Why Companies Aren't Getting the Employees They Need (job opening, employer, find a)
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.
It's not easy to find the best fit for a particular position, rather than abstractly. Who left? What priorities might be changing? It's not bad to consider someone internally, but a company owes it to its clients/audience to put together the best team it can based on its budget.
I think certain groups of people believe that they're inherently better and that "diverse" candidates are somehow inferior. There are plenty of qualified "diverse" candidates, and many unqualified ones as well. Same with "non-diverse" candidates. Not all "non-diverse" individuals are qualified and efficient at their jobs, but they generally aren't stigmatized because of it. "Non-diverse" workers stand on their own and aren't forced to represent all "non-diverse" people at their company. The assumption that "non-diverse" people are automatically more able than "diverse" people is a way of rationalizing why all the senior VP's and c-level execs are "non-diverse." Somehow, they just worked hard and deserved it. If a "diverse" candidate is sitting on top, naturally, it was handed to them because of....ya know...."diversity."
I think you take the issue backward. There is no problem to have a "diverse" top management, but the people should get promoted based on talent and contribution from the bottom, not hired because they represent diversity... that would just be another positive discrimination action.
If there are too many White senior and C-level executives, it's simply because they were vastly represented in those fields for a long time. What I'm trying to say is that everything should take the time t requires but when the CEO wants to fulfil diversity based on some indicators, it ends up being ridiculous. In that case, any "diverse" manager can wonder himself if he's being hired for diversity or not... but nobody denies the fact that there are talented diverse individuals.
So what you're saying is that you plan to violate copyright flagrantly and have no intention of abiding by the parameters of Fair Use, instead attempting to rationalize your transgressions by claiming that Fair Use applies when I pointed out to you clearly how it does not.
This is one of the things that I mentioned earlier in the thread about candidates and their resumes: People just put whatever bs they can think of into their resumes, without any regard for what the information in the resume is to be used for - without any regard for whether they actually are sufficiently proficient at the skills they haphazardly list. The extent to which candidates ignore reasonable parameters in a self-serving attempt to game the system makes searching for new talent an order of magnitude more expensive.
That's absurd. Why would you want to make it harder for a company to outsource? Outsourcing is what made us a great country to begin with. We mastered productivity through outsourcing and created a pool of highly skilled people. Taking that away would be insane.
A lot of these jobs being outsourced are on their way to becoming obsolete anyway. So to keep them, states will have to pony up $$s in subsidies. Does not make sense over time.
In answer to this thread I see all the unemployed engineers, programmers, scientists and when I hear companies complain about trouble finding talent I believe they are completely full of excrement and either moral cretin or totally incompetent.
Could be a regional issue? In NYC where I work, we have trouble finding capable IT people/programmers/BAs/etc. and even our 2nd tier performers find it easy to hop jobs.
A lot of these jobs being outsourced are on their way to becoming obsolete anyway. So to keep them, states will have to pony up $$s in subsidies. Does not make sense over time.
I don't follow.
Trucking/transportation is one of the largest fields that is heavily outsourced. Transportation is not going to become obsolete anytime soon. Why would states need to provide subsidiaries?
Trucking/transportation is one of the largest fields that is heavily outsourced. Transportation is not going to become obsolete anytime soon. Why would states need to provide subsidiaries?
I was talking about jobs like IT, back office and other manufacturing processes. Look at the incentives being dangled by both sides of the Hudson:
That article discusses moving offices/facilities across state borders. It has nothing to do with outsourcing. None of those companies were looking to outsource.
IT, backoffice, and manufacturing will still be needed.
In the 21st century, if you cannot find tremendous employees for every position, you should not be in business. You are inept.
Agreed.
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.
