Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is prudent for a corp to not train employees. No one would buy a car they would have to assemble, no one would accept the ingredients at Olive Garden, being told to cook it themselves. Employees need to bring the developed tools required to do the job..from day one.
Well, I'm in an old-school company that is firmly in the Fortune 50 and does believe in training employees. We also begin instilling our unique corporate culture (history, ideals, et cetera) into new employees from day one. Part of that orientation includes the understanding that each new employee has a career path ahead of him, with many avenues of education, both technical and industry education. This is a company that still pays for employees to take college courses. It's not a lot different from what I experienced in the military.
The major change since 2008 has been that it's now much, much more difficult to get into the company and the production expectation has been significantly raised. But you still have to practically steal something big or commit a deliberate HR crime to get fired or laid off. If your job fades away from where you are and you're willing to retrain, the company will retrain you. If you're willing to move, the company will move you.
The millennials in this company--and there are scads of them--are scary-hard-working and scary good at it. I most of them seem to respond positively to a company that says, "You're family now."
And this company is routinely rated one of the ten best companies in the US to work for.
A lot of young people, have to realize they trained for future wages and job prospects, that a large percentage of high school classmates that did not go to collage are already exceeding, and will never catch up with them in the field they are trained for.
This is true to a point (and one could argue the smart money has always done this), but it overlooks that there is a cap on demand.
If the major that currently pays you back is 'chemical engineering,' that only lasts until the market is saturated with chemical engineers. And despite the refrain in this thread that 'any STEM field will do' there are quite a few STEM fields that are already pretty saturated, there just happen to be a few specialty fields that go wanting.
It's hard to disagree that many Americans aren't willing to do what it takes for job retraining, but it's also true that certain types of job retraining are designed to be lengthy. For example, you can't just enter a Physician's Assistant program, you need 2 years of pre-reqs even to start the program.
That's a major problem in multiple ways:
1) for people seeking retraining, particularly those needing to support a family, it can seem impossible to be out of work for that long, and the possibilities to stumble along the path are significant
2) for the larger economy, it's highly inefficient.
For example, if we were to expand our nuclear energy production tomorrow, we'd likely find that we had a shortage of nuclear physicists and engineers to actually do it. But even if we tried to goose supply of people trained and able to work in the field, they'd be coming 4-5 years down the road. That's a significant problem for an economy that seeks to be dynamic.
And if they did study for that field and we reversed course on nuclear energy policy, they'd either have to retool again or live with a slack labor market in their field.
I'll give you a pass on a few of your prereqs, however credit check is highly subjective. Someone that has been out of work for a long time and or for various other reasons may show a high usage on their credit cards, that in turn will lower their credit score.
As for what you actually find in a credit report, again certain things can be directly related to being unemployed. If someone always paid on time for the past several years, then after they became unemployed there are some thirty or even sixty day late payments, well the two are linked. Give them a job and they will go back to paying their bills on time.
...and insurance actuaries will tell you in no uncertain terms the correlation that "does" equal causality: relationship (R Squared) of "bad credit" to a host of less-that-optimal behaviors.
Yes, I understand running up debt is sometimes unavoidable for the unemployed. I do know what you mean; no fault laid there. As I hiring authority, if I met the folks you describe, believe me I'd mull it carefully and more-like-as-not give them a pass on (temporarily) bad credit. Hasn't happened yet, but could.
However: those who have a long-term pattern of irresponsible behavior? Red flag. With good cause.
Been there. Seen it. Done it. Hired it. Regretted it. Though my sample size is low, admittedly (only a couple long-term bad credit hires, out of many reference and background checks).
Well, I'm in an old-school company that is firmly in the Fortune 50 and does believe in training employees. We also begin instilling our unique corporate culture (history, ideals, et cetera) into new employees from day one. Part of that orientation includes the understanding that each new employee has a career path ahead of him, with many avenues of education, both technical and industry education. This is a company that still pays for employees to take college courses. It's not a lot different from what I experienced in the military.
.
BTW, Every corp I have worked at paid for educational reimbursement, but it has always been Masters degrees paid for, as Bachelor's were prereqs to getting the positions elgible for reimbursement to begin with.
BTW, Every corp I have worked at paid for educational reimbursement, but it has always been Masters degrees paid for, as Bachelor's were prereqs to getting the positions elgible for reimbursement to begin with.
Mine does reimburse for bachelor's degrees. It does hire high school graduates, and they are on career paths too.
And of all I had to say about it, that's the only point you had a response to?
Mine does reimburse for bachelor's degrees. It does hire high school graduates, and they are on career paths too.
And of all I had to say about it, that's the only point you had a response to?
I'm glad your corp has found it prudent to train, but the reality is, in general, I do not think it prudent of most. Many corps will willingly snatch up those most other corps just educated-what did the latter corp gain in that equation?
Yup, the "skills gap" is a bunch of garbage. There is simply isn't enough good middle class jobs to go around anymore. This is why you have people who have college degrees working at a Starbucks near you
One big reason they are working for Starbucks, is that they have degree with no demand for it. That means there are so many that looked for the easy courses, and fun classes, and did not look at what kinds of degrees were in demand.
Quote:
Sure, job openings go unfilled. But the main reason they go unfilled is because skilled workers aren't going work at the rock-bottom wages many employers demand.
So many with degrees are in fields that have a huge surplus of graduates, and they are paid what they are worth to the company. A lot of degrees are really almost worthless, in the job market and pay very little. Petroleum Engineer degrees are in demand and start at around $100,000. On the other hand Child and Family Studies degrees start at bout $30,000 or about 1/3rd of what Petroleum Engineer degrees start at. Just because some people picked near worthless degrees that pay less than high school graduates start at in many fields, is not the employers fault but the fault of the person that got a near worthless degree. Don't blame the employer in this situation for the low pay, if you are one of those in the low pay bracket with low pay and few jobs, it is the fault of the person that got the nearly worthless degree.
Apply to the Health Insurance Companies as a Claims Processor, analyst, adjuster ect.
do that job for 1 year and then transfer into a Coding Auditor position.
Problem Solved.
(Im a former Medicare Analyst/Auditor -No CPC, no degree)
I have. I have job applications like that out for dozens of positions. Anything I am qualified for I apply to. I was in fact just turned down by a claims processor position on Monday.
My next step is to probably move to a new city. Currently I am in Atlanta and it has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. I have to get some health issues fixed first but then I think I will pick up a temporary sub-lease in Washington D.C where the unemployment rate is much lower to try and apply for jobs. I'd rather send resumes into a black hole in an area with 4% unemployment than an area with an "official" rate of 7% and who knows what the real rate is.
People, I should say that last week I was turned down by a position as one of those front desk people at a doctor's office. You know, the type that asks for insurance information, does some paper work, does a little work with medical codes, etc. I had three interviews for that position and the reason the recruiter said that they chose a different candidate was due to my lack of having experience in that type of job. She stated I interviewed perfectly, had great references and great credentials. It was my sole lack of experience that didn't get me the job. As if that type of job even needs experience to do.
I don't think a lot of you people on this thread really understand how hard it is to get an "in" with today's economy being the way it is. Keep in mind that I have a year of experience in the health insurance field already along with years of hospitality experience.
..However: those who have a long-term pattern of irresponsible behavior? Red flag. With good cause.
Been there. Seen it. Done it. Hired it. Regretted it. Though my sample size is low, admittedly (only a couple long-term bad credit hires, out of many reference and background checks).
I can see both sides to the credit check issue. One of the thing employees don't understand is that a small percentage of employees from hell often cost the employer a disproportionate amount of money...and that is why employers are so risk averse and unwilling to give people a chance. In many casese they are also afraid of firing an employee who doesn't work out because of fear of lawsuits. Your average employee never considers this because he or she could never imagining doing this....but the employee from hell thinks nothing of it and can cost the employer a bundle.
The same principle is at work with bad tenants.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
