US Employers Struggle To Match Workers With Open Jobs (npr.org) 556
In the United States, there's a record number of jobs open: around 6 million. That's just about one job opening for every officially unemployed person in the country. From a report: Matching the unemployed with the right job is difficult, but there are some things employers could do to improve the odds. Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist for the job site Glassdoor, says U.S. employers often complain that workers don't have the skills needed for the jobs available. That is true for some upper-level health care and technology jobs. "But for the most part, it doesn't look to be like there is a skills gap," Chamberlain says. "That's not the main reason why there are many job openings." Chamberlain says that with unemployment so low and the U.S. labor force growing slowly, there's no doubt it is harder for companies to find workers. But he says if that were the main problem, you would see wages rising more rapidly in the economy -- and that's not the case in many industries. Part of the hiring problem, Chamberlain says, lies in company hiring policies.
On the Job Training (Score:5, Informative)
Re:On the Job Training (Score:5, Informative)
HR: " We need someone with 5 years experience with Tech A, 10 years with Tech b, and two years with Tech C"
Recruiter: "Tech C has only been available for 1 year"
HR: "That's what the manager said"
Recruiter: "I have someone who's been in the Industry for 30 years, has 10 years in Tech A, 20 years with Tech B, but only six months with Tech C."
HR: "Sorry, we can't use him."
Lest you think I jest. I saw this in person.
Re:On the Job Training (Score:5, Insightful)
In my experience they know that their spec is unrealistic, and are just using it as an excuse. An excuse to offer less money, or dismiss candidates they dislike but can't legally give the real reason why (age, race etc.)
If they offered me the position but at a lower salary due to lack of experience, I'd just call their bluff tell them to go with the candidate who has more experience. It's not like there is a shortage of tech jobs around here at the moment.
Re: (Score:3)
I think part of it is sometimes to reduce the competition internally in the company. What I mean is that at times I've seen the TECHNICAL people set these crazy requirements and then shrug it off when you tell them it's totally unrealistic.
'A's hire 'A's, 'B's hire 'C's and 'C's don't want to hire anyone.
The best people hire the best people, because they don't fear competition and indeed relish having someone who can run with them and challenge them. Mediocre people hire weak people who won't challenge them. Weak people prefer to hire no one, because anyone worse than them would clearly be unfit to even have the job.
You can look at the job requirements someone defines and place them in the scale.
Re:On the Job Training (Score:5, Interesting)
It gets better outside of tech.
We want a bachelors degree with 5 or more years experience in unique field and the pay rate is $40,000 to $45,000.
Do they realize that a bachelors degree is 4 times that amount? Nope we set our wages in 1990 and haven't adjusted them since. This is the bigger issue companies want to pay 1990 wages in 2017. Changing that is the difficult part.
Re: On the Job Training (Score:3)
The invisible hand has become the invisible fist. Asjust your expectations and bend over.
Re:On the Job Training (Score:5, Insightful)
Also fairly common:
HR: "We need someone with 5 years experience with Tech A, 10 years with Tech b, and two years with Tech C."
Recruiter/Candidate: "Okay, (we can find that|that's me). What's the rate?"
HR: "We pay $12/hour. No benefits or overtime."
Recruiter/Candidate: "Thanks, but no thanks."
HR: "Woe is us, we can't find anyone to fill this position!"
Re: On the Job Training (Score:2)
There is nothing to get. When employers will stop demanding impossible to fulfil skills lists usually requiring at least 2 or 3 people to execute efficiently without burning themselves out they will get positive answers to their postings. In my opinion these crazy skill sets are produced on purpose so that there will be no applications to them so that the employer has a ground to require approval to hire guess what, at least 2 or 3 cheap foreign workers.
Re: On the Job Training (Score:4, Insightful)
Has more to do with the terms of hire. I work in the IT industry and my last 5 jobs have all been contract with the dangling carrot of full time hire / conversion.
I'm 35, married for a year and really done with contracting. I need a full time position, health benefits and some type of 401k for it to be viable for me. Not a 3 month contract, not a 22 month contract but even a 2 year. I'm looking to set down roots and grow with a company. Plenty of loyal employees with no reasons to be loyal
Re: (Score:3)
This behavior is slowly but surely taking root in my (3rd world by some) country as well. Most open positions are contractor-type through a dedicated outsource hiring company (e.g. Manpower, Rinf, etc). They pay well but the beneficiary can get rid of you much easier by just telling the middleman "we don't need this guy anymore".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If 2-3 foreign workers can do the job and cost as much as one American worker than to justify paying that much to an American worker you need the American worker to do the work of two to three foreign workers. Its basic logic.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
recruiters are the reason why workers are not filling the jobs.
I have been in tech for 35 years, and been involved in hiring hundreds of people. This is the number of those hires that involved a recruiter: 0.
Why do you think you need to go through a recruiter? Nearly all tech companies are hiring, so just go to their website and they will likely have a "jobs" link. Just apply directly. If you know someone working there, that is even better, because you may be able to work around HR and talk directly to your future manager.
Outside of tech and C-level management, rec
Pay More Money (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He's using the dubious line that anyone who is able-bodied is seeking work. You turned 18? You're unemployed unless you're working. Doesn't matter if you're a housewife putting in 90 hours at home running house and raising children; you should be a secretary somewhere or whatever it is women do, not freeloading off a man who paid to buy a dishwasher and microwave.
It's the kind of line you get from small-minded pundits who need a crisis to support their argument of someone's incompetence.
Re: (Score:2)
So you want retired people and children to work?
Can't go wrong with child labor. We pass the slavings on to you!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Paying more will motivate some people to change employers, but it won't solve the shortage of people with the right skills.
If the Yankees would only pay more for a good shortstop I'd even apply for that job.
It is not about the right skills... (Score:2)
It's about paying the right wage for the right skills. And presently, corporations do NOT want to do that. Why should they? When they can import those skills for much cheaper.
The big deciding factor for many is student loans. A MD or IT worker from India can take jobs that an America cannot afford to take due to the lack of large monthly student loan payments.
Re: (Score:2)
If the Yankees would only pay more for a good shortstop I'd even apply for that job.
If the position "shortstop" pays more, you are more inclined to get the necessary training to become one.
Re:Pay More Money (Score:5, Insightful)
I make a 6 figure salary; it's hard to find jobs which pay more out in total compensation than I make today. That said, paying me more base salary/bonus, at this point in my career, is not even close to important.
What is important, you ask?
1. Flexibility
2. Vacation
3. Insurance cost
4. Opportunity
5. Freedom to operate
6. Interesting work
There are others, but you get the general idea. That said, I had a job interview elsewhere, recently, where the recruiter reached out to me and basically begged me to come into speak with them. The position has been open for 11 months and they cannot find anyone. Yeah, the pay is lower than I make today and the insurance is 2x the cost, but the real problem was that it was an institution where there was no flexibility or freedom to operate. They wanted something done to solve their problems but had a very narrow allowed view on how that could occur.
Just like others who likely passed before me, it was probably due to the environment, not the pay. At some point, money stops being a motivator.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pay More Money (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends. 20% more and fully funding my insurance contribution is great.
But if I'm working in an open floor-plan for a boss that doesn't know his ass from his elbow at a company that has some shady business practices and they've had a ton of turnover recently and everybody who works there seems really miserable? My mental health is worth more than a 20% raise, thank you.
Re:Pay More Money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pay More Money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Companies offering peanuts and dragging their feet to rise wages
In my experience, this is not the problem. The problem is that applicants either don't have the skills, or they don't want to move where the job is located. If they have the skills, and the location is acceptable, then the money is rarely a problem.
I am willing to train people on our internal procedures and policies. But not on industry-wide skills. You don't know our coding and testing standards, that is fine. But if you don't have enough initiative to learn OpenCL or Verilog for a job that requires
Re: (Score:3)
Because most schools don't teach either of those subjects, much less both of them. OpenCL is an extremely niche skill in and of itself, and Verilog is typically only taught in a CE or EE program, which are a lot less common than CS programs. When you're hiring for a niche of a niche and most of the people have to learn those skills
Re: (Score:3)
That's funny. I applied for an OpenCL job at RedHat and they didn't even call me back. Then again this is RedHat we are talking about. And while there are some OpenCL jobs, and yes there are few people with the skills, the market is actually so tiny that it isn't that trivial to get a job really.
I've trained at least three people in OpenCL/CUDA at a local college and guess what they aren't working on that either.
Re: (Score:3)
Two of them have gone to work on the game industry afterwards.
The skill set to program shader pipelines is very similar to doing OpenCL/CUDA. So this should be a good fit.
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't have enough initiative to order a book from Amazon,and sit down and learn the material
Are you really going to pretend like its that easy? Which OpenCL or Verilog book on Amazon do you suggest that would guarantee employment for someone without prior experience? And if it really is that easy, why don't you just hire people, hand them a book and make their employment contingent on completing the reading within 3 months?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You're dodging the question by being deliberately obtuse.
I'm not trying to trick you into giving a legally binding guarantee. I'm just trying to test to see if you would actually hire someone based on self-taught knowledge by getting more details about what knowledge you might expect. The fact that you can't provide such details suggests that you've never actually hired someone based on self-taught knowledge.
TL;DR (Score:5, Insightful)
Zombie 'openings' that expect senior rock-star level experience for H1-B level wages. Pay more. Train people. KTHXBYE.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You Millennial are all alike. You want to be paid your full wages the very first day. In my time we worked for bread crumbs for five straight years just to prove we were good enough to sweep the floors. It was only after our managers begged and begged the boss for our raises that we ever saw even a penny more. And we liked it! And we said "Thank you". You know why? Because there were a million people pounding on the door for a chance to lick the floors clean every night, even it they didn't get paid.
That's
Re: (Score:2)
So because you worked for fucking assholes, you think everyone is obliged to?
You know the Four Yorkshiremen is supposed to be a joke, right?
Re: (Score:2)
That would occur when a bunch of corporations, looking for the next "big thing", pick a market that is growing or is supposed to start growing any day now, and try to chase the current market leader. In order to chase the market leader they try to copy the market leaders development process and wind up with job requirements that seem to match what the market leader is currently using. So, there's suddenly demand for a set of skills nee
Re: (Score:2)
Good, when robots are doing all the work for us, we won't have to.
Re:TL;DR (Score:5, Insightful)
You see that outside of the technical fields as well. My area is in a construction boom, and I'm constantly seeing local job postings looking for journeyman carpenter, journeymen electrician, skilled concrete workers, and so forth, and while they don't usually post the wages, I hear through the grapevine that these companies are often paying totally shit wages, and what's more, so sustained is the building boom that anyone who is an actual tradesman is their goddamned competitor, and you only get the tradesmen who are washed up drunks willing to work for those wages and, well, you get what you pay for. Meanwhile there are people who are either apprentices or who would like to be, but the companies don't want to hire them, or if they do, just want them as minimum wage laborers and don't want to do anything to help them along.
We've entered this age where companies in all industries want people with huge amounts of skills and talent, but they don't want to pay them what they're worth, and worse, in a way, don't want to give entry-level people a leg up and into the industry. And then they bitch and whine and demand allowing foreign workers in because "worker shortage", a shortage, by and large, that the industries themselves have created, either intentionally to drive wages down, or unintentionally, because they want these magic employees with boatloads of skills who just love to work for peanuts.
Alternative Title: (Score:5, Insightful)
"US Employers struggle to find workers willing to be paid minimum wage, part time with no benefits."
Drugs (Score:5, Insightful)
The main reason companies are unable to fill low skill positions is that they have strict drug check programs where if marijuana is in your blood you are an automatic fail even if you smoked on the weekend and its legal in your state to smoke recreationally.
Companies need to change their drug screening processes to match with the reality of American society where almost all poor people are doing drugs
Re: (Score:3)
is that they have strict drug check programs where if marijuana is in your blood you are an automatic fail
Required policy mandated by their workers' comp. insurance carrier. Not companies' choice. I think that's typically where these policies come from..... we had no drug testing for many years, until we became a slightly larger company, and were required by the state to provide workers comp, and the insurers mandated that we put the testing in place as part of the requirements for us to be ins
Re: (Score:2)
I've worked a variety of jobs since I was 16, from smoothie shop cashier, chocolate shop cashier, movie theater projectionist, office temping, SEO marketer, and for the last decade variety of software development roles, only one of the SEO marketer (did this at two companies) jobs asked me to do a piss test. I worked in a "at will" state meaning either employer or employee could cancel the work agreement at any time for any reason. Might be more difficult in a union-heavy state like in the rust belt.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends a lot where you live and what industry you're in. Corporate america, finance, etc. you can certainly expect to be drug tested in most places.
I've been working since I was 15 and every job I've had except my first one (mom&pop camera store) drug tested. Several did background checks and my current does a full fingerprint scan and FBI criminal background check.
Here's another idea (Score:2)
Re:Drugs (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't tell if you're kidding.
I've been smoking marijuana on and off for almost 20 years now. I'm not addicted, and I've never been tempted to smoke during the work day or even the night before work. My clients have always been happy with my work and past clients even reach out to me asking me to come back (I'm a software contractor). I'm known for being reliable, quick thinking, creative, and productive.
All that to say: Your idea of what smoking a bit of marijuana is outdated.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been smoking marijuana on and off for almost 20 years now. I'm not addicted, and I've never been tempted to smoke during the work day or even the night before work. My clients have always been happy with my work and past clients even reach out to me asking me to come back (I'm a software contractor). I'm known for being reliable, quick thinking, creative, and productive.
And yet, companies still hire tobacco smokers that waste gobs of time each day taking smoke breaks and drive up healthcare costs.
Re:Drugs (Score:4, Interesting)
How is it a contradiction? I've been smoking "on and off." I've gone several consecutive *years* where I haven't smoked. I also never have any difficulty stopping (in fact, stopping is easier than starting as it's hard to find where I live).
None of that sounds like addiction to me. Maybe we have different definitions of addiction.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not a very useful definition of addiction.
By that definition you're addicted to masturbation. You should get some help for that.
Re: (Score:3)
The AC's logic is completely flawed, irrespective of his actual point which is equally flawed.
I will say there are quite a few people who are dependent on pot, and arguably some are addicted according to at least some definitions of addiction. Most fall under varying levels of recreational use though and I'm at a loss to find any actual argument about how using "drugs" makes you a degenerate.
With that in mind, just about every rock star, many politicians, most actors, and a very substantial portion of soci
Re:so stop (Score:5, Funny)
I've been drinking soda on and off my whole life.
Why don't you stop using the Internet and never start again to prove that you're not addicted?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Had you said "I smoked MJ 20 years ago and not since" then you can say you're not addicted.
Bull shit. Is somebody who has had a drink a month for the last 20 years an alcoholic?
Re: (Score:2)
AC is just setting up silly straw man arguments and horribly flawed logic...either out of stupidity or a bad attempt to troll
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, who knew I was addicted to turning the light off before I go to bed each night? And to using a spoon when I eat soup. And to going to work each work day morning. And to parking my car in my driveway. And to washing the dishes. And to paying my groceries instead of just walking out with them.
Re:Drugs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you equate "used marijuana within the last weeK" with "drug addict"?
Busses in Silicon Valley have billboards with a picture of a young man with smoke around his head and his eyes unfocused. Tagline: "It's called being 'wasted' for a reason."
Re:Drugs (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Never the less, marijuana is hardly in the same category as methamphetamine or heroin. The whole "gateway drug" claim was debunked long ago. Pot isn't safer than alcohol, but it isn't that much worse.
I don't smoke pot, and really don't drink much, mainly because both make me feel shitty in any quantity, and I figure now that I'm in my mid-40s, I can't really afford to sacrifice any more neurons in the noble cause of feeling good, but still, treating marijuana like some highly dangerous substance is absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
Who wants to hire someone addicted to drugs?
Smoking weed on the weekend does not make a person a drug addict. Having a drink over the weekend doesn't make a person an alcoholic.
Who is very likely to go smoke more weed during a break, and become a liability.
What the fuck makes you think that a marijuana user is automatically "very likely" to smoke weed on his break? Again, if somebody has a drink over the weekend, are they "very likely" to also drink at their desk?
Perhaps the reason they are poor in the first place comes from bad money management from buying things like... drugs?
This is a little dated, but in 2014 Americans spent $374B [time.com] on prescriptions. Our country must be full of idiots.
No, I think i'll keep not hiring society's degernerates
You are fucking clueless. Is this part of Sessions' "Good
Re: (Score:2)
Who wants to hire someone addicted to drugs?
I'd like to hire people who don't drink. And fire the ones that do.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a recession until it's receeded. It has to go backwards, not forwards slowly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a recession when you take a depression in comparison that they refused to label anything BUT a recession.
Talk to joe q public and most people will tell you that our economy is not out of the deep end yet. They put the dow jones back on track and cemented up lots of big business interests but in the process gave them all excuses....erm reasons...for limiting wages, raises, and similar.
Companies are far more focused on preserving their bank accounts and stock price than their employees making a fair
Employers are full of shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
First, just read the summary.
Back in '08 when the shit hit the fan, I was told, "Just get a job waiting tables! It'll show that you have gumption!!"
So, I went to the local bar and grill who was looking for help and applied. Sorry, we need someone who has had at least 5 years of RECENT experience.
The local landscaper (professional lawn mowing company) asked me, "Do you have experience in this line of work."
Now, how to answer that. "Uh, how hard is it to mow lawns?!" or "No sir, I do not."
Well, they are both wrong answers. (BTW, working beneath you skills ruins your career. All those folks who said, "Get a job flipping burgers to pay your mortgage!" were wrong. If you did that, you ruined your career. YOU ARE YOUR LAST JOB. And if that's flipping burgers, then you are a burger flipper - sorry Mr. BS CS. Been there - I know.)
Tech is even more retarded. I once recommended this brilliant ENGINEER (BS ME - a REAL engineer) who had tons of experience with the company's technology.
Nope. "Sorry, you don't fit in to our corporate culture."
Kiss my fucking ass. EVERY company that says they cannot get qualified people are liars. Period.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Matching with the culture is important. We have a no asshole rule. Even if an asshole is 100% more productive if he/she reduces the productivity of 5 other people on the team by 20% each its a wash on the productivity of the team and in addition you have made 50% of your awake hours more miserable.
Re:Employers are full of shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
The day after companies can effectively evaluate technical schools, they can evaluate company culture fit. Otherwise there is always one jerk at the table saying "I don't like him or personality" whenever they feel threatened.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no. For every open position I've ever had available, I get at least a dozen or two really crappy resumes - AFTER being filtered by two different levels before I even see them.
I know there's talent out there. I also know there's a huge amount of people who are pitifully under-qualified (or just lying) for the jobs they're applying for. There's also the people who don't care and expect every job to accommodate their individual quirks and blame 'the man' when they aren't hired. No, sorry, pink drea
It's No Policies, It's Wages (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't see companies raising wages to attract the employees need because for the most part (i.e. not the multinationals hiring h1b's, but the majority of companies who employ the majority of people and are small-mid size) they can't.
We live in a debt-based economic system with inflation at a rate of about 2.5% annually, runaway government spending and about 65-75% taxation by the time cash makes its way from a client to an employee. Meanwhile, the government will spend what it expects things to be value
Economics 101 (Score:4, Funny)
Economics 101 says a labor shortage is not possible - employers need only raise offered wages until all positions are filled. What went wrong? Econ 101 explanations seem to be highly satisfactory when the job market is on the way down (in a recession for example).
"Chamberlain says that with unemployment so low.." (Score:3)
Chamberlain says that with unemployment so low...
Yup, that's where I stopped reading.
This person is not dealing in reality.
I can come up with my own random hypotheticals and 'what-ifs' so I don't need to hear about his, thanks all the same.
Strat
Did anyone read the article? (Score:5, Insightful)
I pop in here to the comment section, and read a bunch of people angrily talking about how there really not being an job opening problem, just that "employers are full of shit".
Here's the thing. That's what the article says. Let me be helpful to you, and quote it:
Part of the hiring problem, Chamberlain says, lies in company hiring policies.
Peter Cappelli, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, agrees. He says one problem is that companies are posting openings with required qualifications that aren't really necessary for the job.
"They're just asking for the moon, and not expecting to pay very much for it," Cappelli says. "And as a result they [can't] find those people. Now that [doesn't] mean there was nobody to do the job; it just [means] that there was nobody at the price they were willing to pay."
Come on people! Read!
You must be new to /. (Score:2)
What? (Score:2)
I like the way it was done overseas (Score:5, Insightful)
when I was young. The gov't placed you in a job, and paid for your training/education, and the company got a tax break until you were up to snuff. Kept unemployment low, and people happy.
I don't see why this can't be done here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because that isn't the limited, enumerated responsibility of the government, especially the US Federal government.
US Employers Struggle To Find Purple Squirrels. (Score:2, Informative)
US employers struggle to find purple squirrels.
And they refuse to acknowledge that a red squirrel and a blur squirrel can, on average, do the same job.
Not only wages, but real estate (Score:2)
Outside of the "usual suspect" metro areas, a lot of the country is still in a condition where home values are still recovering from the recession, so people are less inclined to move unless the company wanting to hire can make that problem go away. Right now if I had to sell my house I'd likely not only lose money versus what I paid for it, but then have to pay the realtor's commission on top of it, then have no great amount of equity to use as a down payment on another place, and then there's the cost of
information asymmetry problem (Score:3)
I want to hire some one to do X. I want to pay the minimum possible but still get a good employee. Also I don't know how good an employee is and I (hate firing/can't fire/or incur cost with each hire). This is the asymmetry. The employee knows his value but I don't. I might pay $100K for a good worker but I'll only pay $40K for a poor one. If I offer the median $70K I only get candidates that are worth between $70K and $40K. So then I chose the median of that $55K....and eventually I'm down to $40 and not able to hire anyone.
Employees are also sticky. An employer might be willing to pay $25 for picking tobacco or some other seasonal work but no one is going to quit even a $15/hr part job and move to the middle of no where for that. Even an unemployed person won't do it because they give up the opportunity to get a steady job (and they might lose some benefits (hey maybe we need a basic income))
Some employers are either clueless or collectively keeping wages down in some industries or regions. They then use the open positions as an excuse to get seasonal immigrant labour or H1-B type visas.
A solution could be: more transparency about wages (make wages public), less regulation on employee rights but more enforcement of them and a reduction to H1-B and migrant employment.
Companies are Unrealistic (Score:5, Informative)
I had 2 phone interviews without any depth to them and over in a few minutes. The reason why? They were stuck on looking for a specific skill and if you did not have it, you were done.
The first failed on AWS, oh you have not worked with AWS? Sorry, we are not going forward. It was not a matter if I understood networking, or servers or administration or any of the 50 tools that AWS promises, no direct experience, interview over. Not only that, they ended up hiring nobody!
The second one was Scrum and Continuous Integration, have not done either, interview is over (over in 2 minutes with pleasantries). They don't even try to evaluate your skills, or your thought process or even if you are capable.
It seems like they cannot even be bothered to try and get someone to be productivity and thejob salaries are not great either, just average. If companies were really desperate they would be more aggressive but I think they are just cruising along, not really competing or losing ground. When they become greedy or desperate that is when you will see change.
Note: In reference to AWS, I took an online course on AWS after the interview. It was powerful, not hard but broad. Certainly not as hard as working with specific hardware that implements the same features.
HR BS and H1B fake job openings (Score:3)
HR BS and H1B fake job postings can account for a lot of the openings.
Also this one place said that we not really hiring but just have an posting to see who is out there.
Bullshit (Score:2)
We had a social contract and it's been broken. Time for a New New Deal (google it).
Re: (Score:2)
A new deal [johnmoserforcongress.com]?
The myth that employers care... (Score:5, Insightful)
If corporations cared at all about unemployment, they already know exactly what they could do to remedy that problem: Let the cream rise to the top. That is to say, offer additional training to existing highly skilled employees, so that they can easily qualify for the next job up the ladder, and then move them up. Then fill the now vacant lower level jobs with people who are presently unemployed and living on the street (or in their parents basement). The newly hired wage earners will be thrilled just to have a job at all, and won't be quite as picky about how much they're earning, and the highly skilled workers will be thrilled to get the raise, and to be recognized for their contributions.
The problem, as I see it, is that far too many companies are more interested in the bottom line than in anything else. And one of the easiest ways to turn a profit is (and always has been) to milk existing employees for all that they're worth for as long as possible, and make them do tasks above their pay level, because they "can't find anyone qualified for that position, right now"... which basically causes that old adage, "You have to move out to move up," to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I've moved out because of that, myself. If you're in the workforce at all, you've probably done it, too.
And here's where it gets even more frustrating: the "requirements" for any given position do not remain static. It's quite common for employers to adjust the requirements based upon the skillset of the person who just left that position. "Hey, Ralph became a freaking genius at SharePoint while he was working for us. We can't possibly hire someone who knows less than him, now! Change that job req for his position to include senior SharePoint experience, okay? Years of experience? I dunno... how long did Ralph work here? That long? Really?"
And thus, the position that Ralph left -- specifically because he was being underpaid for the skills he'd gained over his years there -- is now entirely un-fillable. Because nobody with those skills would take the job, at the offered pay.
Employers shoot themselves in the foot like that, all too often. My previous employer did it, too... that's why they're my previous employer. And over the past few weeks, I've sat by and watched as my up-line supervisor is being run through the beginnings of the scenario I've described above... so I would imagine she's currently evaluating her options.
The wheel turns, and the cycle repeats itself.
The economy is growing at over 3% this year (Score:2)
How about that Trump economy folks?
The bottom line is companies have had 8 years of garbage economy (1% growth) under Obama, and they are just taking a little while to adapt to the reality that they can't be as choosy about their employees with a robust economy, and they may have to pay more as well. The days of getting 100 applications for a single job and only taking the very best person are over. You hire who you can train to get the job done, or you get left behind in a growing economy. The winners w
Can we stop with this bullshit? (Score:4, Insightful)
We have millions of job openings. See...
Job 1: Social Worker - Must have master's degree. Salary $35,000/year.
[Translation, must be someone who did not get their degree in the U.S. because there is no way one can pay for a master's on $35K/year.]
Job 2: Warehouse $12-$14/hr. Flexible hours (either 60 or 20, but not 40). $29,000 a year...with little prospect of moving up. Maybe $17/hr after you've been there 10 years. Support your family on THAT!
Job 3: IT Position $60K a year in major urban city requiring you to live in very expensive housing, the slums, or outside of the city requiring 2-3 hours commuting a day. Please note, we understand that between your commute, mortgage, family, and student loans, that this salary is not sustainable for you. However, it allows us to employ an IT engineer from India, seeing as they do not have a several hundred a month student loan payment.
Too many "college" graduates (Score:3, Interesting)
Unemployment low...right... (Score:2)
Unemployment is anything but low [shadowstats.com] The government has changed the definition over the years, and now publishes a number that excludes a lot of people who would really, really like a job. But once their unemployment benefits have run out, well, they magically aren't "unemployed" anymore, at least, not according to the government.
While I don't live in the US, I have friends and family there, and I don't have the impression that there are 6 million decent jobs waiting to be filled. There are a lot of crap jobs o
I'm hiring... (Score:3)
Position: Internet Application Developer
Salary $250K-$350K
REQUIREMENTS: Must have 5+ years of HTML6 experience, and be familiar with Windows 12.
Re:I'm hiring... (Score:4, Funny)
Position: Internet Application Developer
Salary $250K-$350K
REQUIREMENTS: Must have 5+ years of HTML6 experience, and be familiar with Windows 12.
I have a team in Bangalore who has that. We can offer you a rate much smaller and our salesmen can show you how to use it as a tax right off so it is free where you do not have to pay benefits.
US Employers Struggle To Find Workers.... (Score:2)
Stop recruiting w/Job description exp (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is HR wants someone in percise wording that matches the job description with years of experience and rather be understaffed than take a risk. Worse, they use software programs to do the work for them which filter 100% of all the qualified candidates out.
This is why the H1B1 visa is popular. It is not about cost savings anymore. It is the Indian firms will lie and make a resume that matches the description as no American can do the job etc.
In the old days if you had 7 years of experience in programming in one language and doing the same work then you can learn another language in a similair role etc. NOT today! You need to have ONLY that language. Worse, you can have the same language AND same kind of work experience but still be not qualified. It is because your coverletter and resume didn't have the keyword % of the descriptions. Or you have done it for 10 years, but your last position where you have 3 years experience doesn't touch what the job entails so therefore you are not qualified.
What needs to change is managers need to do the filtering and not HR and God FORBID do not use Taleo to filter out resumes first. You will get liars and Indians and just because I have done a job for 5 years doesn't mean I am any good.
Competence is job title and projects you work on. Not based on how many years you did the same tasks which is all HR looks at. I would take a senior software engineer who did design work in another language or different tasks then to pick a mediocre guy who only did 5 years experience in the same tasks over and over which HR would choose.
The "struggle" is definitely NOT real. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear Hiring Managers Everywhere,
I've been hired and have had to do the hiring. I know the drill. So, you want good candidates? Do the following:
1) Get HR out of the loop. HR, as you know, isn't where the brain trust of the company lives. They also tend to be lazy. Result? They're using keywords to exclude resumes. If you don't say, "Agile" on your resume, you sink out of sight, even if you've been working in an Agile environment for years. Keyword based systems are an utter, abysmal, total fail.
2) Don't throw every skill you can think of into your ad. Otherwise good candidates who may not have ever used say, Jira (which takes all of about 15 minutes to learn), are excluded. Pick a few of the core ones. You want someone who can teach themselves. That's as or more important than experience in any specific technology.
3) Understand that you'll have to train and that this will take time. Nobody's going to have everything. If they lie enough to claim they do, well... good luck.
4) If you have a thoughtlessly hacked together toolset that includes, VB6, F#, Erhang, Perl, a collection of proprietary, obscure TLAs and BrainFuck 2, you'll probably have to hire two or three people, instead of the 1 you could have hired to maintain a standard LAMP or Windows stack.
5) What you really want is a 20 year old kid with 30 years of experience who'll work 60 hours a week for 40,000 a year. Guess what? You won't find that person. If you do, don't expect him to stick around. If your manager(s) don't/won't understand that, your company is doomed. Polish up your resume and start looking.
6) Fix your application software. If you get a resume, do not make anybody fill in all that redundant information again, get disgusted and stop. Don't ask the address, web site, and supervisor phone number of the company that died in the dot com crash of 2001. It wastes everyone's time and make you look like idiots.
Its not that complicated (Score:3)
Lorenz says another thing employers need to understand is that wages need to rise, even at entry levels, if they want to fill jobs. He says he is telling manufacturers, "If you are below $12 an hour, I don't know that I'm going to be the person to be able to help you with those jobs."
That's because in the past year, job openings have nearly doubled in western North Carolina where he works, and the supply of additional workers is shrinking fast.
Cappelli says another part of the problem is that employers haven't adjusted to new conditions. For years they've had their choice of workers desperate for a job. Now, the labor market has tightened, but many employers haven't responded, he says.
Pretty obvious what's going on here:
Normal Economy: Recession ends -> labor market shrinks -> wages rise.
US Economy last 40 years: Recession ends -> labor market shrinks -> immigration fills the gap.
US Economy under cartoonishly anti-immigrant government: Recession ends -> labor market shrinks -> immigration goes down anyway -> OMG what do we do!!!?
Obviously wages either have to go up, or managers will have to move the work overseas. Given the attitude of US management for the last 40 years [pewresearch.org] about sharing their wealth increases with workers, I know which I'd bet on...
What Jobs? (Score:3)
That's funny. I'm in the aviation industry and I keep hearing about this pilot shortage that we're having. I've been diligently hunting for a better job for the past five years and can't get so much as a peep from any decent employer. I have had plenty of savage offers for 40-70% pay cuts, opportunities without benefits (e.g. no health insurance), and offers to work 30% more for 20% less. There's lots of work out there, but not for anyone with experience it seems.
Re:Warning: May cause triggering (Score:5, Funny)
My HR department is about a 50-50 split between men and women. And they are all equally useless...
Re: (Score:3)
Or start streaming burgers digitally to reduce overhead.