salary, benefits, job security.

I do not know how other jurisdictions treat students at a high school level. Where I live most are taught as if they were headed to university and given very little in the way of trades training. I was an employer who was constantly on the lookout for people I could train. I hired chemical engineering students for summer jobs but found that some could not even operate the idiot stick called a shovel.

I would like to see high schools get much more involved in training people who once finished high school would have a basic set of work skills that could be applied directly to a work environment. It is fine to know basic skills in math and grammar but the skill set needs to go to knowing how to use hand tools, how to do basic wiring, how to do basic carpentry, computer skills, etc. You know them as the skills you get to acquire on the job. Employers do not have the luxury to provide some of these very basic skills. Schools need to hire pipe fitters, electricians, carpenters, etc and provide the tools like 3D printers, ohm meters, etc. Stop hiring all the teachers from an academic environment and allow our kids to be exposed to work environments. That does not mean we should abandon academic teaching and I am sure both types can go hand in hand. Plumbing and wiring skills serve all graduates.

Yes there is a shortage of good workers and I for one blame our school system, not the teachers. We can do better and we should never have a shortage of skilled workers. My opinion.

I AM a maintenance technician, and i'll be the first one in line to tell you that military or not good luck finding trainable techs! First, the profession has been looked down on for so many years (yes I'm talking to you) as low skilled bottom feeders, why would anyone with any common sense want to work where you are scorned just because you have grease under your fingernails. Second, wages are a huge concern, we know that factories won't run for long without us, why don't you?. Third, how long has it been since you said "Thank you, you're doing a good job". That goes further than you think with a highly skilled tech. We (for the most part) have a personal pride that we bring to work with us that will not let us leave until the job is completed, sometimes we get shoved out of the way when the machines get a little gasp of life back into them because production HAS TO RUN but if we had another hour or two sometimes the results would be much much better, but what do we know we are dumb old maintenance guys.

I guess what I am saying is that the industry has mistreated maintenance for so long that even we wonder why we do it. Why not hire someone that has good ethics and a strong mechanical/electrical background and train them to the job you have for them and then offer wages,benefits and continous training to keep up with changing technology and to keep them happy? Trust me on this you can hire whomever you like but if you treat them like dirt your gonna get DIRT from them!

Also let me say that as engineers you should know how fast the technology environment changes, try to keep up when things take a leap in tech, much less staying ahead, corporations as well as mom and pop shops have a hard time trying to justify training personnel that "are just going to take that information and go looking for greener pastures", why not try retaining them with wages and gratitude believe me we ARE worth it!

The problem is that our convenience has caught up with us. It is easier to live and grow up in an urban or suburban setting. No need to make things work on the family farm any longer.

My Dad often told me when something breaks, get in there is screwdriver and a pair of pliers and see what went wrong, he always said if you take the time to try to fix it you will find you can fix it.

But now our students are being taught by people who have not actually learned anything. It is all academics with no practical application. Teachers graduated from high school and went to college to learn how to teach without actually having anything to share. It is the blind leading the blind with no inclination for real hard work. It is easier to just call that old maintenance man who seems to be getting older and rarer all the time.

There has always been a problem with how management looks at the maintenance department as an cost overhead. The maintenance department and it's employees are non producing part of a company. 50 years ago maintenance was quite different. Most of it was mechanics. Now with many machines ran with PLC. There is much more then just mechanics. There is also the ever changing progress with in the control market. I have found even the OEM techs have a problem keeping up with it.

I as a manager tried to instigate a training curriculum with a local trade school here, I laid out exactly what the training should entail and what was expected of the graduates of this course and what we were going to offer the greenhorns as they came on board and what they could expect from us as an employer, I was met with looks of stupor! and was told they are not designed to train in hands on work only theory.

Folks this was from a fairly well known technical training facility funded by the state and federal governments, needless to say I asked if we could gather our resources together and build a program like this locally and was told that the expense would be beyond what they were willing to spend.

I happen to know that MTB's will loan equipment and will for educational purposes lend in the training required to get them up and running really all they would be out is space, trainers and utilities (ok over simplified but you get my drift). This fell on deaf ears, My home office could not believe they stone walled it that bad. So we and our customer became our own training facility, OJT was the name of the game and we turned out some techs that with seasoning will be goto guys for whomever they work for.

A good maintenance technician must first of all be interested in things mechanical. Before he(she) ever sets foot in a shop at a trade school, they usually already know the mechanics. A kid starts out by taking things apart because he has a natural curiosity of how things work. He usually breezes through shop classes due to his natural ability. Someone without this curiosity, will never do well. You may be able to train him to read the manuals and follow the step-by-step procedures to repair the machine, but without the manual, he will be totally lost. The individual with the natural ability, will be able to do the repair, manual or no manual. You got to have the APPITUDE, talent if you will. If there is a shortage, it's because the latest generations haven't been exposed to hands-on mechanics or had interest handed down to them from older generations.

I grew up at a time when things were designed to be fixed if they broke. Anyone I knew was capable of using tools to fix. They were not disposable as are today's products. Broke; toss it and buy a new one. There is no incentive to fix anything.

Wish I'd said that ronseto, you're absolutely correct, aptitude is the main thing.

I rebuilt lawn mowers and bicycles when I was still in single digit age to get money for the things I wanted and never read a manual other than to get specs (had a shop around the corner that had manuals for all kinds of neat stuff).

People laugh at me when I tell them about talking to machines (yes they do answer but you have to have the correct ear to hear it), but each one HAS a personality (call it idiosyncracies if you like) and if you can't figure it out you'll never be effective at troubleshooting it. kinda like a machine whisperer I guess.

I know what you mean. I get weird looks when I try to explain this "concept".

I equate it to how a wood-worker knows what a piece of lumber is willing to do and how to get it to that state.