Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IT Positions Some of the Toughest Jobs To Fill In US

Posted by Unknown on from the fifty-years-of-dot-net-experience-required dept.

coondoggie writes "Forty-nine percent of U.S. companies are having a hard time filling what workforce management firm ManpowerGroup calls mission-critical positions within their organizations. IT staff, engineers and 'skilled trades' are among the toughest spots to fill. The group surveyed some 1,300 employers and noted that U.S. companies are struggling to find talent, despite continued high unemployment, over their global counterparts, where 34% of employers worldwide are having difficulty filling positions."

32 of 886 comments (clear)

  1. Salaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe they are hard to fill because they dont pay enough?

    1. Re:Salaries by captbob2002 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That seems to be the case that I see. Positions that want YEARS of experience, long lists of certifications, and pay around $34,000.

      Same with any other area, there is no shortage of people wanting jobs, there *is* a shortage of people wanting to be slaves. Shouldn't "market forces" tell these "job creators" that they are not paying enough?

    2. Re:Salaries by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, that and they are often some of least respected positions in the U.S. There are plenty of people in I.T. fed up with the fact that while it isn't really a "dead end" job, you are always in a bad situation. If you're bad at your job, you just eventually lose it. If you are good at your job, some places will be scared to advance you or, since being good at your job really mean more idle time in I.T., they'll claim it's a place to cut and STILL fire you. There's also that pesky fact that many of the baldy suits can't understand what you do.

      The way I.T. has been handled over the years by the management types is a prime problem in getting people in to the jobs. The I.T. people are smart and they see the "creative" people get respect and they see the pointy-head management get overpaid. It's no surprise that it would lose it's appeal.

    3. Re:Salaries by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Market forces are warped. That is what happens when you can buy laws and that is what is happening now. It's pathetic to see people scream at the free market and purchase legislators at the same time.

    4. Re:Salaries by crazyjj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      there are enough people willing to be slaves.

      Yeah, all you have to do is get them H1B visas.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    5. Re:Salaries by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wrong. What you meant to say was:

      "Impossible. As every MBA knows, there are no low salaries, only lazy workers."

      It's not economists who are running these companies.

    6. Re:Salaries by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is interesting because what you are saying here is to actually **develop** your workforce.

      Most corporations don't want to do that anymore.

    7. Re:Salaries by Frobnicator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apparently strong network security (packet/protocol level) + network operations background + minor software development + security clearance is an impossible combination to find.

      Ya think?
      - Network security person + clearance. One job.
      - NOC ops + clearance. One job.
      - Part time software development. One job, either part time or contract.

      Don't complain that you can't find somebody stupid enough to attempt to do all three jobs. If they already have their security clearance then their BS filter works just as good as your resume filter. There is no shortage of open jobs that are SINGLE jobs requiring security clearance.

      I've seen my own share of job postings where it is clear the job will be a nightmare just by the way they word it. The classics are like yours, listing multiple full time jobs as a single job, and then mentioning overtime will be requested for the salaried position.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    8. Re:Salaries by Githaron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which is why they are having trouble finding anyone. It is also probably why the day of the company/employee loyalty relationship has largely disappeared.

    9. Re:Salaries by Captain+Hook · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only problem I have with this conspiracy theory is that it might be true for some giant company like MS or Intel which has political connections and hires lots of H1Bs

      I think it's an ecosystem problem, if a significant proportion of the IT jobs are being replaced via off-shoring or outsourcing to inshore companies who don't pay as well then for every job lost you've also lost a person keeping their skills up to date and then the next generation see whats happening and say "fuck that, I'll get an MBA instead".

      To start with it probably doesn't have a big affect but by the time you start losing the veterans to promotion and retirement after 10-15 years and haven't got their replacement already trained with some experience then it's too late. You need a certain critical mass of people interested in a career to keep it going or skills will be lost and once they are gone it's incredibly hard to get back at a national level.

      You need people entering the IT careers at the bottom, to have some exposure to different IT career streams and for them to have a certain expectation of being able to develop a life long career out of it, and I don't think anyone really believes that will happen any more.

      It's a self fulfilling prophecy which benefits those to have the ability to influence job markets at the expense of those who don't.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    10. Re:Salaries by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      *nods* since it is often MBAs doing the hiring, they tend to want people like themselves.. extroverted and people-centric.. the problem is people like that generally go get MBAs or other people oriented degrees rather then technical degrees. When engineers are in charge of hiring other engineers things tend to go smoother.

    11. Re:Salaries by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > ...more productive people...

      BUZZ. Thank you. Your whole point is lost by such ignorant language.

      I.T. people keep the organization running from day to day. To pull a Neil Boortz and start to whine about the "productive class" means your opinion should be roundfiled and proves that our upset about the MBA scam is justified.

      I'd bet the first person you reflexively call is one of those "unproductive" people.

    12. Re:Salaries by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd be on board with this if I didn't so often see middle and upper management call "IT" a money-sink. If they actually knew what their IT departments did, they'd be able to quantify it, and recognize that IT departments DO "contribute substantively to the bottom line". They just do it by removing red numbers instead of adding black ones. Saving money and increasing overall productivity is just as important as bringing new money in; perhaps more important, as without the infrastructure, new money can't be targeted.

      This comes from a guy who runs his own small business, so no, I don't have a general hard-on for IT. I just know that "important" and "valued" aren't necessarily the same thing for the crop of MBAs I've dealt with in the past.

    13. Re:Salaries by pnutjam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sounds like you need to work on your project management skills. You have promised a product in a specific timeline when you have no ability to create this product. Meanwhile, you probably underbid someone who could have actually provided said product.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    14. Re:Salaries by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm going to call it an HR problem.

      First, the IT people trend heavily to being introverts and poor people skills in general. So they are pretty much ineffective when it comes to recruiting talent.

      Second, HR has no idea what IT needs, either in skills or personality. So they resort to a list of buzzwords. Anyone who has ever applied to a state position has gone through being rejected because they lacks a single buzzword in their resume, or,. are one month shy of the experience requirements.

      So on the Can't Find Talent statement, I call the ultimate bullshit. They aren't looking and when they do find someone, they stupidly screen them out on stupid, irrelevant requirements.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    15. Re:Salaries by PRMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now if you prove yourself a hard worker, (and the company is using proper HR policies), The company will see your value as greater and give you a raise, and try harder to retain you.

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I've never seen this anywhere I've worked. There are so many things wrong with that statement it's hard to even know where to begin:

      1. The best IT people are NOT hard working. They are astoundingly LAZY. They write almost nothing and never look like they are doing anything. And yet their code is fast, clean, maintainable and they are always moving to the next project because the last one is in production and butter smooth. It's 100% impossible for an IT outsider to know who the good employees are.

      2. I've never been at a company that used any HR policy that even found good employees period. They SHOULD concentrate on what you accomplished and how much money it made or saved the company. Instead, they usually devolve into twisted popularity contests or seeing who is the most obsequious or who is the best meaningless rule-follower.

      3. I've never been at a company (that wasn't a consulting company) where they gave ANY value to IT workers period. Despite the fact that you are out-earning them 2:1 in some cases and that your IQ is 25-30 points higher than theirs, they treat you like you are some dumb plumber or auto mechanic that dropped out of high school and are overcharging them for fixing their car or something.

      4. Companies will spend a fortune to attract new talent and pay recruiters 10-15% for the privilege. But they have stupid rules in place that PREVENT them from EVER giving a 5% raise to an IT worker no matter how valuable they are. As such, they spend all their time re-training instead of retaining.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    16. Re:Salaries by erp_consultant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I've never been at a company (that wasn't a consulting company) where they gave ANY value to IT workers period" - That's why I went into consulting. Working in IT support puts you in a cost center in the eyes of senior management. In consulting I am a revenue generator. The difference is night and day in terms of how are you treated.

    17. Re:Salaries by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To me the sad part is instead of the free market working as intended, which would be to raise salaries and lower worker abuse instead they'll just drag some poor bastards in from India that they can work like dogs and treat like dogshit.

      I have NEVER in my life seen ANY branch of a corporation treated with such hatred and contempt as I've seen IT treated. they act like they are nothing but glorified Geek Squad workers and give them less respect than a checkout girl at the local Wally World. EVERY need for resources is treated as a waste, EVERY need for action treated as an undue expense, EVERY suggestion treated like its coming from the mouth of a retard, I wouldn't take that fucking job again for all the tea in China!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    18. Re:Salaries by turbidostato · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The MBA classes do teach that the higher you pay a person the harder they will work (not the opposite)"

      Good story. It's only it fails to explain why -oh why, there's a "... Forty-nine percent of U.S. companies having a hard time filling what workforce management firm ManpowerGroup calls mission-critical positions within their organizations. IT staff" on a country that just a decade ago had a surplus on such roles.

      The MBA classes might teach whatever they (say) want. Quite a different issue is what their students learn... which basically ends up being "let's cry the government so we can get some more H1Bs on the cheap, get this quarter numbers fit and so get our bonuses and the hell with anything else".

    19. Re:Salaries by turbidostato · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I've seen so many companies not think about this fact, and only consider IT a cost center."

      Even with that only, IT would be quite well considered. After all, who would want to return to the productivity of a company-without-computers even for a second?

      But I'll tell you a secret. IT can do much more for the company if allowed. A glaring example: what does(did) Amazon? Amazon did sell books on-line. Now take your typical MBA: "a company must focus on its core competencies" I almost can hear. Well, Amazon's core competencies were certainly not maintaining hugh datacenters, so that task should have been subcontracted, shouldn't it, you out-of-the-mill Mr MBA?

      Well, Bezos had a different idea... and a uber-fast growing now multi-billion bussiness out of those datacenters... along with a buoyant business selling those (now not only) books on-line because of his top-notch datacenter management abilities.

      That's IT.

  2. Second half of the phrase.... by wickerprints · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "IT positions some of the toughest jobs to fill in the US...because employers can't get enough cheap H1B foreign labor." This is not about finding Americans with enough technical expertise, of which there are plenty--it's about employers who aren't willing to pay for it, and want to hire cheap labor from India/China visa holders.

  3. Two part problem by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. Americans bailed on the sector when the first big bump in 1998-2000. This left a gap that new trainees never really came in to fill.
    2. H1Bs go home. This means the insane over-recruitment of H1B employees had a cost at the end of their terms.
    3. There has been, up until 2008, and attitude in the U.S. that any college degree is good enough. My state only graduated 40,000 people from community colleges/trade schools this year. Everyone with higher aspirations just went to a 4 year school. To do less is to view oneself as a failure(and employers do too).
    4. Combine that with a culture with a slight distaste for mathematics and science and that's more than enough basic features to explain a discrepancy of this level.

  4. Basic economics by beamin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They just need to up their offer. Go invisible hand!

  5. There is a major shortage of recuiters and HR by johnb10001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    people that can write a job description and match job seekers to the jobs.

  6. I could see it by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To do well in IT you just have to have a certain problem solving ability. I don't think it is something that can be taught, or at least I can't tell you how to teach it. It isn't about knowing a lot about computers, it is about being able to process novel problems and find solutions to them, expediently preferably.

    That's what we look for when we hire students (I do IT work for a university). Finding students with experience is hard since, well, they are students of course they don't have experience and that aside the kind of things we do, almost nobody has experience with. That's ok, what we are really after is someone who is good with problem solving, particularly the kind of problem solving you need for computers.

    I've encountered more than a few people who are not very qualified/competent in IT. We've hired a few people since I've worked here and I've sat on their hiring board (the IT manager, my boss, usually has 4 other technical people with him on the board for interviews). The only people in interviews already made it past HR's resume filtering, and then were the best resume's from the bunch we got. Still, many have been totally unqualified and it becomes readily apparent in the interview process.

  7. No, really? by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As someone who recently sought to fill one of those openings, I have some advice for companies looking to hire: Let your existing IT people write the job listing. A disturbing number of the listings I came across were ridiculous.

    5 years experience required, for an entry-level position at $25,000 salary with weekends on-call? Nope. I might be unemployed, but I don't want to lose money on a job.

    Looking for someone A+-certified with mainframe maintenance and 15 years of Java programming experience? I'm close to qualified, but now I'm scared.

    Five programming tests and two phone interviews, and the face-to-face interviewer doesn't even get my name even close to right? I don't think the epitome of "faceless corporation" is the right fit...

    Look, I understand that there are lots of IT folks out of work, and you think that if you ask for the world, you'll get it from them. You might meet some success, but is stripping your employees of dignity really the right way to get a productive workforce?

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  8. Companies are bad at hiring by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Companies (and HR departments in particular) are bad at hiring someone to grow into a job. They want someone who is in the top 20% of their profession and can do the entire job starting right away, but then they base their pay scales on the 50th percentile.

    Headhunters also do a bad job, at a high price.

    If there were people who could actually be trusted to do a good job at filling positions, lots of people would benefit.

  9. I disagree with that. by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've found that the ability to talk to non-technical people is more important to most hiring managers simply because it's a lot easier to train someone to be technical than it is to train them to work with people.

    I disagree with that.

    I think it is easier for the hiring managers to evaluate "interpersonal skills" than it is for them to evaluate "technical skills". And since it is easier for them, they value those skills more.

    http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/

    http://thedailywtf.com/

  10. 3 reasons by jbolden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The original article listed the 3 reasons the slots were hard to fill, "including lack of available applicants, applicants looking for more pay and lack of experience"

    So in other words employers who don't recruit, don't pay much and aren't willing to train are having trouble. Well good.

  11. You pay slave wages, you get slave labour. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While you MIGHT get extremely lucky and find one of the few techs who (for whatever reason) needs a job at any salary while having all those skills ...

    You'll pretty much end up with two situations:

    1. That person will be gone as soon as they find a better paying job. And you will have to start over again.

    2. That person really does not have those skills and is willing to learn them "on the job" while making all the mistakes a novice would make. And then leaves to find a better paying job.

    Either way, you pay slave wages, you get slave labour.

  12. Re:I think we all know how to solve this problem.. by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's your standard reply? I like $400/hour, 4 hour minimum + expenses, but that might be too low for you.

    My dad worked for the government for years. One of his buddies was talking to a recruiter, when the recruiter asked, "What will it take for you to come work for us." The guy answered something like 3x his current salary. Later the guy came back with "How about 2.8x salary?". He took the job.

    Always have an absurdly high number available. If the fish bite, reel them in.

    --
    All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
  13. That fact that you say you need someone. by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Something makes you think I'm not?

    Yeah. The fact that you're here claiming that you cannot fill that position.

    Knock off the cutesy, attempted implication but avoiding directly saying it, bullshit. Either you have an opening for X at $Y or you do not.

    The individual skills you're looking for are not uncommon. You can probably find someone with 2 of the 3 easily. And fairly inexpensively.

    But getting all 3 of the 3?
    Those people probably already have jobs doing something similar to what you're pushing and you'd have to hire them away from those jobs.

    So either you aren't offering them enough or there is something about the job or company that is scaring away the people with the experience you are looking for.

    And even experienced people who don't trust the situation can be hired if you're willing to pay enough up front.