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.
I would bet that if companys could sue employees for reimbursement of training if they quit before working for x number of months or years they would be more willing to take a chance on them.
Some do have such agreements in place. At a previous employer, I had to stay with them up to a year if I were to take advantage of their tuition reimbursement program. I don't see anything wrong with that.
But that's not really what this article is about. It's about how employers don't want to pay for talent and henceforth are making the false claim that there is a talent shortage. As I stated in my OP (from the article):
There is a difference between saying we can't find anyone to hire and saying that we can't or don't want to pay the wages needed to hire. Just as there is no shortage of diamonds even though they are expensive—you can buy all you want at the market price—not being able or willing to pay the market price for talent is not a shortage.
Why is it so important for the employers to be straight with you? Sounds like youre the type that needs handholding thru training and cannot process anything by yourself. You know the Easter Bunny, even the tooth fairy is not real. Yes sombody lied to you because its the nicest thing to say during the time
It's a free market in labor, and that sword cuts both ways. Some of these companies will go out of business because they can't or won't hire talent. This isn't a bad thing, it's the way markets work.
My article in The Journal Report on Leadership—"Why Companies Aren't Getting the Employees They Need"—generated an avalanche of reader response. In that piece I argued that companies too often put the blame on our education system for their inability to find the skilled workers they need. Instead, I wrote, companies "need to drop the idea of finding perfect candidates and look for people who could do the job with a bit of training and practice."
My favorite paragraph from the article, which I really believe hits the nail on the head:
A few employers said the amount of money they had to pay to get the talent they needed was outrageous. Indeed, many of the employers who report that there is a shortage of qualified candidates go on to say that qualified candidates won't take the jobs at the wages they are offering them. At this point, it may be uncomfortable but still necessary to bring up how markets work. There is a difference between saying we can't find anyone to hire and saying that we can't or don't want to pay the wages needed to hire. Just as there is no shortage of diamonds even though they are expensive—you can buy all you want at the market price—not being able or willing to pay the market price for talent is not a shortage.
Excellent post. Now the problem that lies beneath it is less obvious, but lethal. The lack of quality employees often inflates the required headcount, so if you saw salaries rise and quality of new hires with it, in a few months or years, you'd see corps right-sizing their headcounts down.
I'm sure if employers asked employees to sign fixed term contracts for employees there would be many employees(the majority) who would agree to sign such contracts where their employment was for 2-3 years by contract. But of course an employer wouldn't be caught dead signing such a contract. So things are the way they are.
But in a sense sometimes there ARE such contracts. Grant funded positions are just that. With unions the contracts can usually last three years at most. If they are out of contract then they might want retroactive pay for the out of contract activity.
The other thing is some companies have non competitive agreements. I personally know people that have had some from six months all the way to two years. When you cannot take what you learn from a job and go to another and possibly back that's just odd. It's not like it's the military.
"Why is it so important for the employers to be straight with you?"
I know this wasn't directed towards me but generally over the past few decades the private sector has to become more like the public. It has to because frankly social media begs for transparency, shareholders want transparency and the government does as well. Hiding things doesn't work well, just ask the NSA!
These days companies have to be afraid of their image because all it takes is one slip...could be on a twitter feed like home depot, could be a wrong word like that sneaker in the late 90's snopes.com: Incubus Shoe it could be a CEO firing someone in front of others (AOL) and the list goes on and on. Corporate scandles a decade ago led to Sarbanes Oxley which pretty much means you have to be responsible.
"Why is it so important for the employers to be straight with you?"
I know this wasn't directed towards me but generally over the past few decades the private sector has to become more like the public. It has to because frankly social media begs for transparency, shareholders want transparency and the government does as well. Hiding things doesn't work well, just ask the NSA!
These days companies have to be afraid of their image because all it takes is one slip...could be on a twitter feed like home depot, could be a wrong word like that sneaker in the late 90's snopes.com: Incubus Shoe it could be a CEO firing someone in front of others (AOL) and the list goes on and on. Corporate scandles a decade ago led to Sarbanes Oxley which pretty much means you have to be responsible.
Ok youre just mashing all these things to 'explain' something Do you really think most people care about how their iphones/tablets are made, how many people suffer in diamond and other mines out there. do they care about the guy who got that table salt, that turkey on the table, the milk, the processed foods, the wars for oil, how banks make money, how lawmakers make money. Noone cares about everything 'wrong' out there. People will go to work, war, produce, sell, deal etc. sometimes you dont need to know, be aware but just play, unless youre still in the boyscouts. o ther wise suck it up and start from the bottom like everyone else
Excellent post. Now the problem that lies beneath it is less obvious, but lethal. The lack of quality employees often inflates the required headcount, so if you saw salaries rise and quality of new hires with it, in a few months or years, you'd see corps right-sizing their headcounts down.
Not every new hire will end up working out, but that's the risk associated with hiring people to do a job for you, and from an employee standpoint, the risk of leaving one job for another. I don't mind this dynamic. What I find slightly irritating is reading/hearing from employers that they can't find good enough talent. Is that really what's going on here? Because I don't buy it. I think employers need to stop making excuses, step up to the plate and hire smart people at a reasonable rate (that they can afford, not necessarily what they prefer). Sure, these people may need training, but that's the name of the game. After all, nobody was born from their mother's womb with 10+ years of job experience. EVERYONE started from nothing and it took an employer out there to give them a shot and train them up to get them where they are now.
We contract and H1B workers sign those everytime. And its all for the company's and the agencies protection, it's one way. sometimes we even required to buy $8million professional insurance coverage... another thing for the purpose of sharing risks
That's a different thing entirely though normally. For any kind of visa there are direct costs over and above 'normal' training that the company has to incur and frequently there are things like Green card sponsorship over and above the visa costs. Then there may also be relocation costs if you're bringing someone from another country or area and the costs to the company rack up really quite quickly and can easily be in the $10's of thousands per employee.
I got brought across to the US by my company and had to sign a 2yr agreement to pay back the costs involved (on a prorated scale) if I quit. I had no problem with that - it seemed fair enough to me.
On the subject of not being willing to pay a rate - it's often not a case of not being willing, but not being able. Every company has to make money to stay in business (obviously). Sometimes, graduates and younger employees seem to forget this and expect the earth and switch jobs every year to try and get more and more money. Of course, this is a different issue to there being no talent. In the case of O&G (my line of work) currently there is a shortage of good engineers with 5-15 years experience and this is pushing the salaries of those individuals up to a point where smaller companies are struggling because salaries have a much larger impact on their bottom line than a bigger company. The oil companies are certainly not helping in this regard (pushing up their salaries but not really being willing to budge on the rates they will pay contractors).
Every time you employ somebody there is a training overhead until they get up to speed. It varies by position and also person-to-person. I classify that as normal overhead. If someone is picking things up slowly that should get addressed as early as possible.
Sometimes, graduates and younger employees seem to forget this and expect the earth and switch jobs every year to try and get more and more money.
This mentality is no different from a company trying to grow and make more money each year. Why does it become a problem when grads and young employees want the same out of life? Last time I checked, most entry level salaries are difficult to make a living off of as a single person, not to mention, to purchase a home and raise a family. This is typically the driving force for anyone to want to move up the corporate ladder.
Complacency is the root of stagnation, and stagnation is the root of becoming obsolete. It's wise for any young employee to always be looking ahead, and searching for the next opportunity.
I know of a sheriff's department that requires a paid academy for all of its detention officer hires. If they leave before 1 year, they are required to pay back the money they earned during training. I worked for a security company that paid for level 3 (armed security officer) training and would take the cost of training out of the employee's last check if he/she left before 6 months.
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.
Do you really think most people care about how their iphones/tablets are made, how many people suffer in diamond and other mines out there. do they care about the guy who got that table salt, that turkey on the table, the milk, the processed foods, the wars for oil, how banks make money, how lawmakers make money. Noone cares about everything 'wrong' out there. People will go to work, war, produce, sell, deal etc. sometimes you dont need to know, be aware but just play, unless youre still in the boyscouts. o ther wise suck it up and start from the bottom like everyone else
