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.
Are you inferring that everyone who is unemployed is in possession of some high level, difficult to find skillset? I tend to believe the opposite is true of all but a small minority. I would suggest that if the CEOs saying this actually believe what they are saying, then it's time to start training. 30 years ago, businesses didn't whine and complain to congress that they need to sidestep American workers in order to get already trained foreign workers. They actually trained Americans in house. Then again, Americans didn't get 2 years of paid living expenses as they waited for the right job to come around.
This is all on the CEO's and corporations - there are plenty of Americans out of work who have no shortage of skills, education, and experience. Ah, but they don't have "3 to 5 years of experience designing automotive side panels in Catia version 4.2 in a Six Sigma environment." or whatever the nonsensically narrow job requires. So, instead, the companies bring in visa workers, send the jobs overseas, or just hire nobody. Funny how the "skills gap" suddenly no longer matters when you can hire people for pennies on the dollar even if they can barely speak English.
As for getting 2 years of living expenses, that hasn't been true for a few years now - unemployment no longer lasts that long - and nobody in their right mind would chose unemployment, which has a low payment cap and is, at max, half your salary, over actually working in their field. Now, sure, they might chose it over working part time at a poverty wage job, but if that's all our nation has to offer - part-time, poverty wage work to people with solid skills and experience, than that is the fault of the nation and big business, not the fault of the citizens who can do so much more but are being denied that opportunity in favor of labor exploitation overseas.
Are you inferring that everyone who is unemployed is in possession of some high level, difficult to find skillset? I tend to believe the opposite is true of all but a small minority. I would suggest that if the CEOs saying this actually believe what they are saying, then it's time to start training. 30 years ago, businesses didn't whine and complain to congress that they need to sidestep American workers in order to get already trained foreign workers. They actually trained Americans in house. Then again, Americans didn't get 2 years of paid living expenses as they waited for the right job to come around.
Looks like we are graduating more STEM workers than there are jobs available, for example.
The gap isn't the graduates, the issue is company's don't see the need to train and yet complain when they cannot find people with their exact requirement and do not think they need to change it or better yet be willing to train. Companies want a quick profit from their investment but when they want you to jump to their job without giving your employer two week notice, but escort you to give it to them even when they don't want to invest in you and give you the respect you deserve as an employee.
The gap isn't the graduates, the issue is company's don't see the need to train and yet complain when they cannot find people with their exact requirement and do not think they need to change it or better yet be willing to train. Companies want a quick profit from their investment but when they want you to jump to their job without giving your employer two week notice, but escort you to give it to them even when they don't want to invest in you and give you the respect you deserve as an employee.
The graduates are a gap as well - and one that can easily be measured. You have X graduates, Y job openings, where X > Y. This doesn't include people that are underemployed or even have experience in the area.
Graduates fall into your scenario as well, as they will need a bit of training.
Ah, but they don't have "3 to 5 years of experience designing automotive side panels in Catia version 4.2 in a Six Sigma environment." or whatever the nonsensically narrow job requires.
If you think that's a "narrow" job requirement either you don't know what those words (Catia, Six Sigma) mean, or your don't realize what is broad versus narrow.
If you think that's a "narrow" job requirement either you don't know what those words (Catia, Six Sigma) mean, or your don't realize what is broad versus narrow.
The rest of your comment made some good points.
With all due respect, I know exactly what Catia and Six Sigma mean.
The point is that for the example job post - which was almost identical to some I've seen floating around automotive company websites - they won't consider somebody who's versed in a different high-end CAD tool, such as Pro/E or NX, nor will they consider somebody who's versed in a different quality management system, such as TQM, etc. Once you learn one high-end CAD tool or quality system, you can get up to speed on another, but that - gasp! - means you might not be fully productive on day one, the horror!
By narrowing the list applicants to: very specific roles, specific CAD tools or other software packages, and specific processes, they rapidly reach the point where "nobody is qualified." Then, they either leave the job up there for years, hire the boss's unqualified son, or import a far cheaper (but also unqualified) visa worker instead... while having the nerve to whine about the "skills gap."
Heck, it's gotten so bad I'm seeing job postings that expect or "strongly prefer" experience with company proprietary software, processes, etc. Give me a break... why even post such nonsense jobs if nobody outside the company is qualified! I know, I know - so HR can say "we interviewed external candidates," but that doesn't make it right.
With all due respect, I know exactly what Catia and Six Sigma mean.
Then you must know that that's not "narrow".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123
The point is that for the example job post - which was almost identical to some I've seen floating around automotive company websites - they won't consider somebody who's versed in a different high-end CAD tool, such as Pro/E or NX, nor will they consider somebody who's versed in a different quality management system, such as TQM, etc.
The learning curve for high-end CAD tools justify that requirement - "narrow" would be something much more specific. And if you think knowing TQM makes you ready-to-rock with Six Sigma then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I used to teach TQM (more years ago than I want to admit) and I wouldn't have applied for a Six Sigma job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123
Once you learn one high-end CAD tool or quality system, you can get up to speed on another, but that - gasp! - means you might not be fully productive on day one, the horror!
Sorry but your derision doesn't jive with a substantive understanding of the realities of today's business.
You don't have to like it for it to be the best approach for the companies given the environment they operate in and the other constraints they have to contend with.
Moving what goalposts? When I started at my first engineering job, I wasn't familiar with their CAD tool - my background was with another one. So, what did the company do? They gave me (along with a bunch of other new people) a week-long training course and I was up to speed enough to do my job. Nowadays, they'd post a job demanding that specific CAD tool, and probably 3 to 5 years experience as well.
Sorry, but if a week long training class is not "reasonable," than we all may as well just accept never being able to transfer between fields or even companies since if your company uses Pro/E and the other guy uses NX, you're hosed. Now, extend that to quality systems, and so on, and we're back to jobs being only open to current or former employees of the company. If that's the system we're in, then we also must extend UE insurance indefinitely and end all claims about there being "plenty of jobs" since those jobs are not really open to much of anyone.
I agree that it's not fair and that government action of some sort is needed to end this BS about "no qualified Americans" and then they just outsource the jobs or bring in visa workers... all I'm saying is that the companies are being grossly unreasonable in their demands. NOBODY is "up to speed" on a job at the beginning unless they literally just left the place a few weeks earlier or the job is something as simple as sweeping a floor.
It's even more difficult for many in the skilled trades.
There's a clear delineation between computer guys and non-computer guys in the trades. Yet all of the ads which I have seen are seeking maintenance guys with CMMS (computerized maintenance management software) experience in addition to multiple years of experience. Guys who have both almost always already have a gig. Or they are like me and they are more interested in working contract and making much better wages.
I had a snotty recruiter call me the other day and state that her "client" wanted a maintenance supervisor who was both hands-on AND knew maintenance planning software packages. She quoted me a figure (I asked for the compensation involved to see if this was worth my while) and she quoted me a figure which was less than what I would make going back to hands-on w/o being supervisor and hourly. She also stated that the maintenance planning software package experience had to be at LEAST 15 years (the particular software she mentioned wasn't on the market 15 years ago).
Needless to say I thanked her and hung up the phone. If they DO ever get someone for this role, he (not many "she's" in the trades) will either fake it to make it or use the role to pay their bills until they land something better. Her client seemingly wants a "magical person" for the role and they are going to be very disappointed when they don't find one.
You have to train employees.
You have to train employees.
You have to train employees.
If you have any questions about what you need to do to build a solid workforce please see the above.
Or they are like me and they are more interested in working contract and making much better wages.
Please tell me where those good paying contract positions are. I have over two decades of experience in the electrical and instrumentation fields. I recently got hit up by a recruiter to do a contract job for an I/E technician. The pay rate was between 10 to 16 per hour. Ironically, I interviewed for the very company looking to hire said contractors back in 1994 for the very same job. The pay rate back then was 16.56 per hour.
Most companies are too CHEAP to even pay their great performers any more than a few extra pennies to go above and beyond their calling.
Obviously they aren't going to invest in "training". Higher ups have become too GREEDY. Anything that takes money out of their already inflated salary, they will have none of it.
They should create laws for this and start handing out indictments. Its ridiculous what management gets away with nowadays
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.
