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.
Clearly one of the biggest issues is finding an employer, a position that is willing to train even if you don't match all the qualifications for the job. For the college grad whose resume is not yet very impressive or who only did 1 or 2 internships -the grad is looking for that start, the grad realizes his resume is weak and is willing to improve it. The thing is, is the employer willing to take the time to hire/train someone for an entry level position even though the candidate does not have 1-2 years of experience doing X and 3 years of software experience in Y?
I understand the employer wants to hire a strong candidate but you have to meet us halfway somewhere. Granted I don't have 2 years doing X but if you hire me I will apply myself, I am ready and willing to learn, to work the long hours etc...
Now of course that doesn't apply for all "entry level jobs", there are some out there that are really entry level-and I urge any unemployed/mal-employed who comes across such a position to apply regardless or naught it is there "dream position".
But to the employers holding out for that perfect candidate, to the employer who advertises "entry level" as Need 2-3 years doing X, I ask why? What happened to hiring a guy even though he does not the exact major you want and the work experience, what happened to training and investing long term into the candidate?
I am sure history has shown that there are/where countless people hired who did not meet the exact qualifications, but with time and training are currently good employees. If that is the case why now are the job qualifications for entry level positions so stringent? If you hired Bob in 2000 with a history degree and no work experience to work (yet he had a great resume and cover letter along with a superb interview) to work in IT-and with time and training Bob is doing a good job in IT, why now in 2013 when a similar IT job is posted, why now require the degree to be exactly IT and by god you must have 2-3 years previous experience? Bob is proof that you can hire and train someone without the exact qualifications and things will turn out fine. Why now are the qualifications so strict?
It would be really great if people would ask relevent questions.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoProIP
I couldn't imagine! I wouldn't work for someone like that.
I don't think most people would. Now the questions are do people know the company is breaking the law, how broken is the employee's moral compass and what is the employee's other options? I think these options could alter things that would be a normal "no."
Clearly one of the biggest issues is finding an employer, a position that is willing to train even if you don't match all the qualifications for the job. For the college grad whose resume is not yet very impressive or who only did 1 or 2 internships -the grad is looking for that start, the grad realizes his resume is weak and is willing to improve it. The thing is, is the employer willing to take the time to hire/train someone for an entry level position even though the candidate does not have 1-2 years of experience doing X and 3 years of software experience in Y?
I understand the employer wants to hire a strong candidate but you have to meet us halfway somewhere. Granted I don't have 2 years doing X but if you hire me I will apply myself, I am ready and willing to learn, to work the long hours etc...
Now of course that doesn't apply for all "entry level jobs", there are some out there that are really entry level-and I urge any unemployed/mal-employed who comes across such a position to apply regardless or naught it is there "dream position".
But to the employers holding out for that perfect candidate, to the employer who advertises "entry level" as Need 2-3 years doing X, I ask why? What happened to hiring a guy even though he does not the exact major you want and the work experience, what happened to training and investing long term into the candidate?
I am sure history has shown that there are/where countless people hired who did not meet the exact qualifications, but with time and training are currently good employees. If that is the case why now are the job qualifications for entry level positions so stringent? If you hired Bob in 2000 with a history degree and no work experience to work (yet he had a great resume and cover letter along with a superb interview) to work in IT-and with time and training Bob is doing a good job in IT, why now in 2013 when a similar IT job is posted, why now require the degree to be exactly IT and by god you must have 2-3 years previous experience? Bob is proof that you can hire and train someone without the exact qualifications and things will turn out fine. Why now are the qualifications so strict?
I agree. We should wonder what happened to training. What did happen to it, the issue of funding. Companies were more tight financially due to major losses for almost all of 2009. The issue is since we have seen record profits (helped by bubble that is the Quantitative Easing phases) we have not seen training REALLY return. We see cyclical periods of employment and unemployment.
As for the experience issue. It comes from the employer market. They see many candidates with a degree and no direct experience submit resumes and applications. Because of this (and partially the training) we have seen the two-three years experience for entry-level work. It now seems entry-level work is actually the previous step up but at the discounted entry-level price tag.
A lot of this is simple short sightedness. Every company just wants to poach a candidate that someone else has trained. The problem is now noone is doing any training, and we have a large segment of the population (Baby-boomers) who are going to be leaving the labor market soon. As a result, a good ammount of job knowledge may be lost forever. There may well be serious skills shortages in the future not because of lazy stupid millenials, but stupid short sighted companies not training the work force and thus forcing the educated workers to work unskilled jobs and not be able to aquire the skils necessary to replace the departing babyboomers.
A lot of this is simple short sightedness. Every company just wants to poach a candidate that someone else has trained. The problem is now noone is doing any training, and we have a large segment of the population (Baby-boomers) who are going to be leaving the labor market soon. As a result, a good ammount of job knowledge may be lost forever. There may well be serious skills shortages in the future not because of lazy stupid millenials, but stupid short sighted companies not training the work force and thus forcing the educated workers to work unskilled jobs and not be able to aquire the skils necessary to replace the departing babyboomers.
I doubt this apocalyptic scenario will occur.
Retiring baby boomers are currently senior/experienced employees. As they retire their positions will be filled by gen X middle managers who have a great deal of experience themselves. These will be replaced by the next generation, etc.
Ultimately a lot of lower level jobs will open up, but those jobs won't actually require a lot of experience.
Your nightmare scenario would really only occur if boomers and genx retired at the same time, as millennials generally do not currently have the experience to be senior managers, craftsmen, surgeons, etc.
I'm just glad I have a great and stable job and that I never have to play retarded interview games again with any luck. It is ridiculous too passive, talks to much, babbles, doesn't show enough interest in the end you just can't win. It is just ridiculous the crude psychobabble and faulty logic that decides who gets hired rather than qualifications. Companies deserve every inept employee they hire.
Also I can't stand HR because one they inflict their poor logic and crazy gimicks on people. They built an entire profession about making broad bigoted generalizations like a KKK member and crude junk-science psychology and they are actually given credence.
A while ago a group of people became convinced that drinking their own urine would slow the aging process. Since it didn't affect me I could just roll my eyes and wave it off as a bunch of kook acting like idiots. HR has beliefs just as idiotic the difference is they are in a position to inflict them on others ie make you drink the urine. That is why I and other people object to them. That and I can't stand psychobabble, I pride myself on having never taken a psychology course in my life. I just wish those bimbos would spend their time doing benefits administration or other stuff that is actually productive and leave employees and candidates alone and let them be productive.
I posted this extreme example a while back but
Amen! You and me both. I am so glad I don't have to worry about that nonsense either.
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.
