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.
Agreed. Of course, keep in mind that you can with no effort at all find mental cases who honestly believe that all the people who are out of work are "lazy bums with no skill who don't want to work." Because apparently we're to believe that all of a sudden millions upon millions of Americans forgot their skills and education and decided that's it better to live in poverty on unemployment vs. having real jobs. Any society in which a large percentage of the people can arrive at such an insane conclusion is one that is both lacking in reasoning ability and much of a future.
Anyone with an internet connection can hunt for jobs, and if they look in a field in which they have experience, they will rapidly arrive at the conclusion that the "skills gap" is a myth - the companies are simply creating unreasonable expectations for employment. When job requirements are so narrow that the only "qualified" applicants are those who work at that company, it becomes impossible for the unemployed to find work - and this doesn't even factor in nonsense such as "no unemployed need apply" or fake jobs that exist only to bring in visa workers, give the job to a friend or relative, etc.
Governance by both parties has failed since both of them answer to the same vested interests - and those entities see no value in maintaining the American middle class, nor do they hold any loyalty to this nation; once they strip out all the wealth from us, they'll just move someplace else like glorified parasites.
You know, sometimes I wonder what the point is.
I made it through the final rounds of interviews from a company. It's a little bit of a career jump for me (different programming language). I don't make any guarantees that I'm the best XYZ programmer out there on my resume/cover letter - I have used it a bit in college, but I haven't used it much over the years, other than to read up some tutorials to try to keep my syntax fresh. But, I still am a little rusty, but willing to learn.
Apparently they hired someone with a bit more experience. I can understand that, I think they hired someone internally who just graduated. So they probably had XYZ syntax beaten into their head much more recently. I'm disappointed. I'm not bitter but I can understand why.
I then thought that I should take a refresher course or certification class/test at the community college around the corner from where I work. That would probably put me over the top. However, I think, why should I waste my money and time? The place I interviewed is the only place that is hiring anything remotely close to "entry level" programmers in about a 200 mile radius - the course/certification would go unnoticed by most employers.
I made it through the final rounds of interviews from a company. It's a little bit of a career jump for me (different programming language). I don't make any guarantees that I'm the best XYZ programmer out there on my resume/cover letter - I have used it a bit in college, but I haven't used it much over the years, other than to read up some tutorials to try to keep my syntax fresh. But, I still am a little rusty, but willing to learn.
Apparently they hired someone with a bit more experience. I can understand that, I think they hired someone internally who just graduated. So they probably had XYZ syntax beaten into their head much more recently. I'm disappointed. I'm not bitter but I can understand why.
I then thought that I should take a refresher course or certification class/test at the community college around the corner from where I work. That would probably put me over the top. However, I think, why should I waste my money and time? The place I interviewed is the only place that is hiring anything remotely close to "entry level" programmers in about a 200 mile radius - the course/certification would go unnoticed by most employers.
This is another valid point. While classes and such may hold some benefit in the IT / software world, they aren't worth a hill of beans outside that realm, at least in the technical fields. There is no job description out there that asks for: "Must have 3 to 5 years experience with Solidworks. Or, have taken a class in it." No, they want the professional experience - years of it - and while a class is nice, it won't get you past the resume filters, much less past the interview. I've lost track of how many times I've had to throw this fact back in the face of people who trumpet about "keeping your skills up to date!" because, apparently, we're all supposed to develop years of professional experience in alternative engineering fields and software tools in our free time... such as designing jet engines in my basement in Catia while working on radar systems by day in NX. Argh!
This is another valid point. While classes and such may hold some benefit in the IT / software world, they aren't worth a hill of beans outside that realm, at least in the technical fields. There is no job description out there that asks for: "Must have 3 to 5 years experience with Solidworks. Or, have taken a class in it." No, they want the professional experience - years of it - and while a class is nice, it won't get you past the resume filters, much less past the interview. I've lost track of how many times I've had to throw this fact back in the face of people who trumpet about "keeping your skills up to date!" because, apparently, we're all supposed to develop years of professional experience in alternative engineering fields and software tools in our free time... such as designing jet engines in my basement in Catia while working on radar systems by day in NX. Argh!
Good luck.
Even in software/IT classes and certs are looked on as a bit of a joke. All it means is you met some bare minimum qualification, but many times employers want a lot more than that.
There is a skills gap in the sense that everyone can't get someone in the 80th percentile performance wise. To compound they issue, they only pay them in the 50th percentile pay range.
There is also the problem of how companies advertise jobs and hire. They just throw up a posting on Monster or something, and get hundreds of resume's. Then they have an automated system to filter out people and then HR/recruiter type folk, who don't have any clue what the job actually entails, run the system and do additional filters. Of course, in order to talk to a human, many people feel the need to embellish their applications. Of course, once this is one reason why people think people are generally useless - because one has to game the system to talk to someone.
The other problem is that anyone can join the job boards and apply for any jobs.
The last issue is that companies claim they want to "target the top 1% of candidates." Those candidates are not on the job boards, and are constantly spammed on LinkedIn to the point that it would be a full time job to answer everyone. They generally can get employment whenever or wherever they so choose. You're just a name on the computer screen. Many hiring managers and recruiters (both internal and external) are adverse to actually going to places where these people hang out for whatever reason, like trade meetings.
You are dead on with job boards. Companies basically want as many applicants as possible then use keywords to find the best candidates. The problem with this approach is you, the individual, have to word your resume very carefully so the automated system doesn't cross it off.
Then when you make it past that part you are stuck with HR representatives who basically ask you simple questions that don't have much emphasis on the job itself, and when you ask any specific question about the role they always respond, "That is a great question, and the hiring manager would be better answering that."
Now with the skills gap I think it's a two way street. First the employers are cutting training which hurts everyone, and their expectations with job postings don't reflect what is realistic. A good example I was considered for a temporary SEO job with Allstate, but I was turned down due to not having enough corporate S&P 500 website experience. What was funny is the hiring manager was honest on how the hiring manager was being too picky as no one was meeting her high expectations, but she was advertising a 4 to 6 month temp job that was paying $14 an hour while wanting someone with two to three years of corporate S&P 500 web experience. That is the mentality I've seen all over the board nowadays.
Now in regards to the workers there are plenty of people who don't take the time to market the most desirable skills and experience they have; however, too many HR people don't understand how applicable experience can be used. I got fortunate I got my job as I show knowledge and applicable skills with the ability to learn. I believe that expectations need to be if the candidate shows applicable knowledge and skills, but most importantly seem trainable and able to adapt to your environment. Not everyone is setup that way or willing to adapt, and that is the individual worker's fault. That said, too many mangers expect someone did the same job elsewhere and can go into their workplace and start day 1 with no training or issues.
This whole concept of loyalty to a job is nonsense. its a job not a spouse. They pay you to do a job, if you arent doing it good enough for them they fire you.
I think there is also a growing trend with employers whose management are in their 40's, 50's, and 60's being terrified of ambitious and well-qualified younger workers. That was certainly a part of the reason I chose to start my own business, rather than continue being an underpaid servant to one or more individuals who were often struggling to justify their own bloated compensation. I get the concept of hard work, climbing the ladder, and building both experience and character. What I've never understood is why, now-a-days, this often means increasing laziness and intellectual theft as one progresses up the company food chain. Too many in leadership positions today seem to believe that achieving their post grants them the right to perform actual work as little as possible. I've seen it consistently with my clientele now for seven years enough to feel validated in my belief. It's a tragedy.
I think there is also a growing trend with employers whose management are in their 40's, 50's, and 60's being terrified of ambitious and well-qualified younger workers. That was certainly a part of the reason I chose to start my own business, rather than continue being an underpaid servant to one or more individuals who were often struggling to justify their own bloated compensation. I get the concept of hard work, climbing the ladder, and building both experience and character. What I've never understood is why, now-a-days, this often means increasing laziness and intellectual theft as one progresses up the company food chain. Too many in leadership positions today seem to believe that achieving their post grants them the right to perform actual work as little as possible. I've seen it consistently with my clientele now for seven years enough to feel validated in my belief. It's a tragedy.
So true!
I once had an administrator who seemed to not leave her office for a goddamn thing that had to be taken care of, and instead assigned more and more work and pressure to the director of nursing. At the same place, a six-figure earning nurse employed as director of inservicing sat on his ass most of the day fiddling with Facebook, online betting, BILLIARDS (yes, playing pool at work), and watching movies on his computer.
At another place a top brass guy would assign enormous amounts of work to us underlings and would then leave for the day.
Those who think the most aggressive, intelligent, and best are the only ones employed have no concept of real life in this day and age.
When your own employer refuses to pay you to do your work, why should you treat them with respect?
I'm a scientist in training (grad student). My research grant did not get renewed, and the University makes me do my research work for free. I do a separate job (TAship) for pay. All the while the administrators (which there are too many of) are making $300,000 a year.
Why should I respect an employer who makes me do what I entered the field to do for free, when they have enough money to pay the higher-ups such fat compensation and pension?
When your own employer refuses to pay you to do your work, why should you treat them with respect?
I'm a scientist in training (grad student). My research grant did not get renewed, and the University makes me do my research work for free. I do a separate job (TAship) for pay. All the while the administrators (which there are too many of) are making $300,000 a year.
Why should I respect an employer who makes me do what I entered the field to do for free, when they have enough money to pay the higher-ups such fat compensation and pension?
You're a grad student, not a professional. Grad students are basically slave labor. Administrators are a different profession than what you're training for anyway.
There seems to be a lot of bitterness in the Work and Employment forum. But, I guess it wouldn't be very interesting if everyone were happy as clams.
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.
