Slashdot Mirror
US Employers Struggle To Match Workers With Open Jobs (npr.org)
In the United States, there's a record number of jobs open: around 6 million. That's just about one job opening for every officially unemployed person in the country. From a report: Matching the unemployed with the right job is difficult, but there are some things employers could do to improve the odds. Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist for the job site Glassdoor, says U.S. employers often complain that workers don't have the skills needed for the jobs available. That is true for some upper-level health care and technology jobs. "But for the most part, it doesn't look to be like there is a skills gap," Chamberlain says. "That's not the main reason why there are many job openings." Chamberlain says that with unemployment so low and the U.S. labor force growing slowly, there's no doubt it is harder for companies to find workers. But he says if that were the main problem, you would see wages rising more rapidly in the economy -- and that's not the case in many industries. Part of the hiring problem, Chamberlain says, lies in company hiring policies.
If only there was a way to motivate American workers to apply for jobs? Oh well, I guess more immigration/H1Bs is the only solution.
Zombie 'openings' that expect senior rock-star level experience for H1-B level wages. Pay more. Train people. KTHXBYE.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
"US Employers struggle to find workers willing to be paid minimum wage, part time with no benefits."
The main reason companies are unable to fill low skill positions is that they have strict drug check programs where if marijuana is in your blood you are an automatic fail even if you smoked on the weekend and its legal in your state to smoke recreationally.
Companies need to change their drug screening processes to match with the reality of American society where almost all poor people are doing drugs
**Life is too short to be serious**
First, just read the summary.
Back in '08 when the shit hit the fan, I was told, "Just get a job waiting tables! It'll show that you have gumption!!"
So, I went to the local bar and grill who was looking for help and applied. Sorry, we need someone who has had at least 5 years of RECENT experience.
The local landscaper (professional lawn mowing company) asked me, "Do you have experience in this line of work."
Now, how to answer that. "Uh, how hard is it to mow lawns?!" or "No sir, I do not."
Well, they are both wrong answers. (BTW, working beneath you skills ruins your career. All those folks who said, "Get a job flipping burgers to pay your mortgage!" were wrong. If you did that, you ruined your career. YOU ARE YOUR LAST JOB. And if that's flipping burgers, then you are a burger flipper - sorry Mr. BS CS. Been there - I know.)
Tech is even more retarded. I once recommended this brilliant ENGINEER (BS ME - a REAL engineer) who had tons of experience with the company's technology.
Nope. "Sorry, you don't fit in to our corporate culture."
Kiss my fucking ass. EVERY company that says they cannot get qualified people are liars. Period.
You don't see companies raising wages to attract the employees need because for the most part (i.e. not the multinationals hiring h1b's, but the majority of companies who employ the majority of people and are small-mid size) they can't.
We live in a debt-based economic system with inflation at a rate of about 2.5% annually, runaway government spending and about 65-75% taxation by the time cash makes its way from a client to an employee. Meanwhile, the government will spend what it expects things to be valued at, ironically increasing with inflation, not solely but functionally equivalent given the magnitudes of figures involved in each case, to the huge multinational corporations, who then buy from smaller corporations in many cases. It's trickle-down-corporate-economics and it works no better than the individual version: the government pays the banks and megacorps, they pay the large-not-multinational companies, they pay the midsized companies and the small companies are mostly paid by the individual consumers.
At each step along the way there's a time delay for prices to adjust where the guy at the top (from the government down) charges more for services, until the next guy down can no longer handle the burden and raises costs on their customers, and so on. The entire system runs in that cyclical nature wherein division of resources moves continually toward government. People blame the megacorps but the truth is they're only the highest ranking slaves.
I pop in here to the comment section, and read a bunch of people angrily talking about how there really not being an job opening problem, just that "employers are full of shit".
Here's the thing. That's what the article says. Let me be helpful to you, and quote it:
Part of the hiring problem, Chamberlain says, lies in company hiring policies.
Peter Cappelli, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, agrees. He says one problem is that companies are posting openings with required qualifications that aren't really necessary for the job.
"They're just asking for the moon, and not expecting to pay very much for it," Cappelli says. "And as a result they [can't] find those people. Now that [doesn't] mean there was nobody to do the job; it just [means] that there was nobody at the price they were willing to pay."
Come on people! Read!
when I was young. The gov't placed you in a job, and paid for your training/education, and the company got a tax break until you were up to snuff. Kept unemployment low, and people happy.
I don't see why this can't be done here.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Has more to do with the terms of hire. I work in the IT industry and my last 5 jobs have all been contract with the dangling carrot of full time hire / conversion.
I'm 35, married for a year and really done with contracting. I need a full time position, health benefits and some type of 401k for it to be viable for me. Not a 3 month contract, not a 22 month contract but even a 2 year. I'm looking to set down roots and grow with a company. Plenty of loyal employees with no reasons to be loyal
If corporations cared at all about unemployment, they already know exactly what they could do to remedy that problem: Let the cream rise to the top. That is to say, offer additional training to existing highly skilled employees, so that they can easily qualify for the next job up the ladder, and then move them up. Then fill the now vacant lower level jobs with people who are presently unemployed and living on the street (or in their parents basement). The newly hired wage earners will be thrilled just to have a job at all, and won't be quite as picky about how much they're earning, and the highly skilled workers will be thrilled to get the raise, and to be recognized for their contributions.
The problem, as I see it, is that far too many companies are more interested in the bottom line than in anything else. And one of the easiest ways to turn a profit is (and always has been) to milk existing employees for all that they're worth for as long as possible, and make them do tasks above their pay level, because they "can't find anyone qualified for that position, right now"... which basically causes that old adage, "You have to move out to move up," to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I've moved out because of that, myself. If you're in the workforce at all, you've probably done it, too.
And here's where it gets even more frustrating: the "requirements" for any given position do not remain static. It's quite common for employers to adjust the requirements based upon the skillset of the person who just left that position. "Hey, Ralph became a freaking genius at SharePoint while he was working for us. We can't possibly hire someone who knows less than him, now! Change that job req for his position to include senior SharePoint experience, okay? Years of experience? I dunno... how long did Ralph work here? That long? Really?"
And thus, the position that Ralph left -- specifically because he was being underpaid for the skills he'd gained over his years there -- is now entirely un-fillable. Because nobody with those skills would take the job, at the offered pay.
Employers shoot themselves in the foot like that, all too often. My previous employer did it, too... that's why they're my previous employer. And over the past few weeks, I've sat by and watched as my up-line supervisor is being run through the beginnings of the scenario I've described above... so I would imagine she's currently evaluating her options.
The wheel turns, and the cycle repeats itself.
In my experience they know that their spec is unrealistic, and are just using it as an excuse. An excuse to offer less money, or dismiss candidates they dislike but can't legally give the real reason why (age, race etc.)
If they offered me the position but at a lower salary due to lack of experience, I'd just call their bluff tell them to go with the candidate who has more experience. It's not like there is a shortage of tech jobs around here at the moment.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
We have millions of job openings. See...
Job 1: Social Worker - Must have master's degree. Salary $35,000/year.
[Translation, must be someone who did not get their degree in the U.S. because there is no way one can pay for a master's on $35K/year.]
Job 2: Warehouse $12-$14/hr. Flexible hours (either 60 or 20, but not 40). $29,000 a year...with little prospect of moving up. Maybe $17/hr after you've been there 10 years. Support your family on THAT!
Job 3: IT Position $60K a year in major urban city requiring you to live in very expensive housing, the slums, or outside of the city requiring 2-3 hours commuting a day. Please note, we understand that between your commute, mortgage, family, and student loans, that this salary is not sustainable for you. However, it allows us to employ an IT engineer from India, seeing as they do not have a several hundred a month student loan payment.
Also fairly common:
HR: "We need someone with 5 years experience with Tech A, 10 years with Tech b, and two years with Tech C."
Recruiter/Candidate: "Okay, (we can find that|that's me). What's the rate?"
HR: "We pay $12/hour. No benefits or overtime."
Recruiter/Candidate: "Thanks, but no thanks."
HR: "Woe is us, we can't find anyone to fill this position!"
The problem is HR wants someone in percise wording that matches the job description with years of experience and rather be understaffed than take a risk. Worse, they use software programs to do the work for them which filter 100% of all the qualified candidates out.
This is why the H1B1 visa is popular. It is not about cost savings anymore. It is the Indian firms will lie and make a resume that matches the description as no American can do the job etc.
In the old days if you had 7 years of experience in programming in one language and doing the same work then you can learn another language in a similair role etc. NOT today! You need to have ONLY that language. Worse, you can have the same language AND same kind of work experience but still be not qualified. It is because your coverletter and resume didn't have the keyword % of the descriptions. Or you have done it for 10 years, but your last position where you have 3 years experience doesn't touch what the job entails so therefore you are not qualified.
What needs to change is managers need to do the filtering and not HR and God FORBID do not use Taleo to filter out resumes first. You will get liars and Indians and just because I have done a job for 5 years doesn't mean I am any good.
Competence is job title and projects you work on. Not based on how many years you did the same tasks which is all HR looks at. I would take a senior software engineer who did design work in another language or different tasks then to pick a mediocre guy who only did 5 years experience in the same tasks over and over which HR would choose.
http://saveie6.com/
Why do you think you need to go through a recruiter?
The recruiters are not working to find you (the job seeker) with a job. They are working for the company to fill the position. If a company only relies on people knowing about the company and applying, then they will never fill positions. The recruiters are the ones that are scouring all of the job websites and LinkedIn trying to actively find people to fill the positions.
In my experience (looking for candidates to fill positions), recruiters are not efficient at telling whether a candidate is bull-shitting them in the phone screening. I have seen many candidates that passed the recruiter's phone screen, but were vastly unqualified to do the job they were applying for.
Dear Hiring Managers Everywhere,
I've been hired and have had to do the hiring. I know the drill. So, you want good candidates? Do the following:
1) Get HR out of the loop. HR, as you know, isn't where the brain trust of the company lives. They also tend to be lazy. Result? They're using keywords to exclude resumes. If you don't say, "Agile" on your resume, you sink out of sight, even if you've been working in an Agile environment for years. Keyword based systems are an utter, abysmal, total fail.
2) Don't throw every skill you can think of into your ad. Otherwise good candidates who may not have ever used say, Jira (which takes all of about 15 minutes to learn), are excluded. Pick a few of the core ones. You want someone who can teach themselves. That's as or more important than experience in any specific technology.
3) Understand that you'll have to train and that this will take time. Nobody's going to have everything. If they lie enough to claim they do, well... good luck.
4) If you have a thoughtlessly hacked together toolset that includes, VB6, F#, Erhang, Perl, a collection of proprietary, obscure TLAs and BrainFuck 2, you'll probably have to hire two or three people, instead of the 1 you could have hired to maintain a standard LAMP or Windows stack.
5) What you really want is a 20 year old kid with 30 years of experience who'll work 60 hours a week for 40,000 a year. Guess what? You won't find that person. If you do, don't expect him to stick around. If your manager(s) don't/won't understand that, your company is doomed. Polish up your resume and start looking.
6) Fix your application software. If you get a resume, do not make anybody fill in all that redundant information again, get disgusted and stop. Don't ask the address, web site, and supervisor phone number of the company that died in the dot com crash of 2001. It wastes everyone's time and make you look like idiots.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.