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.
This has to be the 25th time this idiotic ad has been posted.
Receptionist with property mgt. experience (http://detroit.craigslist.org/okl/ofc/2098133600.html - broken link)
How can you expect someone with property management experience for an entry level position? It's a 1099 at that!!! This is why you can't find anyone to fill the position genius!!!
My god, if only we could send these people to Mars. I PRAY this employer one day ends up in the unemployment line, and I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.
I don't know what pay scales and the cost of living are like where you live, but around here that's still "entry-level" pay for office staff.
It all depends on how the company values the position. If the company were a MARKETING FIRM, the first contact a new client would have would be with the receptionist who answers the phones. You want your BEST communicator to make the first impression. How many companies LOSE BUSINESS because of the first contact.
Have you ever called a company for a service and hung up because they did not seem very "intelligent"?
Right next to compensation it says as clear as day "ENTRY LEVEL POSITION." I even took the initiative to bold it and underline it just in case "your type" came around.
yup - ya got me. I missed that. Although I'm now curious on what "your type" is....
There is a big disconnect between what entry level means to the average person versus what it means in HR speak. In HR speak, entry level means requiring between 0 and 2 years of experience, so in this add, it is actually used correctly, even though requiring two years of experience certainly doesn't sound very entry level to most people.
I'm not saying companies don't underpay their employees, or don't make unreasonable demands for positions. Frankly, I agree with most of what has been said here. And "entry level" certainly is misused beyond the HR definition. But that is often why you see "entry level" on a lot of job descriptions.
It all depends on how the company values the position. If the company were a MARKETING FIRM, the first contact a new client would have would be with the receptionist who answers the phones. You want your BEST communicator to make the first impression. How many companies LOSE BUSINESS because of the first contact.
Have you ever called a company for a service and hung up because they did not seem very "intelligent"?
I did that with a college actually. I was asking them about a degree in Communications and they kept saying, "Special Education". After a few minutes of correcting them they finally understood that I did not want to be a Special Education teacher. Looking back on it now, I'm wondering if maybe they were making a joke about my major instead, LOL. Nah, I love my major and it's helped me out.
There is a big disconnect between what entry level means to the average person versus what it means in HR speak. In HR speak, entry level means requiring between 0 and 2 years of experience, so in this add, it is actually used correctly, even though requiring two years of experience certainly doesn't sound very entry level to most people.
I'm not saying companies don't underpay their employees, or don't make unreasonable demands for positions. Frankly, I agree with most of what has been said here. And "entry level" certainly is misused beyond the HR definition. But that is often why you see "entry level" on a lot of job descriptions.
The problem with the whole concept of entry level experience is that employers often want experience in niche software applications or tasks, not necessarily 0-2 years professional experience. They also want experience in multiple things making it doubly hard to fit requirements. So even if you have 10 years experience in a similar role, making much more money and responsibility, if you don't have experience in some new software package they picked up 3 years ago, they don't want you. Do employers now doubt peoples ability to learn??? Or are they that desperate as to provide no training and need a niche expert in X for every position and expect them to run it great first day?
Minimum wage is also a decent concept, but not really beneficial. From an economic standpoint, minimum wage is always going to be ZERO, especially in times of high unemployment. It doesn't matter if minimum wage is 8 or 10 or 12, if you are consistently unemployed or underemployed it isn't helping. Plus if these minimum wage entry jobs are not allocated properly to people who truly need it, vs full of teenagers just passing through, it isn't doing what it is designed to do.
I went on an interview just awhile ago for a professional position requiring YEARS of experience, and then when I asked salary said it was 10-11 an hour negotiable... I politely turned it down. Seriously this job should at least be paying 18-20 (or did only a few years ago) I'm already making 10 an hour part time just down the block in my neighborhood. Why would I do 10 an hour plus a commute for some office job I'm going to be worked to death in. Apparently there are some people who will take it though. I'd rather work my crappy job w/ no responsibility for 10 an hour vs some corporate office with people breathing down my shoulder for 10 an hour any day.
I talked to another interviewer, they said the position I was interviewing for has been open for 5 months!!! Because they are looking for the "perfect" candidate... Yeah it isn't entry level, but it isn't that advanced either. In that time period I'm sure you could have found somebody with similar skills... But the hiring people there are so hell bent on getting exactly the perfect fit, it has surely come at their demise internally/profit.
I talked to another interviewer, they said the position I was interviewing for has been open for 5 months!!! Because they are looking for the "perfect" candidate... Yeah it isn't entry level, but it isn't that advanced either. In that time period I'm sure you could have found somebody with similar skills... But the hiring people there are so hell bent on getting exactly the perfect fit, it has surely come at their demise internally/profit.
That is very common right now. Makes no $$$/sense. By the time they find the perfect candidate (which was the one that just quit) they could have hired someone 80% perfect, and trained them the other 20%.
The problem with the whole concept of entry level experience is that employers often want experience in niche software applications or tasks, not necessarily 0-2 years professional experience. They also want experience in multiple things making it doubly hard to fit requirements. So even if you have 10 years experience in a similar role, making much more money and responsibility, if you don't have experience in some new software package they picked up 3 years ago, they don't want you. Do employers now doubt peoples ability to learn??? Or are they that desperate as to provide no training and need a niche expert in X for every position and expect them to run it great first day? . . .
I certainly agree with you there. I was just trying to point it there there is a definition businesses tend to use, albeit a rather arbitrary one.
I think one of the big problems with wanting specific training today is that the younger generations aren't as invested in being with a company as the older ones were (though I would argue this also has something to do with the fact that corporations aren't investing as much in their employees as they used to). I have definitely heard bosses complaining about training people that they think will leave soon anyway, which is probably why many companies today seem to want employees that are "pre-trained".
I hear you on holding out or the "perfect candidate" that doesn't exist. I've applied for several jobs that I've more than met the requirements for only to be told I don't meet the requirements. When I ask why, they say, sure they were looking for one year experience minimum, but really they want someone with five, and my two doesn't cut it. (Thanks for wasting my time . . . ) My fiance applied for a job once advertised as no experience necessary (some preferred) where he had a year's worth of experience, was certified, and had won awards doing the job. They wouldn't even interview him. When he asked why . . . they were looking for someone with more experience. What experience they thought they were going to get for a $10/hour, varied hours position I don't know. The sad thing that the people who have the experience want more money than the employers are willing to give, and the job ends up going to someone with the experience but in a desperate situation where they need a job now and can't negotiate.
I certainly agree with you there. I was just trying to point it there there is a definition businesses tend to use, albeit a rather arbitrary one.
I think one of the big problems with wanting specific training today is that the younger generations aren't as invested in being with a company as the older ones were (though I would argue this also has something to do with the fact that corporations aren't investing as much in their employees as they used to). I have definitely heard bosses complaining about training people that they think will leave soon anyway, which is probably why many companies today seem to want employees that are "pre-trained".
I hear you on holding out or the "perfect candidate" that doesn't exist. I've applied for several jobs that I've more than met the requirements for only to be told I don't meet the requirements. When I ask why, they say, sure they were looking for one year experience minimum, but really they want someone with five, and my two doesn't cut it. (Thanks for wasting my time . . . ) My fiance applied for a job once advertised as no experience necessary (some preferred) where he had a year's worth of experience, was certified, and had won awards doing the job. They wouldn't even interview him. When he asked why . . . they were looking for someone with more experience. What experience they thought they were going to get for a $10/hour, varied hours position I don't know. The sad thing that the people who have the experience want more money than the employers are willing to give, and the job ends up going to someone with the experience but in a desperate situation where they need a job now and can't negotiate.
Yeah I agree... As far as not staying with an employer too long... Eh I am not so sure it is that, I would say it is more of the employers. Gauging by the fact that many don't offer pensions and worthless retirement plans to begin with and can fire you at will, abolished unions in many states, etc.
I would say the majority of people in these situations aren't quitting, they are being laid off or fired.
There might be a few markets such as competitive finance that are more prone to job hopping and this is portrayed in the media, but for the most part not so much. Other prestigious fields would LOVE to have long term employment. Look at all the people gunning to get partner at a law firm, tenure on a university faculty, or residency at a hospital.
I would be *glad* to sign some kind of workers agreement contract where I will guarantee I will be there X # of years if I maintain my end of the bargain.
Some other countries have such agreements like France. The caveat is, it is harder to land a job there, BUT it is also a lot harder to get fired.
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.
