E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Mark Lennihan / AP
People wait to talk with potential employers at a job fair in New York last December. Despite the high jobless rate, some say it's hard to find good workers.
The slowly improving job market may be exacerbating a problem you may not know this country had: Finding good workers to fill open positions.
A new survey from human resources firm Right Management finds that 27 percent of human resources executives often have trouble finding the right person for key positions. That’s up from 23 percent a year ago.
That may come as a shock to the millions of people who are unemployed, but the lack of qualified candidates is something executives were even complaining about during the depths of the recession.
The Right Management survey of 631 human resources officials and senior executives found that another 61 percent of respondents occasionally have trouble finding the right candidate for the job, about the same as last year. Just 13 percent said they seldom if ever have that trouble, a decrease from last year. The survey was conducted late last year.
Right Management officials said the findings could be a sign that the job market is improving. The economy has been adding jobs, but employment growth has been painfully slow. The unemployment rate stood at 8.2 percent in March, with 12.7 million people actively looking for a job.
Experts say there is legitimate shortage of workers in some fields, such as highly specialized manufacturing jobs.
But some also say that employers grew spoiled during the recession, and either aren’t looking hard enough or aren’t willing to do things like pay moving expenses or provide some training for a new employee.
One problem is that workers who were laid off from a job in a declining industry may need to retrain for a job in a growing industry. That usually requires some money. The New York Times reported Monday that those jobseekers may face tougher times ahead, since federal funds to retrain the jobless are drying up.
Leave a Comment:
I'm not as pretty as y'all but I've always had a very good, disciplined work ethic. Oh well, too bad a pretty package accounts for so much.
Just take a look at this article under 'Most popular posts'.
Why would I want a person that does not take care of themselves (fat) be working in a hospital. Too bad they tell it like it is, but most employers won't hire someone who is fat. They just give a different reason for not hireing you.
Morbid obesity is covered by anti-discrimination laws. Believe what you wish about obesity, but blatant statements like those made by the TX hospital will just invite lawsuits.
The funny thing about laws you have to get caught to be prosecuted.
I know a lot of people that can't get jobs because they can't pass a simple drug test.
Yes there are the simple one is a pee test the harder one is a hair test.
One issue we are forgetting is that business is asking for the more than they need in a position and not willing to pay for it. If they were in real need, business would pay for the updated training, but they don't because they would rather payout bonuses.
On the alternative side, we have become too use to getting paid for little contribution. Basically, showing up for a pay check. Most feel they are entitled to it. Where's the pride, the drive for success?
Combine both of these, and one can see why there is difficulty in finding/filling jobs.
Shauner, looks like you are one of the few that looks at both sides of the issue. You are correct on both counts.
Shauner, most people have been told that they are utterly replaceable, that they had better work hard for that paycheck or else, etc. For the last thirty years, the employer/employee relationship has been nothing but impersonal and adversarial, generally. So, why should employees feel that they shouldn't be entitled to a paycheck? Employers methods of getting productivity has been harassment and belittlement, which is hardly inspires loyalty in employees or makes them want to go the extra mile for their employers. Now, employers are complaining that it's hard to find good help? Seriously? Employers want employees fully trained and ready to get to work with no effort (and no $$$ in training) on their part. Employers have been continuously unreasonable for the last thirty years. They feel that a paycheck entitles them to invade an employees personal life (with drug testing, asking for passwords to social media like Facebook, etc), invade their personal time with electronic devices, insist employees work on their schedules, regardless of the time or the employee's personal life (or lack of it), etc. but, yet, they do not want to give anything to employees other than a paycheck, saying that is all they are obligated to do. Anyone else see the problems?
An honest day's work for an honest day's pay...the problem is that people generally place too high a value on their work and the company, which doesn't OWE anyone a job, want to maximize profits (that's why their in business in the first place) so, of course they will try to get the biggest bang for the buck! Sorry, wages are determined by the market. Unless you have a specialized skill, you ARE easily replaceable...why should an employer pay a premium for a skill that is readily available?
When I was a security guard I have a coworker that thought he was invaluable and he demanded a raise all unarmed guards earned 9.50 all armed earned 11.50. He demanded for a raise or he would quit. he quit.
I know many techs that say "I will leave if I don't get a raise and they get one".
@jwilson1234
There are huge costs to turnover and paying recruiters (whether they are written down on the balance sheet or income statement or not). I think that corporate management in many companies spend a lot of time focused on the wrong things and that causes them a lot of problems. People cannot train themselves on special equipment if they don't have access to them.
If some of these companies spent the money that they are blowing on recruiters, consultants and productivity loss due to turnover on training, I don't think they would have as many issues finding and retaining people.
It also helps when you don't try to burn people out. Realize that employees don't owe you their lives either. They work for you. You don't own them. During the recession, a lot of employers got use to trying get people to do 1.5 to 2 jobs with one person.
Many employers fully expect that the person they hire will be able to walk in the door and do a job with no training on their part. A machining company will want to hire a machinist who has worked on their particular type of machine. A bakery will want to hire someone who has produced their particular type of cakes or pastries.
There is nothing wrong with employers wanting what they want. However, they do need to be willing to pay for the specialized training.
Also, employers need to be willing to do some training, particularly if the position requires some things that are truly unique to their company. They can't expect a systems analyst who is working for BoA to be able to walk into Citibank and do the work without passwords or some training. Many managers who do hiring have unrealistic expectations because they have been doing what they do for so long and they assume everyone knows everything that they do.
You can't get a job because you don't have the right experience to get the job. You can't get the experience to get the job because you can't get a job to get the experience to begin with and nobody wants to train you even when you've gone to college and graduated. Technology is changing quicker than human beings can adapt and employers automatically want you to know everything and going back to college to get the training you need doesn't work for them. What are we supposed to do?
It's not just the technology.
I graduated with a shrinking class of engineers (steady declines for two decades). The biggest engineering generation, the baby-boomers, are retiring, and all the job openings are for their old jobs. How am I supposed to find a good job in the field I want when they're unwilling to take in younger engineers and provide training? When they do take in younger workers, it's for dead-end positions which take a long time to develop but don't have good opportunities for moving up professionally. I don't know who to blame for these expectations, but it's probably a combination of hiring managers being unrealistic and the company leadership being cheap.
I'd put a lot of money on science/tech/engineering industries eventually realizing that they're going to have to spend more on training younger employees, and on good benefits to attract them. But it seems like that revelation is a long way off, and in the meantime I'm stuck in a dead-end programming job that I hate.
I think it's a combination of a lot of things. Yes, companies dont want to invest in training anymore. Further, recent college grads have this unrealistic expectation for a starting salary and benefits, and aren't willing to start at a lower position and prove themselves. (I know this for a fact, since my kid's one of them.) I also think younger workers arent willing to put in the time to earn promotions and move up the ladder. It seems that, if the promotion doesnt happen in the first year, they try to get a promotion by moving on to another company. This mindset is a disincentive to employers investing in training, since the trainee could decide to move to another company within a year, and there goes their training investment.
I also think that HR people need to spend more time reviewing resumes. I recently read that the average HR person spends less than 30 seconds, just over 15 seconds as I recall, reviewing a resume. You cannot tell me that's enough time to make an informed judgement. Ok, so maybe the resume could be written better, but that's another discussion entirely.
Employers could also be more willing to at least help with moving expenses when a transfer is involved. That used to be the case, but no more. You're pretty much on your own, which is nonsense in this housing market. Bottom line, employers could do an awful lot to help themselves to get good people, if they were so inclined.
Applicants, come to your senses. If you are trying to get another job after being downsized and want to make at least what you were making, I think that's a bad decision. Consider this. Whatever an employer is offering, within reason that is, is certainly MORE than you are making now... which is nothing. Have confidence in your ability to prove yourself again if need be, and soon the raise will come and you'll get back to even.
that's my opinion, based on being downsized 4 times in my career. For me, that attitude worked, and I'm now making triple + what I was making when all this nonsense started.
Tostito, what you are supposed to do is start your own business. In fact, if I could go back and do everything over, I would NEVER take a corporate job. EVER. Corporate work is rewarding for a very select few. For most people it is little more than prolonged psychological torture. In the past 7 years I have had 24 managers, survived 22 rounds of layoffs and been laid off once (only to find a new role in the same company on my last day, thus saving me and my family from a very quick trip to homelessness), taken a 35% pay cut, and relocated twice.
I constantly look for work, even though I have a steady and "secure" job. When I lived in CA I always kept some supplies on hand and slept with good shoes next to my bed, in case there was an earthquake (there was more than one!). Constantly looking for the next corporate gig, sending out resumes, networking, staying in touch with recruiters, etc. is the work equivalent of that earthquake preparedness kit.
If you figure out what you really, truly love to do, and then go do that, you will always find a way to make a living, and you could very well end up making quite a good one. You'll never lay yourself off, you'll never work for a complete a-hole of a "manager," and even though you will most assuredly struggle and have to scratch and claw for every deal just to stay alive from time to time, you'll be doing it for YOURSELF.
That's what there is to do. I'm stuck, but you don't have to be.
Jack - I'm going to send a big Thank YOU! your way.
Got laid off in February after 10 years at a DoD company. My position was eliminated. For weeks now, I have gone through all the psychological non-sense of what did I do wrong and look what they did to me. It's all bullsh!t. I've had enough of corporate 'leaders' who consistently vote themselves substantial raises - while the rest of us eat cake.
I'm cashing out my 401k - and am going to put every dime of it on the line to start my own business. It's gonna be tough and it's gonna be tight - but at the very minimum - it will be mine.
They want you to know their system, even though their business is the only one using that system. It's the same old garbage....hire some tall guy as boss, even if he is incompetent, hire some token minorities that everyone has to work harder to compensate for, and then treat your employees like garbage
It's just as hard to find a company that's willing to exercise some loyalty to its workforce.
Shauner... You're right about the work ethic. I've had the opportunity to see a lot of the younger folks around whose work ethic is completely absent including having participated in college recruiting programs. I'm not saying there aren't valuable folks coming out of college, but we have our fair share of lumpers in this country.
I've worked for 47 years, always gave better than I got, and due to "position elimination", am now unemployed. Despite my experience and a double-handful of recommendations, I can't even get an interview. In the past two years, I've had two interviews, despite sending out over two hundred resumes. When they see your age, it's "game over". Companies today want kids right out of college with high tuition loans, so they can pay them peanuts, work them to death, and know they're not going anywhere. My wife of 38 years is disabled and has had some high medical expenses, which is really the nail in the coffin. Despite HIPAA laws, healthcare providers coerce employers into reducing their medical "nut", in order to get better rates. My advice is, don't get old, work cheap, and stay healthy - it's the only way to employment longevity these days, in the land of greed.
cygnus: Keep plugging away, you will find a job. Don't be afraid to tell your employer that what you are looking for is the place to end your career, in 5-10 YEARS.
You have one thing that the young people don't, the experience to be able to do what is needed to get a job done. Change your cover letter and resume. Let the people hiring know that you just need a chance to prove you will be good for their company.
BTW, don't be afraid to follow up with the companies with which you did have interviews, but did not get the job. You have nothing to lose by asking why the other person got the job. I would also go ahead and apply for positions you are under or over qualified for, even jobs you really don't want. Talk to recruiters (head hunters) and job placement companies (depending on your area.) Do anything to keep up your skills, even volunteering.
Been there and done that in this recession. Had to change industries after 15 years (was in a housing related industry.) While it took a year of general looking and 6 months of intense job searching (after my company folded,) eventually I did find a job.
Good luck to you.
Amen! I can identify with giving my employer(s) my ALL and after 5 years, they hire someone else at a lower wage and let me go so they don't have to pay my higher salary.
Hogwash ! Too often, companies expect the candidate to have hands on experience in every job function listed on the job description. Having seen job descriptions containing in excess of 20 bullet points outlining job responsibilities, accountabilities, and requirements, it's no wonder hiring managers claim they can't find qualified candidates. There are qualified candidates out there - the companies need to be willing to take off their blinders and see the potential the candidate brings to the job.
Not to mention when you finally get to the bottom of that massive specialized requirement list , the wages are ...............................wow!! $8.00 an hour !!
I am so excited about that one ! OH and dont forget NO benefits!
This would entail HR people that can think?
Yes its hard to find good people, thanks to liberals and their entitlement mentality that is infecting an ever growing percentage of the population.
yeah... god knows there are no lazy repubblicans. go back to your hole, troll!!
The scarcity of workers is simply the free market at work. If you want a higher caliber of worker and can't find them, then you must offer more money. It's supply and demand. Obviously, these complaining companies want good workers, but don't want to pay for them. That leads me to believe that it is the corporations who have an "entitlement mentality", not liberals.
I feel the pain of all of you who have been unemployed for a while. I've been laid off or lost a job at least 3 times in the past 10 years. In 2006-2007 I was out of work for over 6 months, lost everything and had to move in with my younger sister and I have an MBA. However, circumstance and opportunities once more came my way. Today I am stable, although my health has decline somewhat, but the grey matter is working as well as it ever did. I've been in the IT industry for 25 years and enjoy what I do immensely - I should since this started out as hobby 29 years ago.
However, I know that this technology is evolving rapidly and even I won't be able to keep up with the latest changes. I accept them and use them, but I won't be able to learn the new stuff and apply it like I used to when I was younger - I'm in my mid-50s now, coming up on a b-day later this month.
My future goal and career path is to go back to school, start working on my Phd. so that 10 years from now, I can make recommendations and guide public policy so that we can deal with the issues of unemployment, systemic change and fundamental problems that come with the lack of preparing for technological change. We need to be more prepared for the next economic upheaval so that our society is more ready and more able to deal with the global changes that are yet to come.
There are plenty of qualified people out there. The problem is the companies want you for slave wages, no medical, no pension program, no perks. Several times I have been told that I'm too qualified and would be too expensive. I retired from a job, where I told the boss I would work a hundred hours per week and that I expected to be paid for all the hours I worked. This salary business, when you work untold hours, work at home, etc.. and get one base salary, STINKS.
Yep, that sounds like where I work, as well. I'm expected to work as many hours as is needed to get the job done accurately and in a timely manner. When I do something that I believe should be considered "above and beyond" what is expected of me, instead of a pat on the back or other recognition of a job well done, I get "well, if you could do it once, you could do it all the time"! And then my plate becomes even more overflowing with work. Oh...and three years ago, all the salaried people got their pay cut 10% and there haven't been pay raises in 5 years.
But, you can bet your a$$ that the Board of Directors approved a fat pay increase and bonus check for my lazy CEO every year, who does whatever he sees fit to do to bring in the profits and increase the bottom line. If that means laying off workers by the 100's, closing plants that have been in business for over 100 years....no problem!!
The HR person will tell you on your way out that "it's just a business decision...nothing personal". And that's the whole problem with today's business world....it's not "personal" any longer. You go to school to make you appear more attractive to business owners, they tell you you're overqualified. You work your whole life in the business, you get laid off, saying you make too much money to keep you on. Yet, they expect more, and more, and MORE out of each and every employee....and for less!!
Shameful!
This is not surprising. Too many took the easy way out in college and had majors with little relevance in the business world. Many government workers lost their jobs and do not have the skills needed by companies in the private sector where administrative and clerical jobs have been replaced by computers.
BS about government workers.
Government is challenged everyday by experts who don't work in government.
Government is aheard of most mom and pop businesses I know.
Maybe not fortune 500 companies but again the top 500 businesses in the world should be ahead, right?
Many government workers have a big problem adjusting to work in the private sector where most companies operate based on "pay for performance". Just showing up for work in the morning does not guarantee a paycheck. I realize that there are many good people who work in government jobs. But it can be difficult to shift to a culture where the profit motive is the primary driver of decision making.
As a former govt employee (and now in the private sector) I can tell you that the majority of govt employees - both state and local - have a very poor work ethic and care very little about fiscal restraints (they're not responsible for any P&L statement)...they measure success by how long it takes to empty their inbox! Worse employees ever!
It's not rocket science to learn a new job, learn a new computer program, learn a new process...
However, this isn't instant.
Second they can't pay enough because that will upset the current employees the company is screwing because of the recession.
How many companies lay off 10 workers and expect the remaining 90 to do the same work for the same pay that yesterday was done by more people.
It's ludicrous. If you fire someone, distribute at least 50% of their pay to the people left behind and no one would care. Fire someone and don't give raises and why should anyone work any harder than absolutely necessary.
This is just a ploy to allow the Government to bring in more workers on visas. Are you going to tell me someone from Delhi can walk in your door and know exactly how your ststems work? Of course they don't, but they will work for minimum wage and no benefits. Nor will they report abusive employers. Sounds like the best of both worlds to me for employers.
This is what happens when you eliminate any protections workers have. But keep telling yourself that the problem is the teachers unions and the civil service workers unions. Yeah, they created this mess
My former company has spent millions on guys in India to cover highly technical mainframe positions, because all the mainframe people in the US are older, highly trained, and very expensive. After 4 years, they've yet to get anyone in India qualified enough to take over. The people left at the company here are required to train their replacements. What does any company THINK is going to happen with a deal like that? Anyone any good in India leaves and high-tails it to the US on an H1 visa. Why would I willingly work with my replacement? Corporate IQ is about on a par a box of rocks.
Maybe some on-the-job training and apprentic programs by the industries themselves is in order. Perhaps they are waiting for the government to provide this for them. I thought the private sector knew how to do things so much better than the government. Well if that's the case get your own training and apprentice programs started. Work with colleges and tech schools to fund a student to come work for you. Come on private sector. Get off your asses and do some creative things on your own to develop trained workers. You're too lazy to get it done . That's the problem.
Maybe it is our workforce that needs to get off their asses and develop skills needed by the business world. We cannot expect companies to have to educate workers to give them basic math skills.
i do agree with having appropriate basic skills but when a company expects you to have functional knowledge of an information system or process that's unique to the company they're expecting a bit much. why is it that so few companies are willing to make any investment, especially training, in their employees?
I felt a little like the interviewer didn't want me cause THEY felt threatened by my skills and were afraid of hiring me & possibly loosing THEIR job. (Not being egotistical, just what I felt)..
My former company adopted a policy of firing its "bottom 10%" on an annual basis. After 5 or so years of doing this they then complained that they couldn't find good workers. In "Lord of the Flies-esque" fashion they wound up with a company full of overly confident self-promoters who really aren't the cream of the crop. The squeaky wheel gets greased... until it falls off and the vehicle crashes.
Amen to that.
Possibly the issue's revolve around the HR departments. Where are the outside of the box thinkers? Does a candidate have to match up with all 100 criterion selection points on a job announcement before they are even considered for an opening? Let's be real people. Corporations are not willing to pay for what they ask for as far as a skill set and experience. You constantly hear about the going market rate. The going rate for who, all that they want to spend on a position? Or truly paying fairly for what they are asking for. Why do most corporations have policies about sharing salary information. It is to protect them from having to pay more for qualified people, and you being blind to what your really worth.
There are plenty of qualified candidates, but in this economy employers are taking advantage of them by offering poverty level salaries. I have a Masters degree and have been offered jobs making $12/hour. There is not much difference between that and collecting an unemployment check. I want to work, but I deserve a comparable salary to my experience, skills, qualfications, and education. I worked hard for my B.S. and my Masters degrees.
Exactly, and in the meantime use that time to find something worthwhile or at the very LEAST save on Daycare, or enjoy the personal time while it lasts. $12/hr (at least here) isn't that HARD to find and you don't need to be a rocket scientist for it. You want me to THINK and have responsibilities? It better for more than that! This isn't "entitlement", merely COMMON SENSE.
Good post, Ms. Morgan. I divided my weekly unemployment by 20 (hours) and knew the minimum hourly pay (calculated to an annual salary based on 2080 hours - 40 hrs./wk x 52 wks./yr.) I should accept in a FT job with traditional M-F business hours.
Why did I use 20, and not 40, hours? Two reasons: 1) The annual salary was below what I need to earn as a single person to fully support myself. Take a job w/ substandard pay, and you continue to fall behind, just at a slower pace. 2) Job hunters need weekday business hours to schedule interviews, and because you are at least partially employed, that helps make it easier to find a FT job with adequate pay that enables you to get your life fully back on track. Opinionated high horse is right - it's common sense, using math.
(BTW- My monthly expenses are trimmed of fat, and I have little debt. I live in a 1 BR condo <100 square feet and drive a 6 y.o. Civic. Of course, all responsible adults need to set aside rainy day/retirement savings and purchase health/ disability/car/homeowners insurances).
Also, there is no shame in collecting unemployment. For over two decades employers setting my wages included the cost of unemployment as an expense of hiring me when calculating that figure. It may have not been deducted from each pay, but I still paid for it.
So in my time of need, I collected it. It's called unemployment INSURANCE for a reason. The same is true of Social Security (both retirement income and for disability income for those who worked) and Medicare. The same is NOT true for Welfare, Social Security disability for non-workers and Medicaid.
I work in HR and the problem I see is that, in this environment, hiring managers think they can get absolutely everything they want - and at 30% less than the going rate. So, there is not a shortage of good candidates, there is a lack of desire to hire talent and allow them to grow into a position.
You are spot-on, Jeff. My company just laid off a bunch of workers rather than retrain them in the skill set they need. Tell me that it makes more sense to pay 125 people severance (average is about 20 weeks) than to retrain them in the skill set and adjust their wages to match the company pay scale. Most of the people would be happy for the opportunity to remain employed. The sticking point, I think, is that all the folks they let go work remotely. Still, they are seasoned, reliable people who would be grateful and loyal to someplace that valued them.
I'm getting so sick of corporate short-sightedness.
Definition of the perfect candidate: Can do all three jobs the prior person held after years of lay offs, is good looking, not over 50, has no kids or a family, is willing to work 60 hours a week, and will do so for 50% of what the last person was paid.