Slashdot Mirror
IT Positions Some of the Toughest Jobs To Fill In US
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."
Maybe they are hard to fill because they dont pay enough?
From the article the 3 reasons why they can't find people:
1.) lack of available applicants
2.) applicants looking for more pay
3.) lack of experience.
I'm willing to bet that all 3 reasons are related to #2. Post a job listing online, looking for 20 yrs experience in Java and offer 40K/yr. Lets see anyone reasonable come try and fill that job post without asking for more money.
"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.
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.
They just need to up their offer. Go invisible hand!
If the salaries for those positions were acceptable to the people with those skills, they would have no problem filling the positions.
I get weekly emails from companies wanting me to do contract work, all senior engineer level work, as a contractor (no benefits, 1099 work), and the hourly rate is pathetic. Then they cry about not being able to hire engineers, and how we need to outsource/bring in H1Bs. Let them struggle.
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
(Smash amp, burn guitar, take home the groupies)
people that can write a job description and match job seekers to the jobs.
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.
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.
Actually, there are plenty of people to fill these jobs. They're just Americans, who apparently aren't worth hiring, and obviously have no political voice or politicians would be courting them. They're not, which tells you what side their bread is buttered - corporate interests. The last 30 hires I've seen go by at my company are all from India and China. One in my group is an "intern". Actually, the person graduated and was offered a regular job, but had visa problems - stupid H1B limits, the person says indignantly. So rather than hire an American, they just brought the person in as an intern. There are no "critical" skills. This is just a recent college graduate. Nothing special or high-skill. No relevant training, just a smart kid like all the others. There's a critical mass now, and a definite descrimination bias against Americans. It's actually a fascinating turnaround from the old America, when it was impossible for immigrants to find work. Unfortunately for our politicians, those people can't vote, because they're not citizens. That said, American tech workers have been sold out by both sides of the aisle for corporate money. Every single person in my team is from another country. And all will likely go back home when their visas run out, to work in the Bangalore or Shanghai offices at the same job.
This is the same whining we hear year after year. It's been going on since at least the early 90s, if not earlier. With few exceptions, there are people out there willing to fill these jobs but employers are unwilling to hire them because (jumping on the bandwagon here) they don't want to pay these technical people what they are worth and will not accept anyone who does not meet the exact, cross the T, dot the I experience they think they want.
Employers have essentially pawned off all training on schools, completely unwilling to offer even the barest training to bring people up to speed. They now expect you to know the intricate details of their organization even though you have never worked for them before.
Employers have brought this upon themselves and are now acting like spoiled 2 year olds, stomping their feet and holding their breath until they get their way.
You want to know how to fill these positions? REDUCE the number of H1B visas and force employers to hire those unemployed IT folks who have applied for these positions but were rejected because they didn't fit the bill 100%.
When I see the same job postings from the same employers month after month, entry to mid-level jobs, not the high-end, ultra technical positions which legitimately could have a shortage of workers, there are only two conclusions to reach: either no one is applying for the positions (for whatever reason), or employers are rejecting everyone because their standards are too high (and their heads are too high up their asses to figure it out).
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The problem is that all these employers are looking for $10,000 Ferraris and bitching because they can't fill the niche. That way they can go out and cry to the Labor Department for an H1-B so they can get somebody on the cheap.
It's not that the IT folks are asking for big money, but a decent living wage and employers are tempted with the H1-B rules to go out and leverage the crap out of them. Also there is a trend, in general, to have requirements so specific that the HR folks or the dreaded Taleo bullshit will filter out candidates who meet 70 to 80 percent of the requirements. I realize that's the situation we've been in for years but for all these employers who are crying I say that there are people out there who can work for them if 1) They're willing to pay at least the market rate for some of these positions rather than trying to drive the prices into the dirt and 2) Taking a look at their requirements and matching their candidates objectively, not allowing some fucking acronym matcher determine if a person is suitable or not for a job. Yeah, I know
maybe that's too much to ask but considering that the information is coming from an HR temp staffing firm, which is another big, big problem with the IT industry but that's another kettle of fish.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
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.
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/
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.
Management are finally discovering what experienced IT staffers have been warning them about for years- failure to invest in training and mentoring entry-level staff will result in shortages over all levels of skill in the future.
Skilled staff are not a commodity. They are not widgets that can be easily replaced. Moreover, the attrition rate for the IT field is high- I am one of 4 people I know among my extended group of friends with more than 20 years in the business who are still working as non-management. Everyone else has either changed professions to something else, or is in management.
The unemployment rate for IT staff in my region is less than 3%. I stopped trying to get requisitions for new staff to train up years ago when I realized that until their pants are on fire, management at most companies simply won't understand that it can take three to five years to train up a good IT staffer, provided the will and funding are there to do it. So, this new "news" is not a surprise to me, and I've taken a more laid back approach as I've realized that there isn't any purpose to changing some peoples' minds about the growing staff shortage. As of now, I'm enjoying the ride, letting people call me and determining where I'm going to have to argue least about pay.
Again, when you can buy your own laws the market is warped. This is what is happening.
There is plenty of talent and plenty of people if you just follow the rules like you did in the good ol' days. This is one of those situations where the good old days were ACTUALLY good. Businesses had to compete for skills and didn't go crying to their favorite senator with money in hand when the market didn't go their way.
Don't forget the ageism thing. Shocked no one mentioned this.
Must have 25 years Java experience... and the unwritten rule is be under 30.
Sometimes ageism shows up in ridiculous combos, where the only way to get that combo is to already have that specific position, or be about 60.. and they only hire kids under 30.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
What if drivers were hired like software developers?
Job title: car driver
Job requirements: professional skills in driving normal- and heavy-freight cars, buses and trucks, trolley buses, trams, subways, tractors, shovel diggers, contemporary light and heavy tanks currently in use by NATO countries.
Skills in rally and extreme driving are obligatory!
Formula-1 driving experience is a plus.
Knowledge and experience in repairing of piston and rotor/Wankel engines, automatic and manual transmissions, ignition systems, board computer, ABS, ABD, GPS and car-audio systems by world-known manufacturers - obligatory!
Experience with car-painting and tinsmith tasks is a plus.
The applicants must have certificates by BMW, General Motors and Bosch, but not older than two years.
Compensation: $15-$20/hour, depends on the interview result.
Education requirements: Bachelor's Degree of Engineering.
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.
10 years C++
5-7 years Java
5-7 years HTML and CSS
2-3 years SQL
2-3 years Ruby
1 year JQuery
1 year COBOL
Familiarity with VHDL
Must be a Team Player
Must be willing to work 60 hours per week
Must know ballroom dancing
Must speak sloth
Salary 40,000 per year
I have no idea why they are having difficulties....
I am a sysadmin and I get contract to hire stuff all the time. Problem is I am currently full time employed....no contract and I have full benefits. Now TELL me why I want to leave for your pathetic 2 year contract?
Offer me:
1. More than I make now.
2. Permanent...with bennies.
3. Better working conditions (competent project management and not constantly being asked to perform a miracle in a week).
Then....ONLY then will I consider even applying for the position.
Another mistake they make is asking for God like qualities in a technical position. Qualities like:
1. 10 years experience in a tech that has only existed for 5.
2. 365/7/24 On call (Bullshit)
3. That you can be a DBA, Sysadmin, Project Manager and chief cook and bottle washer.
I've seen that in MANY postings and it's impossible to fill because they ask the world and expect to pay for the city. That doesn't jibe.
Gorkman
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)
American businesses cannot find the people they need because they have stopped looking. As has been mentioned here before, many HR departments are now dependant on robo analysis of electronicly submitted resumes to do their inital vetting. If you don't meet the robo criteria you don't get past square one. This results in many qualified candidates being passed over and under qualified candidates getting through because they know how to game the system.
I have personally seen several examples of both. In one instance the guy filled out an online resume form (you were not allowed to just upload your pdf), hit enter, and within a minute got a reply email saying "Thank you for applying, but after careful consideration we have determined that you are not qualified for the position." Careful consideration? Hardly. Needless to say his opinion of this particular company is less than what it was before he applied.
In another example, a guy who could not get past HR finally had a friend hand deliver his resume to the manager who was hiring. HR was furious for being bypassed, but the guy got the job.
Finally, a good friend of mine was pulling her hair out trying to find a good sqlserver admin. It seems that the only candidates that HR passed on to her happened to come from the same contracting company, with almost identical resumes, and all admitted in the interviews that they were actually programmers, but the consulting company thought they could do the job and had "tweaked" the resumes to make them look competent.
Companies that take shortcuts in the hiring process will pay for it in the end. A good HR department has to be willing to put in the effort to find good candidates.
Cheap, fast or good. Pick two.
-Xanthos
Average Intelligence is a Scary Thing
And what I've strongly suspected is that the good candidates, the ones you'd want to hire, get screened out in HR because they don't have that 20-page resume listing every skill under the sun and so don't get through the keyword filtering HR uses on resumes. I've sometimes wondered how much difference it'd make if HR was told "Don't screen. Send every resume down to the engineers and let them tell you which ones they want phone interviews for.". Then set aside the afternoon one day for a couple of the guys to just do a quick sort of the resumes into "OMGgethiminherenow!", "looks good" and "rubbish".
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 $Y or you do not.
The individual skills you're looking for are not uncommon. You can probably find someone with 2 of the 3 easily. And fairly inexpensively.
But getting all 3 of the 3?
Those people probably already have jobs doing something similar to what you're pushing and you'd have to hire them away from those jobs.
So either you aren't offering them enough or there is something about the job or company that is scaring away the people with the experience you are looking for.
And even experienced people who don't trust the situation can be hired if you're willing to pay enough up front.
Wrong.
Factor in the adult education costs to meet the requirements. You will find that your applicants will be statistically saddled with out of control student loans they need to make payments on. As such, they actually *NEED* the 100k figure, just to buy food and gas to come and work for you.
The one suffering the entitlement complex is the business's HR dept, demanding absurd requirements for a low paying position. "We don't want to pay to train those people!" Is not a suitable out for this problem. I don't want to pay taxes either, but that doesn't mean I can tell uncle sam to fuck off on tax season.
Like any purchaser, (an employer purchases labor.), you need to shop, and determine a fair price based on all outstanding market forces, and realize that after a certain point, you get what you pay for.
It is unsrealistic to expect people to live in poverty like conditions (yes, you pay them a "decent wage", but that is for somebody that isn't paying asstons of money to an educational institution on the installment plan. When you pay several grand a month for student loan payments, 50k a year is barely livable on the "ramen for dinner" budget. Eg, poverty.) *JUST* so they can work for you.
I understand that as an employer, you have to make sure your applicants meet your basic needs. When buying a boat, you want one that doesn't leak. However, demanding a yacht for 300$ is rediculous. It costs more than that to build the yacht. Saying the shipyard is suffering from entitlement issues is totally in the wrong. If all you need is a boat to putter around a lake in, a little fishing boat is more appropriate to your needs and your budget. That is what you should hire. Don't demand a yacht unless you need a yacht, because you *will* end up paying yacht prices.
Need somebody to cobble together a shellscript? Your typical highschool kid can do that. Don't demand 10+yrs linux experience with sysadmin experience, a CS degree, and 50 industry certs. That's like demanding a nascar certified pit mechanic to have your tire changed, when a walmart tech with a speedwrench is more than adequate. Hire the walmart kid. Leave the nascar pit mechanic to the nascar circuit where he's really needed.
stop saying the nascar guy suffers "entitlement" bcause he refuses to work changing your tire for 10$/hr. You're the one suffering entitlement by demanding a high-rate nascar pit mechanic for piddly shit. Seriously.