Why Bad Jobs (or No Jobs) Happen To Good Workers 1201
sean_nestor writes "Back in October, an article appeared in The Wall Street Journal with the headline 'Why Companies Aren't Getting the Employees They Need.' It noted that even with millions of highly educated and highly trained workers sidelined by the worst economic downturn in three generations, companies were reporting shortages of skilled workers. Companies typically blame schools, for not providing the right training; the government, for not letting in enough skilled immigrants; and workers themselves, who all too often turn down good jobs at good wages. The author of the article, an expert on employment and management issues, concluded that although employers are in almost complete agreement about the skills gap, there was no actual evidence of it. Instead, he said, 'The real culprits are the employers themselves.'" The linked article is an interview with Peter Cappelli, author of the WSJ piece, who has recently published a book on the alleged skills gap.
Re:O RLY? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually I'm cancelling an upvote to reply.
In the UK, developers pay has frozen, if not reduced slightly over the past 12 years. I can't tell what it is in other sectors, but it's not a good thing.
Unfortunately most companies here go through (a handful of) employment agencies, and they're making a packet.
Re:O RLY? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:O RLY? (Score:4, Informative)
This is just not true, Unemployment Benefits rarely come close to the salary you were making. In fact, they barely cover 1/3 of what you were making and it has always been that way.
I can use myself as an example, when I pulled California Unemployment Benefits about 8 years ago, I got $440 (gross) a week. My salary at the time was just about 4x time that. Unemployment barely holds that fiscal line and California Unemployment are also on a sliding scale. So, if you don't make much, you don't get much in Unemployment Benefits.
Re:O RLY? (Score:5, Informative)
Citation needed.
Up here in Canada, employment insurance currently maxes out [servicecanada.gc.ca] at $485 per week. That's taxed, of course, so what you actually get comes out to something slightly over $1600/mo.
If you live in the middle of nowhere and own your property, that might possibly be comfortable. Maybe. For some definition of comfortable. $DEITY help you if you live in an urban area though, and you rent or have a mortgage, or have dependents.
Re: O RLY? (Score:2, Informative)
Except wages are going up because there are fewer workers in the workforce and the ones who remain are the top earners. Its a vicious cycle thats fueled by the unwillingness to simply hire more.
The lowest earners are fired, the average wages goes up, companies bitch about the average wages going up and refuse to hire more people on the basis that "they're not qualified".
Sounds like a GOP campaign trail (Score:5, Informative)
When your a corporate CEO billionaire and need to lay off [seekingalpha.com] people in order to buy your own friggin hawaiian island [sfgate.com] and then come back and bitch and whine that you can't find "talented people" something is fishy.
Re:O RLY? (Score:5, Informative)
Consulting Model (Score:4, Informative)
Re:O RLY? (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, no kidding. I'm Canadian, so add a dash of salt.
EI is 55% of your earnings, and tops out at $438 a week, then you get taxed on that, and it works out to a little over $800 every two weeks.
I make more than double that. EI doesn't pay the bills -- it doesn't even cover my mortgage.
Re:Training! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Artifact of Specialized Skills (Score:4, Informative)
After 30 years of software development I too have yet to see a job I could not do...that attitude and shiny tech toys will still not get your or I in the door of most employers today if we can't also say we worked simultaneously in Java, .net, HTML5, and can recite the whole w3 specification protocol.
Sadly critical thinking, reason, and adaptability are lower requirements then being a code monkey that spews code that "gets he job done".
Re:Artifact of Specialized Skills (Score:5, Informative)
corporate speak: Skilled Labor = Cheap, Desperate (Score:4, Informative)
it is simple economics. In my (california) company, the big boss (ceo) simply states "the economy is tight, so you need to find someone desperate for a job." We see all types of SKILLED and HIREABLE people all the time, and I would love to hire ANY ONE OF THEM. Then they see our benes and salary (this is abridged, obviously, for Slashdot):
Mid-level to Senior engineer/tech with at least 3 years microsoft server 2008 admin, 3 years vmware (vsp5 + proven record of HA cluster design), Exchange 200x -> 2010 upgrade experience (lead), at least CCNA, A+, copper and fiber cabling skills (pulls, terms, xc), documented senior WAN design expierience (MPLS, FR, PRI, ATM), documented LAN design, expertise in wireless design and installation, based in so.cal but be available for travel from the oregon border to western AZ w/1 day notice, rotating 24x7 on call, required to work 30% of weekends and expected to work after-hours when needed. 80% @ customer site. No comp time. 7 days vacation AFTER 1 year (vacation is not accrued but lump-sum'd at the end of each working year), paid legal holidays, no bonus, no spiffs, no retirement plan, employer paid PPO. Average work week is 50-60hrs. Salary: $50k/year
Candidates see the bene package and walk. Apparently they are not desperate enough.
The CEO thinks that $50k/year for the above is HIGH. So we get to complain "we can't find anyone to work for us," blame it on the economy, and another company gets added to the 'we can't find skilled employees to fill our positions. And I wind up trolling Craigslist for bottom-feeders with fake resumes.
Re: O RLY? (Score:4, Informative)
"done in one."
you hit it on the head. elephant in the room, and all.
I've been looking for work and I consider myself skilled and quite able; but I'm not exploitable, I'm not easily abusable (I'm a bit older) and I'm less attractive to companies. they know this, I know this.
Re:O RLY? (Score:4, Informative)
EI (Employment Insurance, for those outside of Canada) is designed to make sure you can get by, but not comfortably; the government wants you working. And it's being changed to reduce the benefits for frequent (ab)users. I've known plumbers that work during the spring, summer and fall, and then go on EI for the winter (and spend it in Mexico).
I've been paying into for about 25 years, and have never once used it. And more than a couple of months at the ridiculously low rate would put us in a huge financial hole. It would be nice if at least a portion was based on how much you contributed - maybe salary matching for a month between jobs - and then to the much lower rate.
Re:Training! (Score:2, Informative)
WAH, then pay your employees more money.
To a business, an employee can be seen much like any other investment. You're not going to hire an employee unless you believe they'll earn you more money than you pay them. Now training an employee costs a significant amount of money. So let's look at an overly simplified scenario.
Person A can earn potentially $80,000 a year for his company long term. However, in his first year, he'll only earn $20,000 for the company and cost $50,000 in lost earnings from having experienced workers train them. Now your studies show that even if you pay a person a package worth $80,000 a year, which will only break even for the person, he'll only stay 5 years on average. He may want to switch careers, go back to school, move somewhere else, start his own company, just try something different or any number of personal reasons.
The math shows the most you can pay them in a total package is $58,000 if you want to avoid going into the red. Meanwhile, your competitor doesn't train fresh graduates and poaches after you do the training. There's still a little training involved in any company switch, so we'll say their first year if they do poach your employee, that person will only earn them $60,000 and cost $20,000 in lost earnings from trading. That company can afford to offer the employee $72,000 without going into the red.
It's easy to say pay them more, but it can be really hard to compete in fields where skills transfer well to your competitors. I'm certainly not supporting forcing people to stay with the same company for years upon years, but as long as American workers hop jobs so easily, they're contributing to the problem of companies not wanting to train fresh graduates.
Re:flexible work schedule (Score:5, Informative)
I agree. One way to get a jump start on this is to become either a freelance W-2 contractor (or 1099 - but W-2 is easier to find due to liability concerns for subcontracting) and snag one or two good clients that you can work for remotely. I do hospital systems integration and have an elderly parent to care for (lives 10 minutes away). Working remote offers me the ability to still deliver excellent service at any hour, and not have to live out of a suitcase.
The trouble is, a lot of dinosaurs still inhabit middle management. They feel that if they can't see you warming a chair in a cube-farm, you're not working. Sadly they fear things like webcams and Skype. Even sadder, most times I usually got more work done in those situations when I could work from the hotel room later at night with fewer interruptions.
It also helps that I am in a niche market of healthcare where a lot of "whiz-bang kids" and all users of the new flavors-of-the-day high tech buzzword compliant crap think EDI and medical interfacing is "boring" - but I work to live, not the other way around and make damn good money at it. I'm also weird in that I actually enjoy it.
For those potential clients sitting on a fence about it, I offer them one free interface remotely. If they don't like my work, I walk away. Every time I explain that their dollars are better spent toward actual deliverables instead of paying travel, room and board for a bunch of laptop carrying suit-monkeys they usually try me out and keep using me.
And for those people saying, "well they can just offshore you", they're right. However, please keep in mind that I do good work and can communicate effectively with the client. I am affable, pleasant, and deliver what I say. I also have worked in healthcare and hospitals for 20+ years and KNOW their business intimately. Workers in India with really thick accents named "Sarah" and "Bob" can only compete with me on money. In healthcare, thankfully, accuracy, depth of knowledge of both the business and workflow, and the ability to work with a team means as much if not more than money. My repeat business is more than I can usually take on comfortably.
Working from home just takes a willingness to be available MORE often until the manager is comfortable. Let me say this - as remote technologies improve to enable extended work distances, clients embrace the use of Skype, webcams and WebEx, and more of these 50's style babysitting managerial-goons die off and retire, more opportunities to work remotely will appear. The best advice I can give really has nothing to do with working remotely - save money for the times you don't have work and for the love of all that is Holy - LIVE BELOW YOUR MEANS!
Re:O RLY? (Score:4, Informative)
Summarising from TFA:
Employers want people who already have skills. Which almost certainly means people who are already in work. Because if you have been out of work for any significant time, you are "behind the curve". Therefore, employers want to poach.
But employers want to pay "the market rate". But everybody is already paying "the market rate" - those who were not have lost the employees you want to poach already. So most of the people they might consider are already employed at the market rate. The only people with skills and available are those whose companies are, at this moment, downsizing. But even downsizers hang on to the best, so few of the best come onto the market.
So employers must do one of two things:
1. Pay more.
2. Train more.
Both cost, but 1 costs for ever, while 2 costs for the few months it takes to get a new employee up to speed on a new skill. Employers need to widen their specifications and take on people who, while generally bright, capable, and knowledgeable in the field, do not necessarily have the exact skills needed for the job today.
Which, in turn, means taking less of a "Just In Time" attitude to hiring. Good workers are not items you can order off the shelf, along with a desk, a chair, and a PC.
Particularly, in the software field, stop specifying X years of a particular language and in-depth knowledge of four specific tools. Look instead for a good record of bringing in projects on time with few bugs. Projects have to be in the same general field, but the specifics are irrelevant. The right person will be trained up on your tools in tree to six months, when s/he will have cost you less than you paid the recruiter, and will have don at least something to earn that on the way,
Re:there was once a comic (Score:5, Informative)
I'd put some blame on the ease of applications too. It used to take a good twenty minutes or so to write a job application. Now, it's one click to send a form-email. Potential employees end up applying for jobs they haven't a hope at getting 'just in case' and employers have to spend time sorting through a mountain of chaff in the hunt for an application worth interviewing.
The article talks about this. The actual skills gap is caused by employers resorting to algorithms to filter applications. Because the algorithms in common use are too specific, they eliminate all candidates for the position.
The main myth of the skills gap is that people are turning down positions. What is frequently happening is that they aren't even getting through the screening applications. One of the key points is that the employer in the screening application has a maximum salary; if everyone puts down a desired salary above this number, then it appears that there are no qualified applicants.
Re:Training! (Score:3, Informative)
You couldn't be more incorrect.
If you have a problem with people leaving, the obvious problem is with your own company.
The obvious solution would be to keep your wages ahead of industry averages, as well as not keeping a hostile work environment. You shouldn't give your employees a reason to leave.
Re: O RLY? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lie on your resume (Score:1, Informative)
Re: O RLY? (Score:4, Informative)
Word.
My boss has said a few things I find extremely disturbing. Extremely disturbing.
He is excited that there are people such as myself who are excited and interested in learning new things and can do so quickly. And at the same time, when going through resumes, he's just looking for "key words." This, despite his complaints that people lie and exaggerate too frequently on their resume, he still insists on not reading them and requiring that "key words" which no one knows what they are in advance be in a candidate's resume. The logical failure boggles my mind.
It also makes me wonder about his myopic view on things when he would rather higher someone who has claimed to have done something over spending just a little bit of short-term money on training up someone who just needs "a little more." These companies who want "cheap employees" need to realize they're just doing it wrong. Higher cheap, give them "free training" which they would have to pay back if they got another job within 1 or 2 years and now you've got exactly what you wanted... cheaper workers who are trained in exactly what you want.
Meanwhile, my key word skimming bosses have a CCSP working for us who doesn't understand how DNS works. Can someone explain to me how someone becomes a CCSP and not know how DNS works? Or proxies? Or why a guest network shouldn't have active directory controlling it? This person really exists in my organization and is presently "senior" in charge of IT security and does very little... I think the most effective thing he has done so far is printing security propaganda pages and placing them on printers and other locations in the offices.
Re: O RLY? (Score:5, Informative)
it would be very hard for a person like me to leave silicon valley. as a hardcore hardware geek, this is one of the few places on the planet to be. not kidding; some people want to be by beaches (I can take those or leave them) - but I really enjoy being near places that have surplus hardware gear and parts. its what I'm about and its paradise, in a way, for geeks like me.
I'll be honest that the weather is also a huge draw. having grown up in the boston area, I know what east coast cold is like and its worth money just to *avoid* cold climates. I know, its a wimpish excuse but having lived in the bay area and experienced its climate, it would be a huge step down to leave it. its really something that makes life *that* much more pleasant. its expensive here but not without cause; the paradise tax really is worth it, just for the climate, alone.
at some point, though, I may be forced to leave. it will be very sad as it will be me giving up, essentially. I do not want to move and shouldn't have to. it also sounds like a bad way to start out, having to move to some place just because there were no offers in your desired or chosen place.
Re:O RLY? (Score:2, Informative)
Bullshit.
When I was laid off I was making $65k or $1250 a week.
Unemployment benefits, $400 a week max.
They hit one nail directly for sure (Score:4, Informative)
We can’t do that, so you’ve got to be able to do the job perfectly from day one. The only people that can do that are people who are currently doing the same job someplace else. So it’s obviously pretty hard to find people if that’s your definition—if you say, “We want to hire people, and they’ve got to be doing the job right now”—because as you’ve probably heard, a lot of employers won’t accept applications from people who are currently unemployed. So basically we’re saying we’ve got to hire from our competitors. And you know what? There is kind of a shortage of people if you say, “You’ve got to be working for one of our competitors doing exactly the same thing you’re doing now. That’s what we want, and it’s hard to find those people.” Well, it’s probably true, but that’s not a skills gap.
That, that's the issue. I'm gainfully employed but I still find this to be a huge issue. If I want to switch jobs I can pretty much only get another job doing almost exactly what I'm dong here only someplace else. If you want to switch your focus you can only switch one or two key techs at a time. If I get tired of what I've been doing for the last 10+ years, too bad because no one will hire anyone with less than 10 years of experience in a long list of precise criteria any more.
Re:In Canada, if you're on EI... (Score:4, Informative)
The new bill will mandate anything up to and including an hour's commute.
Gas alone will run you $600 - 800 a month, never mind extra wear and tear on your vehicle. So you could well be expected to take a job at 2/3 what you were making, and increase your expenses by as much as $1000 a month while doing it. Because if you're not willing to do that, you're a bum living off hard-working Canadians.
Re:Lie on your resume (Score:4, Informative)
One of my co-workers came off of a HP minicomputer and was fixing bugs in .NET web applications within a few weeks, a few years later he is now the lead on another web project.
Re:O RLY? (Score:2, Informative)
Or would you prefer we bring back slavery? will that fix your problem:?
Nah, what they're looking for is a return to the Good Old Days of 1905 or so when we didn't have to pay people enough to live on even if they had every member of the family aged 7-70 working 15 hours a day 7 days a week.
Re:O RLY? (Score:5, Informative)
there are jobs to be had..plenty of them.
Except there aren't, that's the problem. [epi.org] There are four times as many unemployed people as there are jobs, so odds are you have to be in the top 25% of your field just to qualify for the lowest possible wage.
In fact, more often than not, you have to have a job already in order to get a job. [huffingtonpost.com]
Re:Lie on your resume (Score:5, Informative)
Employers broke the contract first.
As someone else said, the very idea that a subset of the employees are the only ones who really matter is a characteristic of the post-loyalty environment.
A more accurate description of the "old way" is that employers used to provide training and advancement opportunities. Employees would take the training and get rewarded with advancement, or not and not get rewarded.
The new way is to provide neither training nor advancement. Employees must train on their own time at their own expense to avoid getting laid off, and must change jobs if they want to actually advance their careers.
Re:Lie on your resume (Score:4, Informative)
No. Compilers were predominantly non-optimizing because computing resources were limited.
At no point in history of C or C++, it was worth to try to "optimize" anything that a modern compiler would optimize better. Even before such optimizarion was implemented. The problem is, you and "modern programmers" have absolutely no idea what optimization is and what it is not, so you believe that someone had to specifically trick compiler into making something "faster". In reality, the problem with most software never was "insufficient optimization" or " excessive attempts of optimization" but idiotic choice of an algorithm. If there is a O(1) algorithm, someone who chosen O(N^2) algorithm is guilty of not "insufficient optimization" but of being a fucking idiot who does not understand the nature of the problem.
Yes, first two is a mistake by Stroustroup, but I suppose it was to get good traction among existing C programmers. But it backfired because C programmers polluted C++ usenet groups filling it with "void *" crap code that other newbies then saw and learnt and then never understood how to actually write in C++. If you ever find yourself writing regular application code and manually allocating resources or using raw-pointers in C++ it is a huge red flag that something is wrong (or about to go wrong very very soon)
If Stroustrup could implement C++ without C features, he would. The truth is, ALL THOSE FEATURES YOU LOVE SO MUCH IN C++ ARE IMPLEMENTED THROUGH C MECHANISMS THAT YOU HATE. They can not be disabled because they are not merely the low-level mechanism C++ is implemented upon, they are integral part of the C++ language and its design. Look into the standard library sources, and you will find code that is worse than anything you ever dared to criticize. That is, if you understand what you are looking at in the first place.
All you said is "some great lords and masters of the language used features of the language to implement a nice and cozy subset you are allowed to use. However no one but them is allowed to use those features because they are magical people who can deal with data structures and everyone else is a fucking moron who can't be trusted to deal with that". You can not imagine that someone may dare to implement a completely new container from scratch, and it will be more suited to the given application than something you have duct taped together out of some cookie-cutter pieces you have found in the standard library. The programmers you are criticizing, are using the same mechanism library uses, for the same purpose. That's not because they are unaware of "almost the same" being in the library, that's because they know about data structures more than people who wrote the library.
The famous example is glibc's qsort. If you look at the code its quite performant - BUT its messy, unreadable and unmaintanable. Intermediate or newbie programmers look at it and think this is the only way to write code if you want to write high quality performant code. Well C++ shows you a better way. std::sort outperforms it thoroughly while still managing to give you a algorithm that works on generic containers.
qsort() implementation is very simple, and it uses exactly the same abstractions, C++ is based upon. If you find it any less elegant than C++ counterpart, your understanding of the language is so primitive, you are not qualified to use either C or C++.
Yeah.. and LISP has manual resource management too.
Actually yes, it does, though not explicitly. C++, on the other hand, does not have a universal garbage collector that always applies to all objects, like LISP has, and comparison between those two mechanisms, C++ scope/lifetime and LISP garbage collection, reveals your ignorance of fundamental concepts in data handling, ones that are more fundamental than languages themselves.
Rubbish. A good programmer does not "discover" the data