Chicken and egg problem as you point out. No one will hire you unless you get a Degree AND Experience. Solution: Shell out 10's of thousands, and HOPE someone hires you...
And add to that people that are underemployed as well - Someone that is well educated/experienced and is forced into tech support (or worse) in order to put food on the table. All the unemployment rate is quoting how many people have a job or are looking - not whether the job is the best fit for the people who have them.
I don't see what the problem here with the things you laid out. You could hire a senior level guy and they could bust or leave in 9 months as well because they hate Cleveland and you're back to square one. Or he could hate your company. You're forgetting that hiring is inherently risky.
Again, why is on-the-job training/mentoring/internships not an option? Simply pontificating about it here on Slashdot does not solve the problem. You're basically creating a chicken and egg problem. You'd rather import labor rather than hire someone who may not have all the knowledge/experience - this person will end up sucking off the teat of the government. Sounds real good to me...
No business is gonna spend months teaching you basic practices.
That's why some people go to college. Others go do open source projects. Anyone worth hiring is going to be able to pick up PHP/JavaScript syntax in a week or two.
Saying that employers should "pound sand" because they can't find a single person in 200+ resumes is incredibly short sighted.
People say that because it's hard to believe that no one in the stack of resumes does not have any skills/knowledge/experience that can transfer to your projects. Just because they may not be able to write beautiful JavaScript in the first hour on the first day of their employment with you, does not mean they will not be a profitable employee.
People want to pontificate about how they can't find anyone, yet do nothing to solve the actual problem(s). All this does is create a chicken and egg problem.
"Colleges and universities are the wrong place to look to, as he says he's looking for "
Fair enough, but it begs the question: how are people going to get strong knowledge and proven experience if companies and colleges even are unwilling to change their structure/expectations and invest in relevant training?
Here's a big part of the problem: As a country, we are throwing a large amount of resources at education. The government even props up the student loan business and the states are heavily into education - not just K-12 but state run universities.
If we want to support education because it is a Good Thing (tm), shouldn't the government be allowed to recoup the investment - i.e. we don't want people to get 13 or more years of education partially/fully funded by tax payers for them to go work at McDonalds and/or collect welfare? Isn't it in our best interest to encourage companies to hire them at well-paying challenging jobs in order to increase the tax base and buy stuff/invest in the economy? I'd argue that is one of the arguments against open immigration, especially in the STEM sectors.
With record levels of unemployment/underemployment, 50% of college grads unemployed (and probably higher if you count those flipping burgers because they couldn't find anything better), we should be looking to slow down immigration programs until our own can get to work.
That's because you are possibly looking in the wrong places. Posting your jobs on Monster.com and allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry to apply is not the best approach. Have you gone directly to say Colleges/Universities or local meetups to find people? Even with a targeted approach, you're going to have a good number of people that are not a "perfect fit."
But the real issue is that companies are unwilling to train anyone these days. People are porked off because companies and the government let in H1B's into STEM despite record levels of unemployment/underemployment.
Some of us do not live in markets that Verizon serves. And Verizon is not rolling out any new fiber (I could be wrong).
For example, here in Rochester, NY the local phone company (Frontier) is no longer pushing Time Warner Cable to have better service. Frontier isn't rolling out any fiber as far as I know. It would be nice to have some competition. The cable bill goes up, yet I get the same service.
There will be more loyalty if the company tries to create an environment to keep employees.
If you're going to treat your employees like dirt / easily replacable cogs in a machine, and give them 1.9% raises (if they are lucky), of course your employees will have no intention of being loyal. If someone comes along and gives your employees a 15% raise and better working conditions, of course they are going to leave. What else would you expect?
Two random thoughts I always have on these news stories.
First, anyone good won't be willing to work for peanuts (or will find your other employment terms unreasonable), may not be easy to find or will find the work they will be doing at your company unchallengling.
Secondly, if the claim that "good people are hard to find" is true, you'll need to maybe invest in some training. If you're scared of the ROI if they end up leaving - the answer to that is pay people a respectable wage and/or stop treating them like 3 year olds. This alone would keep people from working elsewhere, if they were treated well.
Simply saying that there is a shortage of technical people given the current state of unemployment/underemployment makes me cringe. Isn't there 50% unemployement of people coming out of college? You can't tell me all those kids suck and can't be tapped somehow?
But at some point you're going to have to bite the bullet and hire "average" workers and/or invest in some training and/or modify your compensation structure.
The best people I know in the field won't work for peanuts and many times "average" workers are "good enough" - i.e. you need someone to maintain your crusty old inventory system.
If you have a problem with people leaving, the obvious problem is with your own company.
The obvious solution would be to keep your wages ahead of industry averages, as well as not keeping a hostile work environment. You shouldn't give your employees a reason to leave.
If I'm going to pay a premium for a laptop, I'd like to be able to upgrade the RAM and HDD. Or even replace the battery. Many users simply can't afford to buy the new model every year.
If this was an engineering marvel, Apple would have allowed users to do upgrades.
Slashdot Mirror
Chicken and egg problem as you point out. No one will hire you unless you get a Degree AND Experience. Solution: Shell out 10's of thousands, and HOPE someone hires you...
And add to that people that are underemployed as well - Someone that is well educated/experienced and is forced into tech support (or worse) in order to put food on the table. All the unemployment rate is quoting how many people have a job or are looking - not whether the job is the best fit for the people who have them.
I don't see what the problem here with the things you laid out. You could hire a senior level guy and they could bust or leave in 9 months as well because they hate Cleveland and you're back to square one. Or he could hate your company. You're forgetting that hiring is inherently risky.
Again, why is on-the-job training/mentoring/internships not an option? Simply pontificating about it here on Slashdot does not solve the problem. You're basically creating a chicken and egg problem. You'd rather import labor rather than hire someone who may not have all the knowledge/experience - this person will end up sucking off the teat of the government. Sounds real good to me...
No business is gonna spend months teaching you basic practices.
That's why some people go to college. Others go do open source projects. Anyone worth hiring is going to be able to pick up PHP/JavaScript syntax in a week or two.
Saying that employers should "pound sand" because they can't find a single person in 200+ resumes is incredibly short sighted.
People say that because it's hard to believe that no one in the stack of resumes does not have any skills/knowledge/experience that can transfer to your projects. Just because they may not be able to write beautiful JavaScript in the first hour on the first day of their employment with you, does not mean they will not be a profitable employee.
PS hit submit to quickly.
People want to pontificate about how they can't find anyone, yet do nothing to solve the actual problem(s). All this does is create a chicken and egg problem.
"Colleges and universities are the wrong place to look to, as he says he's looking for "
Fair enough, but it begs the question: how are people going to get strong knowledge and proven experience if companies and colleges even are unwilling to change their structure/expectations and invest in relevant training?
Here's a big part of the problem: As a country, we are throwing a large amount of resources at education. The government even props up the student loan business and the states are heavily into education - not just K-12 but state run universities.
If we want to support education because it is a Good Thing (tm), shouldn't the government be allowed to recoup the investment - i.e. we don't want people to get 13 or more years of education partially/fully funded by tax payers for them to go work at McDonalds and/or collect welfare? Isn't it in our best interest to encourage companies to hire them at well-paying challenging jobs in order to increase the tax base and buy stuff/invest in the economy? I'd argue that is one of the arguments against open immigration, especially in the STEM sectors.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
With record levels of unemployment/underemployment, 50% of college grads unemployed (and probably higher if you count those flipping burgers because they couldn't find anything better), we should be looking to slow down immigration programs until our own can get to work.
That's because you are possibly looking in the wrong places. Posting your jobs on Monster.com and allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry to apply is not the best approach. Have you gone directly to say Colleges/Universities or local meetups to find people? Even with a targeted approach, you're going to have a good number of people that are not a "perfect fit."
But the real issue is that companies are unwilling to train anyone these days. People are porked off because companies and the government let in H1B's into STEM despite record levels of unemployment/underemployment.
Well, said, sir.
IIRC the vast majority of millionaires and billionaires are self made.
There are two things that come to mind:
You're training program may suck
Currently employed people will be turned off by spending a week (unpaid) going through an "interview"
Maybe petition local government to allow fiber to move in?
Some of us do not live in markets that Verizon serves. And Verizon is not rolling out any new fiber (I could be wrong).
For example, here in Rochester, NY the local phone company (Frontier) is no longer pushing Time Warner Cable to have better service. Frontier isn't rolling out any fiber as far as I know. It would be nice to have some competition. The cable bill goes up, yet I get the same service.
But do they at least support this functionality?
As I posted eariler....
"We want a 'JR Web Developer' with 3-5 years exp. in LAMP/HTML/CSS/Javascript/Photoshop. The pay is $11-15/hr"
This is so true. "We want a LAMP Ninja who also is a CSS/HTML/Javascript/Photoshop expert who has 2+ years ex. The pay is $11-15/hr"
There will be more loyalty if the company tries to create an environment to keep employees.
If you're going to treat your employees like dirt / easily replacable cogs in a machine, and give them 1.9% raises (if they are lucky), of course your employees will have no intention of being loyal. If someone comes along and gives your employees a 15% raise and better working conditions, of course they are going to leave. What else would you expect?
One can easily figure out this problem by looking at someone's work history. If they voluntarily keep quiting or are fired then they are a problem.
Two random thoughts I always have on these news stories.
First, anyone good won't be willing to work for peanuts (or will find your other employment terms unreasonable), may not be easy to find or will find the work they will be doing at your company unchallengling.
Secondly, if the claim that "good people are hard to find" is true, you'll need to maybe invest in some training. If you're scared of the ROI if they end up leaving - the answer to that is pay people a respectable wage and/or stop treating them like 3 year olds. This alone would keep people from working elsewhere, if they were treated well.
Simply saying that there is a shortage of technical people given the current state of unemployment/underemployment makes me cringe. Isn't there 50% unemployement of people coming out of college? You can't tell me all those kids suck and can't be tapped somehow?
Wow. That's clear as mud. And makes no sense.
But at some point you're going to have to bite the bullet and hire "average" workers and/or invest in some training and/or modify your compensation structure.
The best people I know in the field won't work for peanuts and many times "average" workers are "good enough" - i.e. you need someone to maintain your crusty old inventory system.
You couldn't be more incorrect.
If you have a problem with people leaving, the obvious problem is with your own company.
The obvious solution would be to keep your wages ahead of industry averages, as well as not keeping a hostile work environment. You shouldn't give your employees a reason to leave.
If I'm going to pay a premium for a laptop, I'd like to be able to upgrade the RAM and HDD. Or even replace the battery. Many users simply can't afford to buy the new model every year.
If this was an engineering marvel, Apple would have allowed users to do upgrades.