Of course training needs to be improved, or at least there is some room for improvement.
My issue is that corps talk a big game - there there is a shortage of qualified candidates. What there is a shortage of is good training, planning, career paths and adequate salary. If there was really a shortage, we'd see changes in these areas.
Because nobody wants to do on the job training any more.
and
Companies want someone who has already been trained to do the job they are hiring for. They want someone who can hit the ground running.
But then, companies can't complain that there are "no qualified candidates." Saying that you don't offer any training, are a victim of poor planning and that there are no unqualified candidates are two contradictory statements.
Yeah, there are some unqualified people out there, but I find it hard to believe that the vast majority of job seekers in STEM can't be "re-trained" in similar sub fields of STEM. For example, why can't someone who has solid SQL knowledge be trained as a DBA or a Java programmer?
There was an interview with one of the people picketing McDonalds for hgher pay. The interviewer asked if McDonalds offered her a supervisory role. She said she didn't want that responsibility, just wanted the money that came along with it.
I would agree with this assessment. It works if the sample you're looking at is big enough, and you're not looking to cut 10% or some non-trivial percentage.
I get what you are saying, but it basically forces you to reluctantly collaborate, not collaborate because it is a Good Thing (tm). It's like the taxes you pay aren't charity in the strictest sense of the word.
When I read this article and read that 'involuntary departures went up by 50% because there are more frequent "tough discussions"' it makes me feel like this could easily degenerate in a climate-of-fear where if you have an off month you might end up being let go, a yearly review is not optimal but short-term dips are obviously more easily counterbalanced by good productivity the rest of the year when the issue was resolved, not to mention if you have yearly reviews on record for several years it becomes it more obvious when dips are temporary or there is an underperforming situation (which might not be the employee's fault, could simply be an issue of not having the right person in the right job or vice-versa).
I think you hit a good issue that has to be addressed. I think you need to be able to determine when there is a dip and take it on a case by case basis. Your divorce example is a good one. I think IF management knew that you may have a month or two off, they actually have the context and could give you the support you needed BEFORE any problems occur.
I had been advocating for this type of change for awhile.
I would make H1-B's more expensive, especially with high unemployment.
Also, I would place minimum salary requirements on those with H1B's. If they were people with skills that are in such demand, the employer should have no problem paying a high salary, no?
If Bill or Microsoft had suck a problem with the people out there not being qualified, how come they don't spend a Billion dollars or something themselves to train people. Microsoft could easily hire on new graduates or people who want to retrain and invest in their training. I would think this would be some sort of competitive advantage.
Hey Bill,
How about you actually hire and train people yourselves, or work with High Schools/Colleges to actually have some sort of apprenticeship/internship programs?
We have/had high unemployment and low labor force participation. You can't tell me that we can't retrain exsisting people now and not have to bring more people in.
I did say "price increases" were an option. Profits may not cover all the upgrades, but if you were to raise prices $5/year or something, that's better than large one-off increases.
In other words, ISP's have not invested profits (or small price increases) back into their networks to keep ahead of the tidal wave.
Wouldn't it make sense to do incremental updates over the span of several years?
As I said, I never held a job title of "Linux Admin," even though I have acquired some of the skills needed of an Linux Admin elsewhere. Let us look at it another way, if I applied to a job that "required" more experience than this one, I would expect to be summarily rejected for not having enough experience. So which is it, I have too much or too little?
Secondly, the job advert said the company offered great career growth potential. Pay would not be an issue, which the numbers prove. So the "overqualification" I may appear to have could be rendered moot.
There is some expectation that there will be some training when students get out as Universities can't teach everything. Students will generally have a good breadth of knowledge, maybe not the required depth.
It would seem that if there was significant growth in the "IT Sector," that anyone who was mildly qualified would be able to switch jobs easy. As my own anecdotal evidence suggests, it still isn't easy.
Even when someone does learn a new skill, they'll often leave the old one on their resume, to show off all the great skills they have.
That's because the old skill(s) puts food on the table and hiring authorities don't consider "I read a couple of books and did some side projects" to be valid experience. Or they could be working somewhere where management wont move to NoSQL because they spent $millions on their current RDBMS systems that are "working," regardless of any benefit a new system would offer. That's why there still is a demand for RDBMS professionals and there will be for a good long while.
I'm not sure what you're saying here, but you seem to be implying that employers should hire American workers because if they don't, then they won't be able to hire Americans in the future.
That wouldn't be a problem, because the companies could hire foreigners, just as they do today. In fact, with other countries developing their technology further, the foreign candidate pool will be growing much faster than American labor, so there's little incentive to spend extra time and money investing in American labor now. It's a tragedy of the commons.
I think you're missing the mark...
For example, the government pays for K-12 education and subsidizes college in various ways, with the understanding that a well educated population is good for the country as a whole. Whether it is successful or the right thing to do is another matter for another topic, but there are arguments for investing in education.
The problem is that if we don't see a ROI of spending all that money, just for someone to default on those loans and go on the dole? Someone has to pay for that, and it is my contention that it would hurt America in the long run - higher taxes for those that are employed and companies, less tax base, less educated work force and voters, etc.
Employers complain that they can't find local (American) workers, but are unwilling to make any investments in them. I have tried to keep current on various topics, but
It's a paradox of sorts.
If I were an employer, why the hell should I pay someone $15k for three months of "getting up to speed", when I could bring in a guy from India who can start being productive now, because he's spent the last three months of his own time becoming an expert in the new up-and-coming buzzword technology this project will be using, while the American candidate was brushing up on his old COBOL skills, because he knows that will give him "job security" just as soon as he can find a job that needs it?
Two reasons:
Not many have the money/time/use case to buy a 48TB disk array just to play with or develop large scale software in order secure meaningful employment. Many of us play with tech on a much smaller scale. We may develop an app here or there or submit some simple patches for our favorite FLOSS project. No one I know are developing out of date skills. Part of the problem is that HR/Recruiters/Head hunters/Managers are pigeonholing people such that you must have paid experience doing the exact same things they require. This makes it look like the COBOL programmer is only doing COBOL - maybe they tried to get skills in other areas, but no one would hire them to do something different, so they could not justify the cost/effort and refocused on COBOL.
The other implication we see here is that what happens when we graduate STEM people and they can't secure meaningful employment? The implication being they cannot pay back their loans in a timely fashion and the bubble bursts. Also, if there are no junior-level jobs (that allow for growth), why would one want to go into STEM in the first place?
For example, I applied for a job recently that wanted 1-3 years of Linux admin experience. While I never had formal paid experience, I do have 15 years of:
taking several college courses in the subject matter
my masters project was a sys admin heavy
I attend the local lug and help people and have given several technical talks over the years
I volunteer as a sys admin at the local humane society that has 100 employees, more volunteers, processes 10,000+ animals a year and has a fully staffed vet clinic
I use Linux at my day job and do a bit of shell scripting there (I'm one of the go to guys it seems)
Use Linux as my primary OS
Have set up/manage servers for my own/others personal usage
Have attended conferences on my own dime to learn more about things
More things I'm probably forgetting
Somehow, I don't know why they can't extract/find 1 year of experience in there. I can understand if they were asking for 5 or 10 years, but the bar seems low. In other words, what technical day to day tasks does someone in the job face, that I can't handle or figure out? Judge me on my actual technical merits, not something arbitrary.
Pay is not an issue either. Their top pay would represent something like a 40% increase from what I make now, which I do not expect to get. They list no floor. I would be estatic to get even a 5%-10% increase, but can understand that I may have to take the same money or a slight pay cut because of the experience factor (which is fine since I get by well on my current salary).
Of course, the job listing states the team is overwhelmed with work, but the job has been posted over a month. One would think they may have to re-adjust expectations in order to fill the job and get some relief.
And this is why I think ObamaCare is doomed to fail.
I would have been 100% on board if they said everyone had to be covered by some sort of catastrophic plan and that it would be subsidized in some form for the extremely poor and destitute. If you want to pay more to get more coverage, go right ahead.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course training needs to be improved, or at least there is some room for improvement.
My issue is that corps talk a big game - there there is a shortage of qualified candidates. What there is a shortage of is good training, planning, career paths and adequate salary. If there was really a shortage, we'd see changes in these areas.
This is exactly right.
But I feel that is true in any field.
I would also contend that you're looking in all the wrong places. Posting on Monster or Dice will get you all kinds of people.
Because nobody wants to do on the job training any more.
and
Companies want someone who has already been trained to do the job they are hiring for. They want someone who can hit the ground running.
But then, companies can't complain that there are "no qualified candidates." Saying that you don't offer any training, are a victim of poor planning and that there are no unqualified candidates are two contradictory statements.
I WANT to be in STEM, but that doesn't seem to do me any good.
Yeah, there are some unqualified people out there, but I find it hard to believe that the vast majority of job seekers in STEM can't be "re-trained" in similar sub fields of STEM. For example, why can't someone who has solid SQL knowledge be trained as a DBA or a Java programmer?
There was an interview with one of the people picketing McDonalds for hgher pay. The interviewer asked if McDonalds offered her a supervisory role. She said she didn't want that responsibility, just wanted the money that came along with it.
I would agree with this assessment. It works if the sample you're looking at is big enough, and you're not looking to cut 10% or some non-trivial percentage.
I get what you are saying, but it basically forces you to reluctantly collaborate, not collaborate because it is a Good Thing (tm). It's like the taxes you pay aren't charity in the strictest sense of the word.
When I read this article and read that 'involuntary departures went up by 50% because there are more frequent "tough discussions"' it makes me feel like this could easily degenerate in a climate-of-fear where if you have an off month you might end up being let go, a yearly review is not optimal but short-term dips are obviously more easily counterbalanced by good productivity the rest of the year when the issue was resolved, not to mention if you have yearly reviews on record for several years it becomes it more obvious when dips are temporary or there is an underperforming situation (which might not be the employee's fault, could simply be an issue of not having the right person in the right job or vice-versa).
I think you hit a good issue that has to be addressed. I think you need to be able to determine when there is a dip and take it on a case by case basis. Your divorce example is a good one. I think IF management knew that you may have a month or two off, they actually have the context and could give you the support you needed BEFORE any problems occur.
Stack Ranking only works on a short term basis where you want to trim the fat.
If you do it for too long, two things happen (a) you start cutting into good performers (b) people will not collaborate to make others look good
As the old sayings go, if you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something, tax it.
I had been advocating for this type of change for awhile.
I would make H1-B's more expensive, especially with high unemployment.
Also, I would place minimum salary requirements on those with H1B's. If they were people with skills that are in such demand, the employer should have no problem paying a high salary, no?
It is hypocrisy of the highest order.
If Bill or Microsoft had suck a problem with the people out there not being qualified, how come they don't spend a Billion dollars or something themselves to train people. Microsoft could easily hire on new graduates or people who want to retrain and invest in their training. I would think this would be some sort of competitive advantage.
Hey Bill, How about you actually hire and train people yourselves, or work with High Schools/Colleges to actually have some sort of apprenticeship/internship programs? We have/had high unemployment and low labor force participation. You can't tell me that we can't retrain exsisting people now and not have to bring more people in.
I did say "price increases" were an option. Profits may not cover all the upgrades, but if you were to raise prices $5/year or something, that's better than large one-off increases.
In other words, ISP's have not invested profits (or small price increases) back into their networks to keep ahead of the tidal wave. Wouldn't it make sense to do incremental updates over the span of several years?
As I said, I never held a job title of "Linux Admin," even though I have acquired some of the skills needed of an Linux Admin elsewhere. Let us look at it another way, if I applied to a job that "required" more experience than this one, I would expect to be summarily rejected for not having enough experience. So which is it, I have too much or too little?
Secondly, the job advert said the company offered great career growth potential. Pay would not be an issue, which the numbers prove. So the "overqualification" I may appear to have could be rendered moot.
There is some expectation that there will be some training when students get out as Universities can't teach everything. Students will generally have a good breadth of knowledge, maybe not the required depth.
It would seem that if there was significant growth in the "IT Sector," that anyone who was mildly qualified would be able to switch jobs easy. As my own anecdotal evidence suggests, it still isn't easy.
Even when someone does learn a new skill, they'll often leave the old one on their resume, to show off all the great skills they have.
That's because the old skill(s) puts food on the table and hiring authorities don't consider "I read a couple of books and did some side projects" to be valid experience. Or they could be working somewhere where management wont move to NoSQL because they spent $millions on their current RDBMS systems that are "working," regardless of any benefit a new system would offer. That's why there still is a demand for RDBMS professionals and there will be for a good long while.
I'm not sure what you're saying here, but you seem to be implying that employers should hire American workers because if they don't, then they won't be able to hire Americans in the future. That wouldn't be a problem, because the companies could hire foreigners, just as they do today. In fact, with other countries developing their technology further, the foreign candidate pool will be growing much faster than American labor, so there's little incentive to spend extra time and money investing in American labor now. It's a tragedy of the commons.
I think you're missing the mark... For example, the government pays for K-12 education and subsidizes college in various ways, with the understanding that a well educated population is good for the country as a whole. Whether it is successful or the right thing to do is another matter for another topic, but there are arguments for investing in education. The problem is that if we don't see a ROI of spending all that money, just for someone to default on those loans and go on the dole? Someone has to pay for that, and it is my contention that it would hurt America in the long run - higher taxes for those that are employed and companies, less tax base, less educated work force and voters, etc. Employers complain that they can't find local (American) workers, but are unwilling to make any investments in them. I have tried to keep current on various topics, but It's a paradox of sorts.
If I were an employer, why the hell should I pay someone $15k for three months of "getting up to speed", when I could bring in a guy from India who can start being productive now, because he's spent the last three months of his own time becoming an expert in the new up-and-coming buzzword technology this project will be using, while the American candidate was brushing up on his old COBOL skills, because he knows that will give him "job security" just as soon as he can find a job that needs it?
Two reasons:
Not many have the money/time/use case to buy a 48TB disk array just to play with or develop large scale software in order secure meaningful employment. Many of us play with tech on a much smaller scale. We may develop an app here or there or submit some simple patches for our favorite FLOSS project. No one I know are developing out of date skills. Part of the problem is that HR/Recruiters/Head hunters/Managers are pigeonholing people such that you must have paid experience doing the exact same things they require. This makes it look like the COBOL programmer is only doing COBOL - maybe they tried to get skills in other areas, but no one would hire them to do something different, so they could not justify the cost/effort and refocused on COBOL.
The other implication we see here is that what happens when we graduate STEM people and they can't secure meaningful employment? The implication being they cannot pay back their loans in a timely fashion and the bubble bursts. Also, if there are no junior-level jobs (that allow for growth), why would one want to go into STEM in the first place?
The wife and I would be willing to move. When do I start? :p
This type of thing is so frustrating.
For example, I applied for a job recently that wanted 1-3 years of Linux admin experience. While I never had formal paid experience, I do have 15 years of:
Somehow, I don't know why they can't extract/find 1 year of experience in there. I can understand if they were asking for 5 or 10 years, but the bar seems low. In other words, what technical day to day tasks does someone in the job face, that I can't handle or figure out? Judge me on my actual technical merits, not something arbitrary.
Pay is not an issue either. Their top pay would represent something like a 40% increase from what I make now, which I do not expect to get. They list no floor. I would be estatic to get even a 5%-10% increase, but can understand that I may have to take the same money or a slight pay cut because of the experience factor (which is fine since I get by well on my current salary).
Of course, the job listing states the team is overwhelmed with work, but the job has been posted over a month. One would think they may have to re-adjust expectations in order to fill the job and get some relief.
And this is why I think ObamaCare is doomed to fail.
I would have been 100% on board if they said everyone had to be covered by some sort of catastrophic plan and that it would be subsidized in some form for the extremely poor and destitute. If you want to pay more to get more coverage, go right ahead.