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 dont see companies changing because some are complaining about their hiring methods. Maybe you guys should flashmob them
The 99% thing didnt ever get anywhere BTW
I don't think the poster was suggesting companies would receive intense backlash due to hiring practices. What they are saying is a little bad press can go a long way in deteriorating a company's reputation, possibly to the point of harming the bottom line. There are many examples of this in the past.
Unfortunately, I believe most Americans are completely oblivious in this day and age. They opt for quick, cheap and convenient alternatives as opposed to shopping in a humanitarian fashion. I mean, we all know Iphones are basically made with pseudo slave labor, yet people still love them. If Apple offered an Iphone made in America at a 50% markup, how many would seriously buy one?
I don't think the poster was suggesting companies would receive intense backlash due to hiring practices. What they are saying is a little bad press can go a long way in deteriorating a company's reputation, possibly to the point of harming the bottom line. There are many examples of this in the past.
Unfortunately, I believe most Americans are completely oblivious in this day and age.They opt for quick, cheap and convenient alternatives as opposed to shopping in a humanitarian fashion.I mean, we all know Iphones are basically made with pseudo slave labor, yet people still love them. If Apple offered an Iphone made in America at a 50% markup, how many would seriously buy one?
I'm around very highly value and highly paid people and even this guy beside me making $500k per year cannot/would not even say he is that valuable to the success of the company. He's even the one who would say "we're lucky to have jobs" and "we're paid to be ***** on"
I don't know about that. I have seen some companies and worked in some places where the staffing was low to the point where some positions had people with so much experience that it would be next to impossible to hire someone at the same caliber for I would argue months.
To get experience in a system that is propreitary means to work within the organization. By limiting staffing it actually increases the power some of these people have I would argue moreso then if it ever unionized.
I don't know about that. I have seen some companies and worked in some places where the staffing was low to the point where some positions had people with so much experience that it would be next to impossible to hire someone at the same caliber for I would argue months.
To get experience in a system that is propreitary means to work within the organization. By limiting staffing it actually increases the power some of these people have I would argue moreso then if it ever unionized.
I think I touched on this already. You speak in future tense, but trust me, the companies already went thru that 'experiment' of hiring fresh grads. Even I was in favor of that, before I saw the ultimate outcome. I managed and trained some of those new hires. a bunch of us did. I would give it a 10% success rate (i'm in finance IT) so it's not exactly working.
Some parts of the country have nearly full employment, and not man applicants for each available job, and are not as hard to get a job with as the employers know they have a smaller opportunity to be highly selective.
In other parts, there are hundreds of applicants for every available job. They can be very selective, and only take someone that fits the job to a T. They see no reason, to even interview anyone that is not a perfect match on paper, and are going to select only the one that fits the job perfectly. They can select people that are highly qualified due to education, and experience.
The big question is, why should they not be that selective, and demand experience as well as education when there are large number of applicants? To do otherwise would be stupid, as it does not make good business sense.
Some parts of the country have nearly full employment, and not man applicants for each available job, and are not as hard to get a job with as the employers know they have a smaller opportunity to be highly selective.
In other parts, there are hundreds of applicants for every available job. They can be very selective, and only take someone that fits the job to a T. They see no reason, to even interview anyone that is not a perfect match on paper, and are going to select only the one that fits the job perfectly. They can select people that are highly qualified due to education, and experience.
The big question is, why should they not be that selective, and demand experience as well as education when there are large number of applicants? To do otherwise would be stupid, as it does not make good business sense.
No one is arguing that they shouldn't be selective. I personally want to work with other smart people myself. It's this general idea out there that there aren't enough smart people to do the jobs. You should really try reading the article in the OP. I think the author does a good job of getting his point across.
I'm not talking about steady growth - I agree that's fair. My point is that I'm seeing more and more graduates that are expecting step change salaries (unrealistic) after 2 years. When they don't get them, they change jobs to try and force that but frequently end up earning only a little more than they would have done anyway.
As an example; when an employee at my company hits about 2 years of experience they get charged out at a certain rate. Over and above normal rate increases to deal with inflation etc that rate won't change until say 5 years experience at which point it hits the next grade. I can't give them the step change in salary until I can hit the step change in rate. There are exceptions to that, and there is a small amount of flexibility. That's not to say that they don't get decent raises, but they're not going to double their salary for example.
I don't see how that's complacency. It's business. We have to make money, plain and simple.
Of course, when you lose them, that is also just business. They want to make more money, plain and simple, and via your voluntary attrition of said employee, the employee found a way to make more money.
That is how the market is supposed to function. While you may view it as unrealistic, by obtaining a higher salary elsewhere, even if only by a small amount, they demonstrated that gap in salary is what your next salary level for them was under Fair Market Value by.
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.
for this.
