primitives discuss unfilled positions

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=362x812

Oh my.

The shahib primitive, who's valiantly trying to get more traffic into the career forum on Skins's island:

Habibi  (1000+ posts)      Fri Nov-06-09 02:36 AM
Original message
 
Interesting article about "unfilled positions" and how "tough" it is to find the perfectly-qualified-walk-on-water-for-minimum-wage candidate.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Despite millions of unemployed job seekers desperate for work, many open positions are languishing unfilled. The reason? Not enough candidates.

With job openings largely concentrated in specialized industries like health care, green technology and energy, some employers say the problem is finding qualified workers, which are in short supply. Meanwhile, they are inundated with eager candidates from other industries who lack the skills and experience that the job requires.

According to a recent survey by Human Capital Institute and TheLadders, more than half of employers said "quality of candidates" or "availability of candidates" are their greatest challenges -- despite the recession.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/03/news/economy/jobs_sit_o...

As of this posting, there are nearly 700 comments in reply to the article, and many are angry and frustrated. Good to know I'm not alone.

Kat45  (1000+ posts)        Sat Nov-07-09 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
 
1. And these days, companies don't want to train a new worker at all.

On-the-job-training might be the way to create qualified candidates if they don't think they're getting any. But no, they want their new hire to start off running from day one. They expect the person to already know every single little thing they might ever have to do in the position, and then some.

When I see job ads that mention 'required' skills and 'preferred,' I always assume they won't have any interest unless I already have every skill in both categories. In the past, if a person seemed reasonably intelligent and likely to be able to learn the job, s/he was likely to get hired.

A couple of years ago I got fired from a job after just three weeks because I had not yet mastered enough of the highly detailed tasks that made up the job. Three weeks!

TotallyIgnored  (9 posts)      Wed Nov-11-09 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #1
 
2. I agree, they have it wrong.

Businesses are missing out on a lot of great opportunities due to the fact that they have blinders on during the hiring process.

Like most problems, it stems from human nature. For instance, people rarely show others how to do their jobs, because they feel paranoid they will get replaced by any new hire. Sometimes they are right, but that's no way to live. I trained a new guy who dreams about replacing me, but I don't let it prevent me from doing the right thing.

On the other hand, hiring people outside their field of interest is not always a good idea. Surprisingly it appears that the "it's all about who you know" mentality has gained a lot of acceptance (among this strange group of people who hire for a living), which is also counter productive, IMO. I'm an anomaly, a guy who actually loves his work, and I would do it regardless of pay. I'm not seeking ANY job just for money.

Sadly, I'm in a field a lot of people enter just for the money, they use their social skills to convince people they can do technical work, and I have to contend with them. It's unpleasant, actually. I really wish I could work around other people who actually had a passion for their work.

Part of the reason the workforce is screwed up is people are totally mismatched to their jobs. People who do hiring don't know the jobs they are filling. So now we have people who are mean working in customer service, people with no technical skills in technical jobs, and people who have no concern for the world around them working in management.

But anyway, it's fairly simple, if a person can show true interest in a job, willingness and capability to learn, then everyone who wants a job should be employed.

Wapsie B  (1000+ posts)        Thu Nov-12-09 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
 
3. Excellent points!

Many people are totally mismatched to their jobs. Sometimes I wonder if doing away with the networking system completely would help things; not that that would ever be possible. Find a job based on your own merits, not who you know.

gkhouston  (1000+ posts)      Mon Nov-23-09 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
 
8. And that is what has really changed. It used to be that they wanted someone who could think and learn and expected they would have to spend time training and/or retraining employees for their jobs. When I was interviewing for my first job out of college, there were oil companies who wanted to hire me and train me to be a geophysicist.

I knew nothing about the subject, but I'd studied electrical engineering, and the oil company recruiters said a lot of the equations were the same, so all they'd have to teach me was a bunch of geology. I doubt that sort of mindset exists anymore.

rocktivity  (1000+ posts)        Fri Nov-13-09 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
 
4. This is what "qualifications" comes down to these days

The very first question I was asked at a job interview last week was not about my skills, but about how I would get to the office. I told them I was two bus rides away, which is true. However, the area is so parking-challenged I wouldn't drive there even if I could.

I got the job (going from making an average of nine dollars an hour to nearly twenty), hopefully due to my unique experience in the health care field. But with today's employers having the luxury of holding out for exactly the employee they want, it's equally possible that I got picked over somebody who had a car.

drm604  (1000+ posts)        Sat Nov-14-09 12:53 AM
Response to Original message

5. I'm in IT, or I would be if I could find a position.

I remember a time when demonstrating your past success at picking up new skills and technologies quickly was as important, or even more important, than having a specific skill set.

Now everyone insists on 2+ years of X, 3+ years of Y, and 4+ years of Z, and you have to have experience with one particular version control system, nothing else will do, even though it's trivial to learn a new one in an hour or two. Someone with exactly that and only that, will get the job quicker than someone with decades of experience in a wide range of technologies, almost all of which were picked up on the job.

I am getting so frigging frustrated with trying to get past clueless HR people who insist on a particular skill set over years of experience and an ability to learn.

Wapsie B  (1000+ posts)        Mon Nov-16-09 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #5
 
6. That's the problem of letting HR screen for technical jobs.

If the right keywords aren't on a technical applicant's resume or application the resume gets tossed. For jobs requiring specialized technical skills the hiring manager is infinitely more qualified to determine who more adequately has the skillset for a job. That goes for IT and many other jobs such as Allied Health professions.

TotallyIgnored  (9 posts)      Tue Nov-17-09 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
 
7. It wouldn't be so bad if the person who gets the job didn't just lie

I share your frustration. I know for a fact that lots of I.T. types get their jobs just by lying to the technologically clueless folks screening them. I know of one myself who didn't know what c# was, didn't know the difference between java and javascript, who is now a software developer, and does it very poorly. And I've had recruiters tell me to put things on my resume that were not real. Geesh, I have a hard enough time remembering all the things I know... I really don't feel the need to lie. But apparently that's what is expected.

Ultimately the employers and coworkers all suffer. Slow and underperforming engineers slow down the development process, customers are disappointed, profits go down, and moral goes down among the good workers who feel that their hard work and skill is worthless.

doodadem  (1000+ posts)      Fri Nov-27-09 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
 
9. I'm a technical and scientific recruiter--please do not lob objects at my head!

I'm just discovering this forum, and hoping I can provide some insight and/or assistance.

I've been a headhunter for 20 years, and a damn good one. Worked for other firms for 5 years, then went out on my own. Came thru the last recession with flying colors, rode the Clinton years wave for all it was worth.

The minute Bush came into office, things started sliding downhill, and just got faster the longer he was in there. I've gone from a comfortable 6 figure income to nearly zilch. I started out in I.T. recruiting, and it treated me very well. I hardly try with it anymore for exactly the reasons the rest of you are mentioning--companies have become picky beyond belief. Used to be, if you came up with a candidate that had a, b, and c of their requirements, they were deliriously happy to hire them. Now, its a thru m or they will not even consider, and that list has to come with a bachelors degree or better. And the kicker that has really been pissing me off the past few years--they will only consider people who are currently employed. Like the thousands of people who have been laid off have done something wrong!

So, I can't even deal with I.T. anymore. I diversified more into various types of engineers--civil, structural, electrical, mechanical, manufacturing, etc., and pharmaceutical/biotech/medical device people several years ago. That's certainly had its share of frustrations too--I've lost more deals because of companies going stupid than anything else.

I'm also what's known as an "exporter". I only do candidate recruitment. Gave up the last of my client companies with the demise of I.T. I have formal and informal networks of other recruiters, so that all of my business is "split business". Most of the positions I work on are sent to me directly by these folks, and they ask me to help them fill. Almost everything involves relocation.

The other thing I should say up front--I don't find jobs for people. I find people for jobs. Old recruiter's adage. That being said though, I am more than happy to help fellow DU'ers however I can. If you want to PM me, I don't mind forwarding my standard interview preparation material. Or, how to write a resignation letter. Or how to survive your first weeks in a new job. Or.......whatever else you want to ask me.

Except maybe to re-write your resume. That's more of a time issue.

Oh--one last thing: on job boards. Monster, Careerbuilder, and its ilk are not your friends. We get client companies that say specifically, do NOT send us anyone off the big boards. Over-exposure. You're much better off going to skill specific boards, and applying to individual jobs. Or Google. Google is our friend. Type in "resume", and then whatever your list of skills are, and see what pops up.

Habibi  (1000+ posts)      Mon Nov-30-09 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #9
 
10. Thanks for your input.

Unfortunately this area doesn't get much traffic, for some reason not clear to me. It seems as though it would attract a lot of posters, but nope. I rarely check back here anymore myself! But hey, anytime you want to write a post about the job-hunt here, please go ahead. You never know whom you might help.

[GOBUCKS]

Kat45  (1000+ posts)        Sat Nov-07-09 11:49 PM
A couple of years ago I got fired from a job after just three weeks because I had not yet mastered enough of the highly detailed tasks that made up the job. Three weeks!

Too many customer complaints about no salt on the fries.

[Celtic Rose]

The DUmmies appear to misunderstand the hiring dynamic.  A company hires people to benefit the company, not to give people jobs.  If a company can pay less for the same work, it generally will.  If they can get a more qualified employee, and therefore have more immediate productivity, they will.  When unemployment is low, of course companies would be more willing to train new employees, but with unemployment as high as it is, companies want the most bang for their buck.  They was highly skilled employees who already have experience and training whenever possible. 

[Gwitness]

Too many customer complaints about no salt on the fries.

beat me to it..I was going to post something about flipping burgers.....

[SilverOrchid]

beat me to it..I was going to post something about flipping burgers.....

You are both wrong. He was holding the sandwich board upside down.

[diesel driver]

The DUmmies appear to misunderstand the hiring dynamic.  A company hires people to benefit the company, not to give people jobs.  If a company can pay less for the same work, it generally will.  If they can get a more qualified employee, and therefore have more immediate productivity, they will.  When unemployment is low, of course companies would be more willing to train new employees, but with unemployment as high as it is, companies want the most bang for their buck.  They was highly skilled employees who already have experience and training whenever possible. 

It costs a company money to "train" and employee.  It's one of the reasons the Postal Service is in the trouble it is.

It costs the USPS about $6,000/employee to train and become a RCA (part-time relief letter carrier).  Only 1 in 4 will be good enough to actually become a RCA, and of those, over half will quit within a year....

[AllosaursRus]

Doesn't say much for those that have been laid-off or fired, does it? Ya know you're a real "skilled" individ when you don't even qualify to burn the fries. Bwahahahahahahahahha!!!

These guys really crack me up! I've never worked for a single employer that I didn't dictate the starting wage. Good grief! how worthless can these people be?