Slashdot Mirror
Companies More Likely To Outsource Than Train IT Employees
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.'"
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
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.
But I've received online security training by IT, ethics training by legal, harassment training by HR, business development training by BD, health training by our new insurance provider, all delivered by automated Flash apps voiced by a kindly sounding lady, after which *I had to get 80% on a 5-question multiple-choice test* to get my printable Certificate of Compliance! I have a hard time remembering which side of this keybored thingy to bang on sometimes, but by God I know company policies!
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.
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
I think that the Traditional College system is not the best fit for lot’s of jobs and there are better ways to learn and to show that you have skills.
Harvard Study: Too Much Emphasis On College Education?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2011/0202/Does-everyone-need-a-college-degree-Maybe-not-says-Harvard-study [CC] [MD] [GC]
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/02/harvard-study-hey-maybe-were-placing-too-much-emphasis-on-a-college-education/ [CC] [MD] [GC]
“It would be fine if we had an alternative system [for students who don’t get college degrees], but we’re virtually unique among industrialized countries in terms of not having another system and relying so heavily on higher education,” says Robert Schwartz, who heads the Pathways to Prosperity project at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education.
Emphasizing college as the only path may actually cause some students – who are bored in class but could enjoy learning that’s more entwined with the workplace – to drop out, he adds. “If the image [of college] is more years of just sitting in classrooms, that’s not very persuasive.”
The United States can learn from other countries, particularly in northern Europe, Professor Schwartz says. In Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland, for instance, between 40 and 70 percent of high-schoolers opt for programs that combine classroom and workplace learning, many of them involving apprenticeships. These pathways result in a “qualification” that has real currency in the labor market”
“It would be fine if we had an alternative system [for students who don’t get college degrees], but we’re virtually unique among industrialized countries in terms of not having another system and relying so heavily on higher education,” says Robert Schwartz, who heads the Pathways to Prosperity project at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education.
Emphasizing college as the only path may actually cause some students – who are bored in class but could enjoy learning that’s more entwined with the workplace – to drop out, he adds. “If the image [of college] is more years of just sitting in classrooms, that’s not very persuasive.”
The United States can learn from other countries, particularly in northern Europe, Professor Schwartz says. In Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland, for instance, between 40 and 70 percent of high-schoolers opt for programs that combine classroom and workplace learning, many of them involving apprenticeships. These pathways result in a “qualification” that has real currency in the labor market”
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.
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.
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.
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