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.
The last thing the US needs is more laws. Permatemps could refuse to be permatemps!
If corporations wouldn't behave like complete slime and moral cretins and hurt and shame themselves and the country there wouldn't need to be so many laws forcing even such a low minimum moral standard.
The choice of accepting permatemp status or be unemployed is like a choice between someone being mugged of handing over their wallet or letting themselves be shot, no real choice at all.
Chemical enginneers are considered more marketable than chemists because they have knowledge to come up with efficient and economic ways to turn raw materials that chemists synthesized into high quality finished goods. They are the catalyst of commercializing products quickly into the market so the companies can have it approved and used in market so they can make profit. They are considered a better asset to R&D labs because they bring the company to profit quicker than chemists; therefore, they get hired directly with benefits without starting out as a temp like chemists. Even individuals with just a bachelors in chemical engineering get hired directly at my company and sometimes their salary is comparable to what a PHD chemist makes.
Could it be that careers for chemists are by nature generally flat with few career ladders to climb like becoming an SVP? Hence, there occurs a lot of pooling of employees at the bottom with fewer openings vs. available candidates? Whereas maybe for chemical engineers, there is more opportunity in private industry to promote them upwards like managing bigger projects, larger teams, if not the entire company itself? Then as engineers get promoted upwards, that creates more jobs to be filled at the bottom.
Could it be that careers for chemists are by nature generally flat with few career ladders to climb like becoming an SVP? Hence, there occurs a lot of pooling of employees at the bottom with fewer openings vs. available candidates? Whereas maybe for chemical engineers, there is more opportunity in private industry to promote them upwards like managing bigger projects, larger teams, if not the entire company itself? Then as engineers get promoted upwards, that creates more jobs to be filled at the bottom.
According to the labor statistics 2,200 jobs will be created for chemists by 2020 which is slower than most professions; however, there will be 22,000 chemistry graduates a year. Granted that not all chemistry majors have desire to be a chemist. Most are planning to go to medical, dental, and pharmacy school. There still not enough jobs to go around for available candidates; therefore, most Chem graduates end up in dead end lab/chemical technician positions that only individuals with an associates degree in science would do. Now a bachelors in chemistry is equivalent to an associates in chemistry in terms of job prospects in the profession. Masters in chemistry is no better as many of them are working dead end technician jobs or lab coordinator jobs in academia. At the PHD level it's a freak show of exploitation and abuse by academic professors and endless post docs of candidates that want to become professors but majority of them won't become professors because the number of available tenured professor positions outstrips demand. If they hit the industry the experience and skills they have better be in demand if they want to get a research scientist positions. That pretty much explains why temp agencies have taken over this profession and most chemists remain as permatemps as the companies they work for cannot create enough positions for these chemists.
The choice of accepting permatemp status or be unemployed is like a choice between someone being mugged of handing over their wallet or letting themselves be shot, no real choice at all.
I understand the need to take a survival job. I admire it, actually. I agree, we sometimes have to make difficult choices when faced with the alternative of unemployment.
However, the permatemps I have encountered do not continue seeking employment elsewhere. They get their contract job and CHOOSE to stay for years. If employers treat temps as expendable resources and offer them no loyalty for their service, the permatemps should feel ZERO guilt returning that favor. "Here's my 2 weeks notice, boss; I landed a permanent job elsewhere that, you know, pays me for holidays and generally doesn't treat me as a meaningless cog."
I understand the need to take a survival job. I admire it, actually. I agree, we sometimes have to make difficult choices when faced with the alternative of unemployment.
However, the permatemps I have encountered do not continue seeking employment elsewhere. They get their contract job and CHOOSE to stay for years. If employers treat temps as expendable resources and offer them no loyalty for their service, the permatemps should feel ZERO guilt returning that favor. "Here's my 2 weeks notice, boss; I landed a permanent job elsewhere that, you know, pays me for holidays and generally doesn't treat me as a meaningless cog."
You statement is very true. Don't become complacent with working for a company that keeps your as a permatemp for 2-3 years. That means that company has no respect for you. If they were not satisfied with your performance they would have been got rid of that worker. The folks you know that are permatemps you should highly suggest they seek employment somewhere else. They should have enough experience on their resume to land a permanant position in their profession. If I am not a permanant employee by the end of this year I am going to update my resume and start applying to permanant chemists positions. Many do have to start off as temps to build their resume up with experience but once they have the experience and there still a permatemp. Apply for new full time jobs and leave. MSChemist80 did the same thing once he got enough experience on his resume. He landed a chemist position with good pay and told his permatemp company to go to H**l! I agree don't work as a temp for no longer than a year and go get another permanent position in your field. IMHO, if company does not want to hire you after 6 months or initiate a process of hiring you, you most likely won't become a regular employee for that company.
I spent the entire nearly time I was at Pepsi searching but most other companies were also permatemp companies or a few offered me even worse pay.
That's the same experience I am going through. All the hits I am getting off my resume are jobs that pay $15-20 a hour that is no better or worse than my current temp gig. I only have experience working in academic lab as a research assistant and about 6 months of industry experience in a R&D lab from my current temp gig. I guess I won't be competitive for permanant positions for another year. These direct hire positions ask for a lot of experience because companies refuse to train workers.
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.
