Companies More Likely To Outsource Than Train IT Employees

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Companies More Likely To Outsource Than Train IT Employees

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday March 13, 2012 @09:50AM from the flatten-and-reinstall dept.

snydeq writes "IT pros feeling the pressure to boost tech skills should expect little support from their current employers, according to a recent report on IT skills. '9 in 10 business managers see gaps in workers' skill sets, yet organizations are more likely to outsource a task or hire someone new than invest in training an existing staff. Perhaps worse, a significant amount of training received by IT doesn't translate to skills they actually use on the job.'"

16 of 235 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

This just in! by girlintraining · 2012-03-13 09:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

This just in: Companies in a recessionary economy are cheap.
Guys, seriously. Nobody wants to spend money on an employee they aren't likely to have around in a year or two anyway; and even if they did, it's easier just to phone HR and say "Hey, I need a dozen people with xyzzy skill." "derp derp derp" "Okay then! I'll see them on monday." The idea of the company taking care of you died in about, er... the 1950s. Deal with it.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
1. Re:This just in! by Beelzebud · 2012-03-13 10:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Actually the idea that a company should be loyal to its employees started to die about 20 years ago, thanks to useful idiots like yourself that argue in favor of lowering the value of labor, and giving companies a pass on not being responsible citizens.
2. Re:This just in! by cpu6502 · 2012-03-13 10:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yes even in the booming 90s companies kept demanding more Visas so they could hire outside help, rather use existing unemployed U.S. engineers.
  I've been a contractor 10+ years now because they'd rather hire temps than permanents. Also there's an age bias towards younger workers (under 40) who have no family and don't mind working unpaid overtime.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
3. Re:This just in! by couchslug · 2012-03-13 10:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It doesn't matter what you do. There is no profit incentive to "loyalty" in many jobs. Your labor is worth what someone will pay you for it.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
4. Re:This just in! by Charliemopps · 2012-03-13 11:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I'd argue that "WHICH the later regret in most cases." They rarely regret it. If they want some big project, done in-house... their co-workers in IS will tell them... it's a dumb idea. They'll clearly make a better product more in-line with what they "need" than what they "want" But... then again, that's not what they want is it? An out-sourced company comes in and builds them exactly what they ask for... to the letter... and leaves. Then, when that sucks, the people that hired them can blame the nameless outsourced company and declare all the problems their having someone elses fault. If they had done it in-house... that blame game would come to a quick end when a knowledgeable IS staff is sitting there ready to defend themselves.
  
  I maintain a DB and recently had our marketing department get sent to me to quote syncing this DB with some software they have. They had apparently gotten quotes from outside vendors and the VPs caught wind of the price tag and said "No way in hell" So I meet with these people with the novel question of: "What is this software? What does it do? Who is maintaining it? Because it sure as hell isn't IS." It ended up that the director of marketing was the "Technical lead" for the product. So I asked her what kind of backend DB it used... what API did it have... did we have a support contract with the vendor... She had no idea. In fact, they weren't sure where their contract was. I got the joy of asking her if we were pirating the software. "Whats that mean?" It was a rather hilarious meeting.
5. Re:This just in! by aergern · 2012-03-13 11:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Then they shouldn't should whine when no one can afford what they product. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. Which is why the banks should have never been bailed out and the auto industry should never had bailouts or loans. If we are in a true capitalist society .. and these "corporations" make bad decisions .. fuck them .. let them die and new companies take their place. Why should society prop them up if as an entity they care about nothing but profits. *shrug*
  
  --
  Tell me what you believe...I'll tell you what you should see.
6. Re:This just in! by lgw · 2012-03-13 11:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So, serious question: why aren't you a shareholder then? Anyone with a professional salary can join the 1% with 20 or so years of savings, if that's a priority.
  Ultimately the purpose of a producer is to produce a product that people want, at a price that people want to pay, not to give you a job. As technology marches on it takes fewer and fewr jobs to produce any given thing (that's basically the definition of technology). And yet standards of living are vastly higher than 150 years ago - because, of course, technology makes products cheaper.
  The world won't be arranged for your convenience - you have to actually do work that people want done, after all - so either compete in a global market, or do service work that can't be outsourced. To repeat the GPP - deal with it.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
7. Re:This just in! by Azghoul · 2012-03-13 16:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Hate to break it to you, but 'unions' are not the solution any more. If they were, they wouldn't be dying off. There's a reason, and it's not because we're all too stupid to realize how great they are.
A sign of buisness culture failure by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-13 09:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

A manager is insulated from the real costs of hiring a new employee, whereas costs for training for an existing employee show up nice and neatly on his budget.
Why? HR. HR ensures it's own existence by hiding the costs of new hires. Managers are happy to take advantage of this.
1. Re:A sign of buisness culture failure by Nidi62 · 2012-03-13 10:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Take this a step further, and you reach the situation I'm currently in. It is virtually impossible to find entry level jobs right now. Every place I have looked is only looking for experienced workers for jobs that are little more than entry level. They don't want to make the effort to train a new hire, they want someone who is already trained. These days companies do not want to invest in their employees at all. They look only to the short term and not the long term. They don't want employees at all. They want mercenaries that they can hire to do a job and drop and hire new ones whenever they want.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Re:"More likely" not what the article says by leenks · 2012-03-13 11:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

Those generalisations work both ways: I wouldn't want most SQL developers to go near real programming languages. To be fair, I probably wouldn't want them to go near the SQL queries either, though.
Re:A sign of business culture failure by elrick_the_brave · 2012-03-13 11:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Try the opposite side of things. I am in what I thought is a good position. I am highly skilled both technically and in the soft skills. Yet all I see is hesitant businesses testing the waters. They pull the pin then pull back. Extremely frustrating. I would like to have a good full time job right now but the proper opportunity has not presented itself. It seems like barriers have been thrown up by business/HR to prevent normal discourse.
True, companies are not mentoring like they used to. This meant a lot to the continuity of the professions. It was a method of giving back and to everyone else. Businesses which don't mentor or give back are just consuming resources. You have to be the judge of that opportunity. I pray I don't have to make that decision to work for a questionable company.
I think businesses are way over thinking their various aspects. Too much analysis means over think. Over think gets you nowhere and wastes money.
Good luck in your search. At some point, if you have the proper work ethic and attitude, your worth will be accepted with open arms.

--
(1st sig) If this were a snappy sig, you'd be reading it right now. (2nd sig) I'm a karma whore. >Insert FUD here
Re:Lazy employees are lazy by crgrace · 2012-03-13 13:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

The issue isn't that companies have some sort of moral obligation to train their employees. They are free to train, outsource, hire, whatever.
The point is that it usually ends up more expensive to not invest in your workforce. It's one of those save a penny today. lose a pound tomorrow.
Re:Lazy employees are lazy by Grishnakh · 2012-03-13 20:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you are not willing to move on and get another job, don't whine to everyone else about it.
Non-compete clauses prevent that for many people. The system is rigged in favor of the employers.
Re:Lazy employees are lazy by Grishnakh · 2012-03-13 20:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

You can't get the skill on your own, because they want to hire someone with X years of experience. That means you need to have been working with that skill, professionally, for X years, to meet their requirement. So basically they want someone else to train you, or for you to train yourself and then work somewhere else at it for a while, and then get tired of your job there and quit so you can work for this new cheap-ass company.
If they just wanted you to have the skill, without the "X years of experience" bit, that'd be one thing and perfectly understandable. But the fact that they want you to be experienced, meaning having worked somewhere else, means that they want someone who's already an expert at it, and don't want to get any of their existing employees up to speed on that skill. Then, when they can't find that expert-level person (because their salaries are too cheap, or they want you to move out to bumblefuck and then give you a shitty salary because "the cost of living is low!" (nevermind that you'll have to move cross-country if this doesn't job doesn't work out), then they run around bitching and complaining that there's not enough skilled workers out there and that the government needs to do something about it.
Re:Lazy employees are lazy by sociocapitalist · 2012-03-14 04:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you are not willing to move on and get another job, don't whine to everyone else about it.
Non-compete clauses prevent that for many people who don't know that they're usually non-enforceable. The system is rigged in favor of the employers but people should find out what their options are regardless.
FTFY

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial