E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Getty Images stock
If I make my resume eight pages long, and include 100 keywords, maybe I'll get noticed!
There are about 12 million unemployed people in the United States, and yet many employers will tell you that one of the biggest problems they face is finding qualified workers.
That's sure to leave many Americans - and particularly unemployed Americans - scratching their heads.
Researchers will tell you the gripe actually has merit in some fields, such as highly skilled manufacturing.
But as the job market slowly recovers, many also are pointing their fingers back at employers, who they say have become overly choosy and too reliant on technology that won't always spot the best candidate.
Rusty Rueff, a career and workplace expert for the company information website Glassdoor, calls it the “arrogance of supply.”
“(Employers have) become pickier and pickier and pickier, and what’s happened is all the technology has allowed you to become even more stringent, to a fault in some cases,” Rueff said.
Anyone who's looked for a job in the past few years knows exactly what kind of technology Rueff is talking about. Most companies now rely on automated systems that scan resumes for keywords, automatically weeding out people who don't list a certain education level or an experience with very specific technologies.
The resume scanners do have benefits for both employers and jobseekers, however.
In such a tight job market, some companies may get 1,000 applications for a single job opening, said John Sullivan, professor of management at San Francisco State University. The prospect of actually reading all those resumes is mind-numbing, and a computer that screens applicants is preferable to even more haphazard systems.
Sullivan said he's known of managers who only looked at resumes that came in on colored paper, or rejected those he didn't believe were stapled correctly. By comparison, scanning for keywords is much more precise.
Still, even Sullivan admits that submitting your resume electronically is virtually useless unless you know how to work the system and find other ways to get an edge.
“We call it the black hole,” he said.
To get noticed these days, Sullivan said he recommends that people write pages-long resumes that include virtually every keyword in the job description. But even then, he says, you may never get flagged unless you can use your networking skills to connect with the hiring manager in another way.
That's because automated screening systems won't necessarily spot even the best candidate, and not all managers are checking them thoroughly.
Brandi Britton, district president for the temporary services and recruitment firm OfficeTeam, said it’s all too common for outside recruiters to identify a candidate, only to find that the candidate applied through the company's system but then fell through the cracks.
“Companies need processes to keep track of their applicants, but sometimes those processes are what’s preventing them from finding (candidates) in the first place,” Britton said.
It's especially tough for people who have the bigger uphill battle of convincing an employer they can do a job even though they may not have one of those keyword requirements, like a college degree.
Russ Wichelman, 60, has been looking for work since last November, when he lost his job as a engineering and programming manager for a manufacturing company.
Although he has 30 years of experience in the field, Wichelman fears he isn’t being considered for some jobs because automated resume screeners are often looking for a college degree. That’s something the Royse City, Texas, resident doesn’t have.
“It doesn’t matter if I’m qualified or not. It’s like, the degree. If (you) don’t got it, they aren’t talking to you,” he said.
In the past, Wichelman said he would often physically go to the potential employer to fill out an application and hopefully get a foot in the door. But these days, he said, even that doesn’t help.
“Now I go to places and they say, ‘No, you have to go online and such and such a website and apply on there,'” he said.
Ioana Elena Marinescu, assistant professor of economics at the University of Chicago, has for several years been working with the jobs site CareerBuilder.
One thing that surprised her is that jobseekers typically apply for employment that does fit their skills. That could debunk the idea that many people are flooding the system with resumes in the hopes of getting a hit.
Still, she said, that doesn’t mean that employers and employees are doing a great job finding each other.
One issue is that companies - knowing the unemployment rate is so high - may write a job description that is so detailed and arduous that almost no one would be qualified for the job. She said CareerBuilder actually offers a tool that can show a company whether anyone in their system could match the qualifications, to help avoid that problem.
“Some employers seem to feel that because the labor market is the way it is, all of a sudden they can be super demanding,” Marinescu said.
For example, an employer may think they need to find an employee who has a whole bunch of skills, such as knowledge of several programming languages. In reality, they might have an easier time finding an employee if they focused on just one of those programming skills, and planned to train the worker in the others.
But many employers these days see training as a last resort, believing that they shouldn't have to spend money on training when there are so many unemployed people out there who are desperate for a job.
That means the onus is on jobseekers to either train themselves or to work hard to convince the employer that they can learn fast.
Matt Youngquist, president of the Bellevue, Wash.-based consulting firm Career Horizons, said employers these days are much like consumers: They want things cheap, quick and perfect.
“They want someone who can come in on day one and produce results with very little or no training, and there are not many candidates who can do that,” Youngquist said.
The tight job market also has made employers demanding in other ways. Britton said companies also risk losing candidates because they are taking so long to decide who to hire. Many applicants are now subjected to multiple interviews, tests and screens - and the best ones may move on before the company has made a decision.
Another barrier: Salaries. Britton said many employers think they can offer lower salaries because of the weak economy, but that can backfire in fields where workers are in higher demand.
“There is a bit of an unrealistic idea of what an employer can get for what they sometimes want to pay,” she said.
Researchers say there are some good explanations for the problem. In the past five years, many people who worked in fields like construction or manufacturing have lost their jobs, while fields like health care have seen some of the strongest growth. It’s no surprise that it’s tough for someone with a background in construction to get a job as a nurse.
Although they may gripe about employer practices, experts say the truth is that it’s still a buyer’s market. That means employers have little incentive to change their practices, and jobseekers need to learn to adapt.
Youngquist, the career coach, recommends that jobseekers have multiple resumes that are tailored to specific jobs, so they are more likely to make it through electronic screens. They also may need to be flexible about things like salary and hours, especially if they are currently unemployed.
But, he said, jobseekers also need to realize that they should be spending less time on the resume and more time on the good, old-fashioned networking that is so often the key to landing a job.
For many people, that means becoming more of an extrovert and a sales person than they are naturally comfortable with.
“Talent is only half the battle,” he said. “Self-promotion is the other half."
Leave a Comment:
I stopped looking for a "job" when it became obvious anyone over 50 was poison. Even if I got into an interview, the utter crap they wanted to know was astounding.
Then they wanted the drug tests, the background checks, the credit history... hey - it's a job, not an NSA security position. Anything to say NO with a semi-straight face.
The last interview I went on, I was told on the Friday I was there they would be making me an offer on Monday. When Monday came, that offer was no.
6 months to the day, they hired a young guy for the same position they said no longer existed for me. Why 6 months? EEOC complaints can only be made within 6 months.
I've started my own business. The only people I now answer to are my clients and myself. The freedom is exhilarating. Yes, there are nail-biting months, but if a potential client ever asked me for a background check or a drug test or a credit report, I'd be in a position to tell them to go to blazes. (Happened twice!)
I've had my own business for 8 years now...and couldn't be happier. Not everyone can do this, but I think more folks should consider it...
Being 48 isn't any better when it comes to looking for work, or keeping a job. I was recently "managed out", given a nice severance package, and in the process was forced to sign a contract that I would not sue for, among other things, age discrimination and/or wrongful termination. There was a recent college graduate in a rotation program waiting in the wings to take my job. It might as well have been a death sentence. Almost three months in and I've had only one job interview, and that was because one of the hiring managers remembered me from another company where we had both previously worked. However, I was not offered the position for whatever reason, even though I was qualified to do the job. I suspect it was due to that mindset of "let's keep looking; there's so many unemployed persons, I'll bet we can find someone better".
I am now also trying to figure out what sort of self employment I can come up with because I went through this in 2008 - it took 10 months to find work. I'm so over it this time around.
J. Hicks, I've been there...and know how that feels. With regard to self-employment, I highly recommend sticking with something you have expertise in. Small businesses need help in various areas so, if your skills are aligned with something they need, that is not a bad place to look. Good luck!
I became unemployed in July (RIF) along with 200 of my co-workers. I have a degree (with highest honors) from a top-notch engineering university and tons of experience. I am finding that employers are looking to find one person that has the skills sets of two different job descriptions and when they can’t, they keep looking.
In my high tech positions, I have designed, programmed and implemented complex applications both from a software perspective and a project management perspective. Many of these applications were multi-million dollar jobs. So, my experience includes both hands-on software design and programming, as well as project management.
I get contacted by recruiters who are looking for those skill sets, but they also want someone who has done wiring. Well, to be honest, people with the high-level skill sets are not likely to have done any wiring, which is a relatively low-level job. Companies are not going to pay software designer/project manager wages for someone to do wiring. They can easily hire someone for $10-12 per hour to pop ceiling tiles and pull cables.
I had one recruiter tell me that the company was trying to replace the current person in the position (who is essentially a “cable monkey”) because s/he lacked the analytical, software and project management skills they were looking for. Well yeah, the “cabling” person is not going to have high-level experience. However, after a phone interview, they did not want to further consider me because I do not have the “wiring” experience. I tried to explain to the recruiter why “cabling” people won’t have high-level experience and why high-level people won’t have “cabling” experience, but it fell on deaf ears. Three months later, they are still advertising to fill the position... Good luck with that.
Imagine a hospital trying to hire an experienced surgeon and asking him/her if they have experience with “cleaning up” (i.e. washing blood off the floor, sterilizing instruments, etc.) the operating room after the surgery is complete. A surgeon will not have that experience… that’s what you hire “orderlies” to do.
That is because they used to have 2 or 3 different people and ended up laying all of them off but one who finally left frustrated a few months ago. They only want to hire one guy back to do the work of 3 people for 3/4 of a living wage.
Vinca - most hr folks have no idea what they're really looking for when it comes computer engineering. Most places advertising for a computer engineer are really looking for someone with an ITT Tech level vocational certificate, not a BS in computer engineering.
I've been in the staffing and executive placement industry for over 10 years. Ever go to a job fair these days? People are dressed in ripped and stained jeans, wife beater t-shirts, women with their mid drifts showing... on and on and on...
The biggest complaint I get from employers is that people can't even effectively read and write, even when they come from good colleges. Smiley faces on professional emails... don't even get me started on that.
You ever watch American Idol and you get that candidate that thinks they're as good as Adele and they're absolutely horrible... and you think to yourself, that poor girl, she must have a learning disability or something...
Well there are millions of people in this country who think their work ethic, their attitude, their appearance.... their entire package is worth a certain wage or salary when it's not even close.
Now obviously there are millions of unemployed in this country that are worth hiring that can't find work.
But if you all could walk in my shoes. I dedicate my life to moving people forward in their careers and the reward of seeing what it does for them and their families is an incredible feeling.
But every time a candidate lies to me, every time they no-show for an interview I book for them, every time they don't have the decency to call me, every time they ask me the most outrageously stupid questions when the answer is directly in front of them, every time they give me a reason why they are not worth hiring, every time I place someone only to get later fired for poor behavior, tardiness or other reasons, I look at the unemployment rate in this country and wonder why it's not higher than it is.
We have a serious cultural problem in this country. A horrible gap between perception and reality in all things from work life to personal finances to everything.
My clients do take longer to interview, they are pickier than they have been in the past, but I also think that a lot of that has to do with the terrible experiences they've had before when they relaxed their requirements and took a risk and it didn't pan out.
And bad behavior / habits don't just occur at the lower paying positions. Earlier this year I placed a VP-level candidate into a company where his salary was $170,000. Behind everyone's back, he never quit his previous employer. He wanted to be sure the new job was everything that he hoped it would be. Well, obviously during the reference check, we later found out. And because we called his other employer to verify employment, they found out he was looking and fired him. So he lost the new job and his old job.
The irony is that the new company would have been perfectly happy having him come on board for 6 months as a consultant to see if it worked out if he just communicated with everyone.
Our economy is not going to turn around until people at all levels start to be honest with everyone and themselves.
I love being self-employed....the best part is tell people who you don't like no thank you I will pass.
vinca- Sounds like you think your someone your not..... and you lack skills that employers are looking for, I wouldn't hire you to mow my lawn just because of your attitude. From what you have wrote, you know what they are looking for, but you continue to search for a job without the necessary experience to do the jobs you apply for. You would be a very poor choice, even in a good job market. Your already saying what is and isn't your job before you even get a job...WTF? Do you even want a job? Do everyone else a favor and stop filling out applications and wasting everyones time.
As all these real life anecdotes show, the problem is with the ridiculous HR hiring processes that many companies use. They couldn't identify a qualified candidate if a light from the heavens shone down on that person.
Even a resurrected Jesus wouldn't be hired because, even though he can perform miracles, he had trouble with the law at one time and he's way over 50 now, plus that beard isn't to corporate standards.
I've applied to jobs that I knew I could do, had the skills and would do a tremendous job. It should have been easy to get hired if I could just have a short talk with the person who I'd be actually working for. The long excruciating process of first getting by the HR gate keepers, made the prospect of working for such an inefficient company unattractive to me.
If a company is having trouble finding qualified candidates, maybe the problem is they probably aren't a place that is attractive to qualified candidates.
Quit treating people as "Human Resources" and pay a living wage. You'll find all the qualified people you want.
vglance,
Excellent points. It's been awhile since I hired anyone, but I remember thing such as candidates that started the interview by asking me what my company would do for them, and reading resumes with obvious spelling and grammar errors.
On the other hand, at my last job we were applying for consulting work to fill the gaps in our schedule, and I was amazed at the ridiculous applicant requirements in most of the job postings...to me, they were basically asking people to lie on their resumes. (and these were for jobs in the 30-30k range.
The screening process is a response to the fact that employers are bombarded with thousands of resumes of completely unqualified candidates.
We go out of our way to make it very clear the location of the position, the compensation, the MUST HAVES, etc. You know how many times I get emails from people 100+ miles away from the position every day saying, "Any chance I can work from home?"
Do you know how many times I get people applying for middle management positions when they haven't even had entry level management experience?
We have to implement automated screening processes or you'd have to add even more months to get the position filled.
The problem is that we do not have perfect information. If everyone cooperated and kept their resumes current, clearly outline their skills and number of years experience, we're 100% accurate and honest, and we could run our search parameters against a database like that, then we'd eliminate the spam that candidates get in their inboxes and we'd vastly improve speed-to-hire.
Employers want very qualified young people that will work for next to nothing. Our moronic trade policy makes us compete with Chinese slave labor.
I have a client in Phoenix that needs a customer service rep with 70+ wpm because they will be primarily responsible for handling live chat customer support.
Over 80% of the candidates that applied to the position, even after being asked to log online to take a typing test and submit their score, provided scores below 50wpm. Why do they even bother still applying? About 1/3 of the candidates scoring below 70 had scores in the 30s.
I only got one email from a candidate politely backing out because they scored in the 40s.
Typing is the #1 duty for the job and candidates still think they are good enough to apply.
Imagine how off America is on everything else. You know another thing America is completely naive on? Their perception of what their standard of living is. Barely anyone understands the true meaning of living within their means.
How many people in this country live paycheck to paycheck, have little or no savings, have credit card debt, and yet still go out to the movies, eat out, buy cigarettes and/or alcohol, video games, fancy electronics, expensive smart phones and service plans, etc. etc. etc.
I pretty much described over 50% of the country.
We are beyond screwed and what makes matters worse is that I read NBCnews threads all the time and more often that not, I see people pointing the finger of blame any one or anything but themselves.
Real world translation: We want qualified workers that can do the work of 2-3 people for half the salary.
vglance - good points, especially the gap between perception and reality.
The repeated complaints in this thread concerning the skill sets employers looking for being unrealistic is disappointing and unrealistic. Gone are the days of doing only one or two skills and receiving a great paycheck for it. Most especially in small business. It is not always in the best interest of the employer to spend time training the new employee. There simply are not the funds available we had before the recession. For some of us, the recession has not ended yet. If you really want to work, you have to open your mind to more possibilities than you once did. You must be flexible.
Incidentally, there are many small companies who don't use scanning programs or other tools used by the big companies. But we still have just as much trouble finding qualified candidates doing it the hands-on, old fashion way. Resume puffing, lying, and applying even though the candidate is not qualified is common. I can understand applying for a job you're not qualified for because you are desperate for work, but puffing and lying will not help and candidate and costs the company money they really didn't have to lose.
The title of this article says it all. Employers are not only out of touch but love to play games when it comes to hiring.
Exactly. Look at Walmart. People bash Walmart, but that's because they're progressives who, by the very nature of being a progressive is the lack of considering the big picture. Walmart provides jobs for low and no-skilled laborers. Those people would otherwise have no job and be 100% depended on government. They are at least getting a paycheck, training, learning skills, and gaining valuable experience. Not to mention the millions of people in this country that save thousands of dollars a year shopping at Walmart where they can use that savings to help support their families.
The Walmart pharmacy alone saves seniors and people of all ages a ton of money.
But of course, progressives never take any of this into consideration. They think all people deserve a certain 'living wage.' Well I see how people live, even people who live on government assistance with section 8 housing. How did they afford the three game consoles and the big flat screen tv? And the rims on the car?
Think I'm being racist? Ok... or all the mods to their POS honda civic (loud muffler, aftermarket stereo system, and giant-sized Bic razor blade bolted onto the trunk lid)?
I had a friend who couldn't find work for a long time. He finally gets a job at a call center and gets fired after 2 weeks because he was fooling around and got into a rubber band fight with a couple co-workers. He'd stay up all night hanging out with friends and wake up at noon. Only then, he'd put in a half-assed effort to find a job.
When I saw his real character, needless to say we're not friends anymore. I take it personally, perhaps because I'm in the recruiting industry, when I see people complaining about how hard it is to find a job and then they take it for granted.
Another hiring requirement that I find to be bizarre is how far away you live from the job... This has happened twice now...
The first time was with the on-line application. After you put in your address, the application would calculate the distance you lived from the job site and if it was over 10 miles, you were informed that the employer would not accept applications from anyone who lived more than 10 miles away... Huh? This job was not located in a large metropolitan area... But, in a small town with a population of about 20K... Restricting your pool candidates to those within 10 miles seemed a bit extreme...
The second time was an interview question about commuting in winter (40 miles/45 minutes) which is no problem for me as I have a crossover SUV with 4-wheel drive...
It is not unusual for people to commute 50 miles / one hour to a job... I've done it on previous positions, as noted on my resume... Yet, it seems that employers are using this as an excuse to not hire people...
Honestly, if the job is far away, then the potential applicant has to decide whether or not to apply for the job... if they apply, then they are either okay with the commute or they are willing to relocate...
To immediately disqualify someone because they live more than 10 miles away is ridiculous... Six months from now, this company will probably be hiring someone on an H1B visa because they could not find any qualified candidates in the area...
@Suds - that's because the ones in charge of hiring often need to be able to justify thier own positions (and salaries?) in the company. If hiring becomes to "easy" then why have them in the first place?
After working for 20 years in the technology arena in various capacities, from the bottom up to the management level, I was appalled when I was looking for employment at the general level of incompetence within the Human Resources departments of even major corporations. I can understand that it might be daunting to write up a job description for a department that you personally do not understand, but how hard would it be to consult people that might have the knowledge that you do not possess? I laughed when I saw job descriptions for Help Desk personnel that required a degree in Computer Science. Do you know what a Computer Science degree entails? It's a programming degree, all about theory and algorithms. Oh wait, you probably don't know what an algorithm is do you? Do you seriously think that someone that has a degree in the theory of programming is going to provide desktop support when the users can't figure out how to copy and paste something?
The disconnect my friends, is that companies need to start hiring HR personnel that are competent, intelligent individuals, that can actually communicate using the English language to convey what they are truthfully seeking in a candidate. I can't tell you the number of times I was participating in an interview thinking that this was a position that fit my skill set, and I realized they were looking for someone that was a programmer, or a network administrator, and I ended the interview because it wasn't what they had indicated in their requirements. I eventually was successful with locating a position that suited me, but I had to learn to speak "HR ease" before I could decipher what the listed position actually entailed. I think it would serve companies and quite frankly our entire society if there were more qualified people in Human Resources, that were familiar with different industries and weren't so lazy that they would disqualify someone that didn't have a particular college degree, but did have a significant amount of experience in the field or department.
Employers don't want to pay a competitive rate and they are full of catch 22's on their openings! It's utter nonsense and it's routinely insulting how HR has no idea what they're hiring for, and they have a ridiculously high bar set for the qualifications necessary for the role, yet they don't want to pay anything remotely sufficient for the work involved!
Employers that say they aren't finding sufficiently skilled applicants ARE NOT OFFERING ENOUGH COMPENSATION.
If you only pay peanuts, you end up only attracting monkeys
Job seeking and hiring are 2 sides of the same coin. Both are dominated by an exercise in prejudice. IT has turned into a horrible experience. In it's purist form hiring is how the employer secures the future of the business. IT makes sense the employer would have technically proficient people at the business the employer is in control and operate the hiring process. That is not how it happens anymore. People who graduated with degrees in HR and the corporate lawyers decide who gets looked at and interviewed. If the company makes widgets and these HR people never made a widget, or fixed a widget making machine, or taught widget making to a crew before they know nothing of widget making. Yet they get to decide who the widget supervisors will get to inteview. And they are likely overly attracted to superficial contrivances like facebook and twitter thinking that is a substitute for job skill judgement. So they hire people once in a while who don't work out and their response in the system is to install more articifial obstacles hoping they can stumble on the formula for finding qualified people without putting in the work to do so. This is a product of too many people with degrees in disciplines unrelated to the core endeavor of the organization. Trying to outsmart basics. Making things overly complicated. Causing overhead costs that in the end are sinking our businesses and making them noncompetitive.
several things:
1) companies won't hire you close to retirement age unless you're going for contract work because they don't want to pay for your 401k.
2) maybe if our education system was better, maybe if college was cheaper, we wouldn't have to import our doctors, scientists, and engineers.
3) people need to stop complaining. seriously, I've been unemployed and know how hard it is to find work, but I never gave up and am happily working. How the heck do you expect to find work if you're not even looking??? Not willing to relocate for opportunities???? There are companies in the midwest begging for people but no one wants to uproot to get a paying job, which makes absolutely no sense to me.
4) when choosing a degree, find something marketable. no offense, but you can only get so far with a history, art, sociology, ethnic studies, etc. degree even with an MA. I know people who suffered through math and science in undergrad to ensure that they'd get a job in the future and keep it only a Bachelor's.
People just need to stop being lazy and do the damm work, I'm sorry!
To Jacques-2757417,
EEOC claims must be made within 6 months of discovering what you believe is a violation. You had no indication that anything 'potentially' discriminatory happened until you discovered that they hired someone else meeting the criteria you stated. You might have a claim...check it out.
I have been looking for work for a year now. Fuch corporate America. I have received awards on every job I have worked at. College degree, etc. I am up against 700 resumes for some positions. I too am going to start my own business. I just need one more corp. job for seed money and then in 2 years when the biz is up and running FUCH YOU CORPORATE AMERICA.
By the way, OfficeTeam and Robert Half Legal age discriminate. I made them so much money over the years when I was fresh, tight and gorgeous (very saleable) but they won't call me now that I hit 50. Come after me OfficeTeam I have the proof. Ha, ha.
To vglance,
You have a number of VERY valid points that I agree with. You sound like the type of professional I would love to have representing me in a job search.
I will also point out that during the 4 months I spent looking for a job, about 18 months ago, I worked with recruiters at agencies/placement firms and companies directly. Often, recruiters would be calling and emailing like their life depended on my response. Upon having a couple conversations and answering emailed questions, the recruiter was ready to submit me. Then strangely, no response, no follow up and no tying off on the status. Was I submitted? Was I just not a match from the company's perspective? What was missing that I needed (or had but never mentioned previously)?
These agencies often forget that they are working with placing people who may need a staffing professional to help them fill more positions in the future!
I tracked every position I applied to and details about the position, including if/when I received a response and what was the response. Less than 20% of all submissions had a response, automated or not. I was also apply for jobs in my wheel house, not just any job with certain titles. Communication and providing feedback is invaluable during a job search and it needs to be considered as such by all parties, not just by the 'seller' (unemployed).
Much of what this article speaks about I saw first-hand. The 'unicorn' effect. I had one company that kept me under consideration for 3 months. Seriously! I had long written them off before I got the email saying they had decided to pursue a more qualified candidate. I had several recruiters wanting all of my expertise and skill at 60-80% of my 'worth.' Companies that want a Director/VP who will also write and debug code. Or the 'we are looking for local candidates only' situations. Good to know after I spent 45 minutes filling out your highly customized application tool.
The truth in the matter is that the power rests with the 'buyers' right now and they can afford to lose great candidates because other 'good ones' might exist. I did enjoy being able to tell some companies that delayed the interviewing process and created a lot of un-needed complexity that I had accepted another position and would not be pursuing their position. Not a single congratulation from any of them.
Overall, there is a lot of professionalism missing out there across the board and it isn't right for either side to claim to be above the other.
Bill
This article seems to be blaming the employers for missing out on all this talent. Well I have tried hiring people recently and the problem as I see it is that there are now all these services that "blast" your resume out for a million jobs with the click of a button. I got resumes from people who had no idea what our company even did or what the job is! Computers have made it way too easy to supposedly apply for jobs, but you aren't REALLY applying for a job... You're just throwing your resume in with 1000 others that I am supposed to somehow cull through. I prefer the old days when I'd get letters in the mail and I could see who actually took the time to tell me they want this one specific job and why. I guarantee you one thing: Every resume I get in the mail with a stamp on it gets 1000x the consideration of every resume that is blasted to me by one of the job search services.
There are a number of factors that are coming into play. First is that many companies are trying to hire one person to essentially fill what was two separate positions previously. This means that they are trying to find someone with two different skill sets, which is often very hard to do. Another issue is, as the article pointed out, the overuse of automation to screen resumes. While I can see using automation to whittle down the pile, there needs to be a threshold set below the 100% match or companies miss candidates. They will build a list of ten or more keywords and if every one of them is not in the resume then it goes in the trash bin. They need to set the threshold at 7 or 8 of the ten and then actually read the resumes that are left. Just because a certain keyword is missing does not mean the person does not have the experience, it may just be referred to be a different name or the person just did not use the particular buzzword the hiring manager or HR type was familiar with. I did an experiment a few years ago on Monster. I took my regular resume, which had garnered few hits, and posted a second version loaded up with a bunch of stupid acronyms and buzzwords. The number of hits went up by a factor of ten and I started getting calls left and right, even from companies I had previously submitted my resume to directly and had not contacted me. Often the problem is with the HR people. They are not at all knowledgeable about the position they are screening for. All they know how to do is look for keywords. They can not read the resume and determine that yes, this person has exactly what we need because they have no understanding of the work, just the buzzwords given them. A final issue is that companies are purposely gaming the system. They generate these requirements that no one could possibly meet all of them. They then use their automated search results to go to their congressmen and senators to say there are not enough qualified Americans to fill these jobs and we need more H1B visas to get people from overseas. They then hire foreigners who also do not have all the requirements they used in their domestic search, but meet the real needs of the position when there are plenty of Americans who meet these real requirements. They do this because they can hire someone from India for far less than what they would have to pay a qualified American. The H1B program has become a giant scan that employers are gaming to keep their labor costs down by falsely claiming a lack of qualified candidates in the US.
Yeah how dare poor people look or act poor...?
These jobs are not $50k or $100k a year jobs are they? Why would you expect someone to redo their entire look and put their entire day on hold knowing full well they are one of dozens or even hundreds of people trying to get that same job. Clothes don't do the job last time I checked, the people do. Defend business all you want, the reality of the situation is that these people are making 1/3 of what they should be and are being told they should dance to the jester's tune for the privilege of slowly starving to death. It isn't the working public's fault that companies laid everyone off and got cheap - it isn't too much to ask for someone to show up at the factory, churn out parts, and go home while still paying all their bills and affording a couple decent trappings of a middle class life. CEO compensation skyrocketed over the last 30 years, companies are sitting on trillions and yet you get all uppity because the 22 year old guy in front of you was too smart to incur $80,000 in debt for a piece of paper and didn't have such a lack of will as to throw on a suit for a demeaning $11/hr job.
knightofdespair,
While what you say is true, dress is taken as a sign of respect in our society. Forget any allusion to classism or the employer doing the job-seeker a favor. Go to a job interview like you would attend church or go to a funeral. Respectfully dressed. Let the employer tell you what your future dress expectations, once you get the job.
And by the way, if you shop at WalMart, Costco, etc; you helped close those factory doors.
@VGLance - You have a horrible preconception of people and shouldn't work in HR. If you have zero faith in people and paint everyone with a broad brush you should be out of a job.
Now for your Walmart comment - Walmart provides jobs to people who otherwise wouldn't have them. Not true. All these people had jobs before Walmart was around. The difference was they worked at smaller retailers and grocery stores who paid a living wage. Then Walmart came to down, dropped prices, hired cheaply, gave zero benefits, and thrived. What would you call something that takes and gives nothing back? A parasite. Walmart is a parasitic company.
Seriously though, you shouldn't be hiring anyone. Get a different line of work where you don't need people skills or any kind of open mind. Maybe... construction, factory work, something menial.
To those who say "we don't have time to train someone" and go looking for candidates with experience in specific, obscure skills. That argument really doesn't work when it takes longer to find the experienced candidate than the training would have taken.
Also, corporate America's aversion to on-the-job training is exactly why there are no experienced candidates for you to hire. By refusing to train you are collectively shooting yourselves in the foot.
1) Pay simply will not be competitive unless the market for a particular skillset is tight.
2) It's hard to have a tight labor market with lots of people unemployed.
3) It's VERY hard to have a tight labor market with so many legal H1-Bs taking up so many skilled jobs (117,500 in 2010 plus probably about the same number of exceptions!).
Rinse. Lather. Repeat. :-(
Actually, I have been to a job fair recently. I waited in line for an hour to get into the facility because the line was so long and there were so many people. With the exception of two individuals dressed casually, everyone else was dressed professionally and appeared as if they were going to an interview. Upon entering the hall, to my disappointment, there were only four employers in attendance and they represented sales positions. The remaining booths were comprised of business schools trying to recruit students.
I've come to the realization that in my area, most employers probably don't feel the need to attend job fairs. Why should they when they have thousands of applicants to choose from?
Ahhh, the "now" generation has entered the working world. They want it now and they want it fast and they want it perfect. To the parents of the "now" generation, thank you.
I should be able wear whatever I want and have as many body piercings as I want, and if you don't hire me then it's YOUR fault I don't have a job! ;o)
@ IReadyou
Agreed! When I was getting my MBA, we all had to take a number of the OB and OT classes. They are touchy-feely nonsense, but looking past the subject-matter and instead focusing on the context, these classes were eye opening.
Taking the classes and the numerous personality/leadership tests and learning all of the buzzwords and nomenclature were all there to help us learn to game their system.
What I learned is that HR is like jury duty, only those least capable get stifled and trapped in it.
First off, when going into an interview with an HR-person (assuming you've gotten that far, be sure that your resume pings off all of the proper key-words in the company's search query), understand that they have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what your skillsets mean and glaze-over when you get technical. Instead, get a few books on Org-Behavior and Theory...learn to spout off the jargon like you understand it better than they do! When you speak THEIR language, that's when you make it higher in the lineup for 2nd interviews...save your technical knowledge for when you're actually talking with the people in that department...HR is the gatekeeper/bouncer earning 1/10th the wage and they are angry, vindictive people...make them feel important and they'll let you into the club and will sometimes even give you tips about what the hiring managers are looking for...or will let the cat out of the bag in terms of compensation so you know if you're wasting your time or not
@ Mark from Bridgeport
H1B Visas are terribly abused, and I have yet to see any politician make strides to do anything about it!
It's always "My company cannot find the right expertise here"...when really, they've omitted the last part of the phrase "...at the price I'd like to pay".
The fact that H1B's are so numerous is testament to that. The place that such a thing should apply is for ridiculously narrow and specialized fields like theoretical physics where maybe only 10 people are experts on a particular subject.
Not in IT/software engineering where Indians/Pakistanis/Chinese are simply willing to work for 1/3rd the rate of Americans *Glowers at Microsoft/Apple/Intel/HP/Cisco/et al.
There was a time that if the employer had a list of 10 "must haves" and you had 7 or 8, you were given serious consideration. Now if there are 10 "must haves" you better have 12. Go figure ...
Marc I know exactly where you are coming from. After being a self taught machinest, an automotive machinest, a parts manager for a national Detriot Desiel dealership, a parts manager for a John Deere dealership, the owner of a Conoco truck stop and the owner of a janitorial and maintance business for over 20 yrs. I retired, well my wife who is a drug and alcohol counciler for kids decided she was still needed. I am 59 and have no high school diploma I am considered underqualified for the most meanial jobs. I am just looking for something to take up my time until my wife has had enough. I don't need the money just something to do other than being a greeter at Wal-Mart. I can't even imagine how hard it is on someone who really needs a job. It's pretty bad when it comes down to putting the right key words down on a computer resume to even get an interview.
Panhead -
Why would anyone hire someone who was looking for a job to kill some time until their wife retires?
Brian,
I would rather have an employee who was working because he wanted to than one who had to. The man who "has" to work will never be satisfied.
As long as the work is done correctly and within the required time and cost, why should an employer care about the employees future plans? I have heard more than one small business person say they wanted to build the business and then sell or dump it after five years. By your logic, shouldn't prospective the employee know that, for all their good work, the job will change or dusappear in 1-5 years.
There are no career jobs, no career employers and no career employees. Welcome to the NEW economy.
Panhead may not have a certificate, but he seems smart to me. I'll take a smart guy over a certificated dummie any day.
@ Marc - point in case, taken from an actual job description I just read today:
WOW - that describes at least 3 separate and distinct jobs that would in the past have required 3 separate and distinct persons. This is a typical job description for my field. You would need to be a CPU (central processing unit) with processing speeds of 2.5 G to perform this job. Come on - get real.
And HR types want to know why people apply for jobs for which they are not qualified. I truly doubt any human being exists that could fulfill all the specs for this position and do it all well.
I've read most this job description before; the only original line is the first one. It is obviously from a template, there is enough jargon to choke a thesaurus.
Translation: Knows what I want better than I do, also someone who knows the difference between plural and singular.
Translation: We want someone who knows how to work this bloody software and is paradoxically a good communicator.
Translation: Likes to do things on the cheap.
Translation: good at finding reasons to rack up travel expenses.
Translation: Telling users that the little slide out tray is not a cup holder.
Translation: and looks busy whenever I am in the room.
Translation: Reading and deleting everybody's e-mails then changing all their passwords while they're at lunch.
Translation: Basically just run the company for me, there's a good chap.
Translation: Become the office NAZI and step on people better qualified than you.
When someone starts a sentence with "in a nutshell" you know they're looking for a nut.
@Apotheosis - I love your interpretation. Thanks for giving me a good cackle - I needed that!! ;-)
Its becoming increasingly difficult to find employees with the basic skills to allow them to be trained for todays jobs. Many companies balk at having to teach 8th grade remedial math to college graduates. Our public schools need to get back to teaching the basics.
I disagree Common Man. It's not the public schools, but look at it from the student's point of view. They sit by and watch mom & dad get laid off. What hope does the student have to go forward with their education?
There are fine public and private schools in the country. But corporations treat employees like SH**T, it leaves a bad taste in everybody's mouth. When was the last time you heard somebody come in from a job and say they enjoyed what they were doing?
Sally, our public education system can come up with a thousand and one excuses why they don't teach basic skills any longer. They can't continue to graduate dysfunctional students and expect them to be productive adults.
Companies aren't hiring people who have the basic (or even advanced) skills. My company takes an average of three months from the time a position opens up until someone is finally hired. And of the last ten software developers they've hired seven have been programmers from India on H1B visas.
I find it hard to believe it's so difficult to find qualified programmers that they need to be brought in from overseas.
This is a huge problem for anyone working within the field of Information Systems. I can't tell you how angry it makes me to see tons of H1b VISA employees knowing that this country is slowly dying due to a lack of jobs. Capital One is a HUGE offender. Working at the headquarters in the Richmond, Virginia area is like working in India!! Don't believe me - just look for yourself.
It's all this teaching to pass standardized tests. Even our schools are being run like businesses. You can't do that because people learn differently and a teacher needs to have the flexibility to adjust how they teach so their students are learning. You can't measure progress necessarily by a grade. A student can get a C and they can be smart, but maybe they have trouble learning the way the subject is being taught. Some students will pick up after hearing a lecture. Other students are more hands-learners. I'm the latter. I don't understand something unless I can do it myself. I am very good at picking something apart into it's individual components and learning how each one contributes to how the whole thing works. But if a teacher put all that up on a blackboard or I read it in a text book, I'd be totally lost.
The problem goes much deeper than H1B Visa employees. Companies do not have a problem with training their employees. The problem is, that after they train employees, those employees may opt to start shopping their new skills to potentially increase their pay with another employer. With H1B Visas, the company sponsors the employee. It creates a "loyalty" that we haven't seen between "employer/employee in decades.
There are so many reasons I don't know where to start. Some were mentioned above as well but here are a few thoughts:
1) Yes the electronic age makes it easier to go through what could be thousands of application but what we learned 30 years ago is still applicable. You need to research the company you want to work for, find out who is at least in the process of making the decision, and sending a personal note with a physical resume.
If you know someone who works there even better. Companies LOVE employee referrals because they know an employee will not refer a "bad" candidate as it will be a reflection on them. Also an employee (at least a "happy" one) will refer those they think will help the company.
Physically go to the company you wish to work for and introduce yourself to the secretary of the person who will ultimately hire for this position and ask to schedule a short meeting. Of course you will be told "no" but graciously understand and ask the secretary if she would make sure the person receives your personal note on why you would like to work there and your resume. I assure you this person will be impressed with your determination and will at least read and review your resume. If qualified they WILL consider you AND they will probably remember your name.
2) Our public school systems suck. They now teach to standardized tests. What happened to Civics? American History? What happened to classes that taught debate? Research? Kids are graduating who can barely write or speak a coherent sentence and ask them to list the 3 branches of government they have no clue. Who ran in the last presidential election? How about THIS presidential election? How about critical thinking skills? How about presentation skills?
I home-schooled my second child and she is now attending college getting her masters degree. I'm sorry but I'll say it: Anybody who allows their child to go to public school does not care about their child or their child's future.
3) Society, and our young adults, have lost the ability to learn from failure. Nobody is allowed to "fail" anymore. Kids at young ages are given "participation trophies" whether their team did good or not. Middle schools do not have the competitive sports like we used to that taught us that sometimes we "lose" and we quickly learn what is needed to "win". On Valentine's day EVERY kid get a valentine or NOBODY gets a valentine. Don't want to hurt the kids "feelings".
We pass kids through the school system and throw them in the world even though they cannot write a coherent sentence. They never learn how to use a dictionary - let WORD fix it for them.
Graduate from college and be told they will succeed and they want unreasonable levels of pay even though they have no experience. You give them a review of their work and tell them areas they need to improve and they get angry - they have never learned how to take criticism.
We have a generation that has lost its ability to attain critical thinking then blame everything on someone else (if our president can blame everything on someone else - why can't they?). They have lost the ability to be motivated to succeed and think everything is "owed" to them. They have lost the ability to handle failure and how that drives a person to learn from mistakes and be stronger both mentally and emotionally. I worry our "politically correct" teachings is causing our latest generation from understanding defeat.
I worry that we support students borrowing nearly $100,000 so they can get a Bachelor and Master of Arts in Medieval Studies and no job that will pay enough to pay that debt back. I worry that the U.S. has fallen behind in math and engineering which is required for society and economic increased growth.
So much has changed in the last 30 years that I worry the U.S. has lost its edge and our school systems have not improved to help in this problem. Business need quality help to grow and if we continue to deteriorate in our business skills and knowledge of the next generation we will continue to have stagnant growth and high unemployment.
Schools have gotten back to basics, the problem is your kid is too busy playing with the cell phone you gave him to learn anything. I know, I am the teacher trying to get past his / her 30 second attention span. Maybe parents and employers should stop griping about what the schools are not teaching and pay attention to the fact your kid (my student) is not interested in learning. And by the way, it was not my idea (the teacher) to have standardized tests. Those came about because employers decided a high school diploma did not mean anything because it could not be "quantified." So we no longer teacher subjects that require reasoning and thought, because that does not fit on a multiple choice, computer graded, standardized designed to reduce everything to a set of data.
The problem is that the companies are getting labor on the cheap such as the H1B Visas and perfer not to pay their workers competitive wages. At my work, we have very high turnover rates. Pay is very low for what we do and very understaffed. Effectively doing the work of 2 jobs with half the pay. Yet the management scratching their heads why the high turnover rate.
@ Sally, Common Man is correct. The schools need to re-examine their teaching of basics. It is now common place to have not one young applicant who can spell, or complete basic math skills. But they all come in with the attitude they should receive a good paycheck from day one. (And regular raises, just for showing up.) Who gave them that idea? Let alone, where are critical thinking, problem solving skills? We have to spoon feed these kids through the work day because they don't have a clue what makes a good employee.
Not every kid is going to go to college, or even a tech school. That doesn't mean they don't need appropriate life skills to be a productive adult. School is totally failing kids in this area. Let alone the college graduates who have those dollar signs and 4 week vacations as mandatory for their 1st job. (And the notion they are totally prepared for their first job.) Sigh
Look at the job groups that are short of people. The all need training that High School will not provide nor most 4 year colleges:
That is why there use to be training programs.
@had enough #3.9: It's all interconnected...If one company is reducing costs with the use of H1B visa employees, all will use the same process to compete. As I said, if companies were to train an employee (at the same level of pay that they are giving H1B visa employees), they would shop their new skills to other potential employees. Those employees would be willing to pay a little higher wage without the training costs. You can't fault the H1B visa recipients for accepting the opportunity.
@deh228 #3.8: Standardized tests have been around for more than 50 years. That's a poor excuse for the performance of our students compared to students in other countries. It is true that the countries where students outperform the US have a greater emphasis for education from the parents. It is not to say that we have parents who don't care as much. However, as was mentioned previously, when teachers are forced to promote a student to the next grade level even though the student failed to meet the standards, the system fails. Disruptive students aren't tolerated in the countries that are outperforming their American counterparts. Disruptive students aren't held accountable, which promotes more disruptive students. This takes away from the learning process and contributes to the "lower attention span" and the dumbing down of our society in general. Good teachers are caught in the middle and bad teachers really only care about themselves.
You know why they aren't teaching basic skills? Because they're under so much pressure to make sure these kids meet the government's standards of "smart".
If it weren't for the damn standaradized testing bull@!$%#, there would be a LOT more time to actually TEACH.
"With H1B Visas, the company sponsors the employee. It creates a "loyalty" that we haven't seen between "employer/employee in decades..""
Gee how about they sponsor and create some loyalty with American Workers?
Because one of the new demands from employers is "same job and more for less" as they try to back fill jobs that were lost.
Even if a company has recovered 100% they are going to try and find someone that can do the job that two people did before, before they go out and hire two new people. Recessions give companies a good way to reset their labor cost and they most certainly take advantage of it. .
BP,
The biggest abuse of H1b employees is to set impossible educational and skill requirements for a position which ordinarily would not require those skills and does not pay for them, and then require relocation to either an isolated facility or an expensive location in which to live. This is how Silicon Valley comes to have 4-8 Indian EE's or programmers living in a four bedroom single family house. Or small town Indiana firms have Indian or Canadian engineers, or another Indiana firm has an office akin to the United Nations, which facilitates their future and on-going off-shoring of production.
Sorry Dave, but saying:
is a bunch of malarky. Maybe young folks today would take off with their newly minted skills, but there are plenty of us in our 30's and up that are still very capable of offering our loyalty to an employer. Just as young people are willing to up and quit, employers are just as likely to fire you or lay you off or manage you out - and that is the real reason that loyalty no longer exists in this country. It's become a world of "every man for himself" and "beware - you could come to work one day and find out you no longer have a job or are about to have your job taken away for whatever reason.
Prior to the first decade in the new millennium and the recession I NEVER used to think about being layed off, managed out, or having my position off-shored to India - all of which has happened to me since 2006. All three have become a fact of life - so who is loyal now?
I was told serveral times that the unemployed are not hireable. When employers say "it is difficult to find employees with basic skills" they are lieing! The are really just getting caught up in the rederick of todays politics and explaining to you what their political bias is.
Josie-02: "it is difficult to find employees with basic skills"
Case in point: lieing rederick todays
Josie, are you using spell-check before submitting your resume? An initial screening of resumes is for spelling. If your post is anything like what you normally write, this could be the problem (serveral should be several; lieing should be lying; rederick should be rhetoric; todays should be today's)...
Josie has obviously gone through our public school system - no wonder our economy is collapsing......
Josie,
You mean basic skills like knowing the difference between "lying" and "Lieing?" It helps to be able to spell basic words since "lieing" isn't a real word...
Wow...I was trying to figure out who this "rederick" person was...didn't realize that was rhetoric spelled very badly...:-)
Josie - in all seriousness, you need to work on spelling and grammar. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by by the political comment. As someone that's hired plenty of people in the past, I can tell you I never cared about an employees politics - I just cared about their ability to get the job done and successfully integrate with our companies environment.
Josie, the others are right. You must improve your writing and communication skills or no one will take your skill set (or you, for that matter) seriously. Please consult the writing center at your local community college and contact a tutor. He or she can reduce that tendency you have to overlook "minor" details such as spelling and punctuation. Those are not minor details. They can make the difference between appearing well-read/competent and looking like an incoherent teenager.
Wow, everyone above can't see the forest for the trees. I am sure she was typing through a phone. Also, it's today.com not a resume. Get a life, grammar Nazis.
@Josie - Valid point. I know when I took my current job, I was one of 40 people interviewed. I can't imagine how many applied. I am pretty choosy with who I work for, though. A recruiter recently offered me $12 an hour to do tech support. I laughed her out of the room. I am massively overqualified for that. Employers need to step up their game, especially in IT because it is not hard to find a job right now in that field.
Nolan, I type through a phone and never end up with anything as bad as that. Others are simply pointing out the disparity between Josie's complaint that employers say they can't find people with basic skills, and her obvious lack of basic skills.
How about hiring American college graduates instead of off-shoring and outsourcing?
They don't have enough experience. Hire someone older? They're overqualified. Employers want it both ways.
No they want the experience for half what it is worth. If you have the gall to want full price (since you got saddled with $100k of debt to get the fancy degree they want) they will overlook you since you want too much now.
I agree 100% with your statement. Send all of the H1B visa people home and hire OUR people. They only have loyalty because it is being paid for! Then the H1B visa people bring in mom and dad and cousins. And have three to four kids. How can they go home then with a one child per family? Asylum - that's how. Hire Americans!!!!!
This is the same argument for why presidential candidate should "get jobs back" that have went offshore. People, those jobs aren't coming back because we need to learn new skills that can't be done cheaper offshore. If companies can hire offshore for cheaper, of course they're going to do that! It's self interest folks!
The only way I see offshoring stopped is by making it prohibitively expensive to do so. If congress wasn't in the pockets of big business they could easily pass tax laws that encourage hiring Americans and discourage outsourcing those jobs overseas.
And businesses, where is your loyalty to the country that allowed your business to flourish? I wish there was a way to say to companies "hey, you want to offshore jobs? then you are no longer entitled to the protections our nation offers you. take your crap and completely move overseas."
JM,
Most large companies today are not "American" - they are global companies that have an increasingly smaller amount of their revenue tied to the US market.
Instead of using the stick (i.e.; increasing company costs), how about trying to work with the companies to make the US a place where they want to do business? How about reducing our corporate tax rate? How about streamlining our business and environment regulatory process (it's ok to say no to a project - but that shouldn't take years)? How about allowing companies to bring overseas profits back to the US with no charge (like almost every other country does today)?
Ron,
I don't disagree with what you said. That is why I proposed a carrot and stick approach vis-a-vis the tax code.
I understand the global nature of corporations, but they are able to flourish because we spend so much money (militarily or otherwise) to protect their interests only for them to turn around and flip us the finger. There is something wrong with that.
Here's another stick for you: you want to produce your crap overseas? Ok, then we will impose tariffs on your products if you want to sell them in the US. Since you are no longer in fact an "American" company, you will be treated as a foreign one.
At this rate, I'd settle for ensuring that companies that ship jobs overseas don't get the massive tax breaks we give them. It's bad enough that they're crippling US employment efforts, but it's even worse when we pay them to do so. If they want to ship everything overseas--don't expect to get US tax dollars. That would be at least a small start in trying to discourage outsourcing.
@Michael L: There is nothing in the US tax code that specifically provides deductions or credits for moving jobs overseas. These deductions and/or credits are the same if operations were being reduced in one state and moved to another state. To remove these common deductions from the US tax code would not stop the company from expanding operations overseas or reducing operations in the US.
lol just reading up some stuff on manufacturing jobs and came across what Steve Jobs said to Obama in 2010. First he said, "you'll be a one term President." Then he said, "Apple won't bring manufacturing jobs to the US because there are 30,000 engineers in CHina to oversee production. US doesn't have 30,000 engineers. ....And US regulations make it difficult to create manufacturing plants in the US when its so easy in CHina."
What I gather is 1) we need emphasis on math and science. I bet most people unemployed have experience in neither. 2) Steve Jobs was an arrogant prick. 3) Some manufacturing jobs are so low wage, so low skilled that its moot to bring them to US. One Chinese worker will cost $18/day vs American worker for $80/day.
As for skilled work, good companies are willing to take recent grads under their wing. The really good grads have been interning for 6 months or so then just get hired on after grad.
FootLocker,
You need to pack that locker and travel a bit. You'll find that most people are about the same, and contrary to our self-indulgent mythology, Americans are not smarter, better, or even (on average) richer.
When an employer can go overseas and get a product manufactured at acceptable quality and delivered on-time for less, he will do so. And the foreign workers who made that product mastered those special skills. In some cases, they made have invented them centuries ago. The true means of competition is to recognize that we can only compete on innovation (which may or may not mean new skills), on delivery (better management of time, material, and capital) and a consumer preference for American goods.
@Kimposibl - @!$%# Steve jobs. CEO's that outsource should get their ass whooped. It's worth the assault charge to send the message. Also, anyone in the service industry should do a slowdown on them, make their life as inconvenient as possible. I don't know why people put up with this.
I knew computer science students around 2001, who ad offers for jobs at $80k right out of school. Businesses all over the US invested almost all they capital they could raise in HI-tech equip and software. 1996 thru 2001 were serious boom times for the geeks. TV and print articles abound with accounts of geeks playing foosball, maintaining zoos, and other forms of recreations in the workplace. All needed of course to stimulate their creativity. When they delivered their software to the clients it mostly did not do what they were contracted to do. Businesses found the return on investment wasn't there. Couldn't get their money back. Many businesses lost competitiveness and some closed. Business decided if the geeks (the Profs, the students, the ones in the workplace) weren't going to take the business seriously they'd just as soon do business with the "english" speaking Indians. And that was the end of boom times in America for the home grown geeks. They have yet to recover.
Instead of removing them altogether, why not target them for only interstate moves?
@Michael L: What's wrong with allowing companies to expand operations in different states? Companies usually start as a single store and through franchising or venture financing, other stores open up. Bed, Bath and Beyond started from one store in New Jersey. Walmart from one store in Arkansas.
Now, looking at other jobs that were moved overseas...these are textiles and manufacturing jobs. With or without tax deductions, these industries were moving out of the country. If Fruit of the Loom didn't move their operations to Costa Rica along with Levis, those name brands wouldn't be in existance today. Many companies left because of the inbalanced free trade agreements and for their own survival.
My husband has 3 engineering degrees and 30 years of experience. Although he is currently working at a very well-paying job overseas he gets 3-4 calls/emails a week from headhunters. Most don't even seem to have read his resume and are interested in offering a job he is not even remotely qualified for. He was quite serious about a couple recently that were based in the states. The package they were offering was absolutely ridiculous. Yes, companies do think they can pay bottom dollar. Even for those who are experienced and very qualified.
Upshot is, he will continue to work overseas. It's hard for him to be gone so long at a time. He's missing a lot of our grandkids youth, but he is earning enough that we can guarentee they have college money. We only have 3-4 years to go so I guess it's worth it in the long run.
I appluad your effort to assist your Kids and Grand kids instead of looking only to your own well being. I only hope the benefactors of your efforts think the same.
why is your husband working for your grandkids and not your kids????
You actually need that answered?
Kim
Uh, because our son is 40 years old and he and his wife work very hard but in these days saving for their own retirement plus the grandkids college is pretty hard. And my grandson has Aspergers. He's high functioning and very smart but his therapy is expensive. Bottom line, we are working for them because we are relieving them of one extra burden.
My husband and I believe kids should work while in college but helping with some of the costs may be the difference between finishing or not.
(Sorry for the off-topic response)
Kudos, dsb.
I would like to know how the next President is going to stop companys from outsourcing to India & China for their "knowledge workers". I don't think Romney or Obama have the answer. These knowledge based jobs are high paying jobs. What's left here in America is "service" jobs that pay $10 an hour. And people want to complain about the poverty rate being so high. Do you honesty think those high paying jobs are coming back? I don't. The more that corporations can get a foothold into other countries the more jobs are gone. Look at Europe!
Most service jobs pay mim. wage (7.25/hr), not 10/hr.
Ironic thing - I know of a LARGE retail electronics company that cut pay to their store managers AND to their sales staff (who make min. wage), yet require the SMs to work 60-80 hr/week at what amounts to less than min. wage. They're constantly threatened with the loss of their jobs, yet they're burning through people like crazy and don't understand why.
It's called "test to destruction" JKLD. Engineers (mechanical) are pretty familiar with the term. Take an employee and pile the work on. If the employee breaks under the strain, dump him/her and get another, usually at a lower wage. The theory is that they'll get a lot of work out of that employee before the break.
That would be great if the Prez (whoever he might be) had any control of corporate decisions to outsource and offshore employment. He doesn't, no matter what either of them might say. Tax breaks and similar incentives aren't going to convince them otherwise. The numbers are clear: a worker in a Third World country (let's say India) is going to do the same job for less than a third of what an American would accept because they're starving. (So are a lot of us as well, but there's this annoying impediment called "minimum wage." India has no such constraints.) Don't look to the government to change this anytime soon. They can't. Corporate laws are designed (by our wonderful Congress) to benefit only the corporation and its stockholders, nothing more.
Change the laws? Good luck with that. We can't even agree on gay marriage. How can we reasonably expect any corporation to permit laws that would cost them more money? It's never going to happen.
Unless the corporations go bankrupt. I leave it to your imagination to what might happen in the event of that little problem.
LOL @ Michelle. Are you an actual engineer or is this just hearsay? Or what you think happens??
At NGC, if they think you do crap work, they shuck you off to another program within the company, which is more than any employer should do for subpar employees. Also, maybe you're referring to GA?
There was legislation in Congress last July to penalize Outsourcing Companies and reward for hiring IN. We heard little about it and of course it hasn't yet passed. Congress needs to remember they do work for us. Let your congress people know this is what America needs. We also have a huge Trade Deficit. Companies must be forced to come back or the whole thing collapses.
Michelle,
The company I'm talking about is rapidly approaching bankruptcy, partially because of the stupid business decisions (they put money men in charge instead of people who knew the business and its customers) and because of the way they've treated their people. The company has become a joke, whereas it was once known for its' employees having knowledge and experience.
Yeah, I can see what you're saying. And you're totally right.
kimposibl,
Well I am a degreed engineer, and Michelle is completely correct. Modern management expects all employees to be interchangeable parts, which can be run to destruction and replaced from the warehouse of some 20-25million replacements.
I had a chance to talk to my former boss after being RIF'd in 2009. He was then working 5 10 hr days, Saturday mornings and most Sunday afternoons. And the company had provided him with a laptop and a cell-phone so his bosses could get ahold of him when he was away from the building.
Sally: my post at 5.13 answers your question in your first line.
Bill Marvel: The situation you describe is common. Bosses are immoral that way. There is a morality in the workplace. Fail to honor that and the workplace breaks down. There are thousands of ways it can go. Why is there so much employer vs employee abuse, financial fraud and abuse, employee to employee abuse, neighbor to neighbor. This is all part of the breakdown in the greater society. People actually feel that if you leave you house unlocked they should be able to go in and take your stuff while you are at your job - it's not their fault. Put one of these in the bosses chair and you'll see abuse of employees big time.
I have had several Employers approach me to take a position or Job with there particular companies. I will admit that these jobs do not pay much, Sixty to Eighty thousand, but, if I were looking for a job, I would probably take one of those offered. I have asked many employers, why dont you hire one os the college Graduates that are knocking on your door daily? These Employers told me that the college Graduates are the problem. Employers say that the college Grads do not want a career, they do not know how to do the job, and that all the Grads want is a Large Paycheck and Title. Employers say that Grads feel Entitled. I have not had a Job in twenty three years, but that is because I retired when I was Forty Five. I suggest to people wanting a job, take anything you can get. If you really put yourself into that job, there WILL be other oppertunities, and build from there. If you are not willing to do that, I dont think that you will get very far in the game of life.
I remember when companies offered job security in exchange for long term committments by employees. Companies still want that long term committment but do not offer job security in return. My generation was prepared to work for one company for an entire career and many of us are forced into early retirement when our jobs are eliminated but we are considered too old to be employed elsewhere. My children's generation is not willing to offer a level of loyalty to a company that is not reciprocated and anticipate many jobs and even a few career changes throughout their working lives.
As you said, companies want loyalty but don't give a rat's ass about you to give it to you in return.
60- 80 thousand isn't much????? Dang. I'd like a shot at that.
Seen the pendulum swing back and forth with the loyalty in both directions. When companies treat employees like commoditites, especially when the economy is booming, the best workers bolt... and it costs them dearly to replace them... so they show more loyalty while the market is good... then, when the economy slows, you start to see that "take it or leave it" attitude came back... it always ends up costing them to not value their good employees...
wryview,
If you truly want that shot. Get admitted to college, study hard and get good grades while volunteering in the local community and working part-time. Before of just after graduation, intern (work for free) for one or two companies to find where the future is headed. Go back to school and get a Masters either in your BA major, or in business. Now, after 6+ years and $25-100k in debt, start your new job at $40k, work 60-80 hrs/wk and after 10 years, you may make it.
@Bill - Ain't that the truth.
60-80 K?? Wow, I'd chop off my big toe to pull 3 - 4 times my current salary in a year. But from the path Bill's describing above, even hard work for a long time in a field one has no interest in doesn't even put you on top in the long run. I skipped college and went straight to the military. I served. Honorably. I thought I chose a lucrative field in IT but come to find out, military service in this country is (seemingly) equivalent to graduating from eighth grade in this work force.
On a somewhat related note-- I grew up with my folks telling me things like "become a lawyer or doctor, blah blah.." But aren't today's newest PhD recipents earning minimum wage as waitstaff to pay off their school loans because they can't get an internship to practice?
the old adage " its not what you know its who you know", has become all to real today.
It has become "Who you know or who you blow".
lmao - nice
When I was hiring people I would look seriously at people whose history was strong for committment, flexibility and broad preparation. My philosophy was I would hire for traits which are pretty individual and fixed, and train for the job, which is essentially (in many instances, not all) training the tech manual of the how-to of a job.
I like hiring such people because they were frequently the ones who looked at our processes with new eyes and asked critical questions which made us take a new look at how we did business. If a new employee asked a question that we could not answer, I insisted that we look at the process again. If we could not justify continuing to do whatever it was, we had to look at eliminating it. That window of challenge by a new employee is short so you have to take advantage of it. If you hire people already steeped in the minutiae of a job, you lose that opportunity.
I am seeing employers now looking for young employees who are cheaper, but want skills that take decades and a lot of experience to achieve and that cost more. So far, the employers are winning because of the poor job market in many areas. That will change over time and employers will find themselves having to pay a premium to get anyone to work for them.
I think you are most probably correct in your assessment. The younger entrants lack the experience, and the experienced workers have been shown the door marked 'too expensive'. Yes, they will get cheaper replacements, but they won't get any better employees.
Experience, loyalty, commitment are no longer desirable. "Employees" have become a commodity.
Companies are totally at fault for their inability to fill positions. The vast majority of the time they FIRED the very people who had the skillsets because they were too expensive. Now, the company bitches and complains they can't find someone to fill the position of the person they fired who had the skillset and knowledge to begin with.
Ironic, huh?
It's not 'bitching'. It's just a carefully crafted public statement to sway sentiment. Believe me, the CFO's are smiling ear-to-ear.
Oh, I know, Mark440. They want to "appear" they're in dire need and that there just isn't anyone available but refuse to own the problem they themselves created, and the workers are to blame, not them.
Employers are thoroughly enjoying the high unemployment. I know of so many people who are now doing the jobs of two or three people because of lay-offs, and don't get paid any more. The few people working for a company are burnt out, but are afraid to leave because they may not find another job. It's a perfect situation for employers. And, being in a buyers market means they can hire people for far less than their value. Employers are reaping the benefits of unemployment. They get highly motivated (scared) workers who will do anything to keep their jobs.
I totally agree with this article. I've been looking for work for over a year. I've taken a few temp jobs only to find that instead of hiring me they just get another temp to take my place. So after learning their product, customers, proprietary software, etc. they tell you your assignment is over and good luck. This usually happens right before you hit the monetary requirement that entitles you to some form of unemployment. These are jobs paying roughly $12.00/hr without benefits. At that rate I'm making half of what I was making and it's still not good enough, even though I have 20+ years of experience in my field. I'm not asking for a lot of money, just enough to keep up with my obligations. I recently applied for a position through a staffing agency. They even told me what salary I could expect from the company since they had been staffing for them for many years. The interview went very well. The job description matched my professional experience almost exactly. Mine was the only resume they sent them. Even told them I wouldn't need the benefits they offered. I was amazed when they called me back to tell me they decided to keep looking, partly because of the elections?!? Also because they thought the $14/hr I asked for was way too high for their liking. Wow, is all can say. So now I'm hiding my car from the repo man while I keep searching. It doesn't surprise me that people stop looking altogether. Maybe I'm better off on welfare with Section 8 Housing, since that's where I'll be if this nonsense continues.
Do you think either presidential candidate knows about this trend?
Another trend is what my hubby's been doing for the last three years. He's worked for our city in long-term temporary positions (twice for parks and rec, now solid waste this year) for the past three years. They have a limit of hours someone can work before they have to start paying benefits (about 9 months in a year), so they hire temps, keep them till they hit their limit, then send them home for the rest of the year.
Both my hubby's supervisors have wanted to hire him on full time, but the people in charge don't want to pay benefits. His time this year is now drawing to a close, he's applied for permanant positions, and they're apparently waiting until the last minute before they make a decision. Hopefully they've decided to hire him and are just waiting as long as possible before having to pay benefits, but we may not know until his last day as temp.
Luckily, I have a good job, insurance, etc., but a little more stability would be nice. Right now I'm wondering if there's any chance we could afford to keep our two year old in his preschool if hubby's unemployed again, or if we'll have to pull him out, lose his spot, and scramble to find something when hubby starts working again.
Actually, companies started doing a lot of that back in the early 90s. Sears in particular started that; Walmart has always done it. They do it, as you said, to keep from having to pay benefits.
It is obvious with 12 million people unemployed (probably double that in actuality) that any employer who can't fill a position instantly is probably the cause for their own problems..
@!$%#ty reputation, @!$%#ty pay, and @!$%#ty management are the top things that keep a company posting, training, and losing people constantly.
The problem is the headhunters/staffing companies! Don't believe a word they say when they are telling you that the employer is only willing to pay you $14.00! The truth is that they are paying the staffing company triple that for every hour your work, they are just being greedy and taking 60% or more for themselves! I know this for a fact as I have "ins" in my industry and know what they are paying these treasonous greedy leeches! In my field, companies are paying $90 per hour to these scalpers, then they in turn tell you that the employer is only willing to pay $25. I'm all for a win/win deal but I'll be damned if I'm going to allow someone to make that much profit off my hard work when all they do is hit "enter" twice a month and deposit money into my account! I own my own biz and contract out directly to the companies, so I know! The worse part about this is the people at these "staffing agencies" making these offers are Indian and don't even speak English, talk about a slap in the face to Americans! I dont know why companies use them because if I'm willing to pay $90 an hour for someone, I don't want you to send me a $25 an hour applicant! The staffing companies are the ones that should get the $25 (at most) and the applicant should get the $65! But welcome to America, where we screw our fellow countrymen for a nickle, friends and relatives a quarter... all the while waving the flag! DO NOT DO BUSINESS WITH STAFFING COMPANIES/HEADHUNTERS!
I guess I'm lucky with my contracting company. I get 45% of my billing rate. it still makes me sick knowing what they charge for my time versus my paycheck.
The main item that makes me mad is that I interview screened candidates for positions that require, first and foremost, GOOD COMMUNICATION SKILLS. 90% of the people I interview are not of this country and can't understand the questions I ask. out of 20 candidates I have interviewed last month, I've recommended two.
I detest headhunters too, but a job's a job and it keeps my electricity and water going and a roof over my head.
Sally,
Oddly, Presidents go through a 2-4 year interview period, with extensive interviews and an inhuman amount of travel. Behind the scenes, they are supported financially by people they wouldn't be seen with otherwise; knowing that these same supporters will expect favors quid pro quo. And the must win over everyone from the CEO to the night-shift custodian, even those who don't even work there. And they do this knowing that there can be only one, so a score will be disappointed. And all for a job paying $400k/year. P.S. Requires relocation and risk of assassination about every 20 years.
I hope everybody saw the news report that Silicon Valley -- our technology center -- has the highest turnover of employees. The companies throw out their workers, mainly younger, and higher a new worker to take their place. Most of these workers are "contract" and when their contract ends, they're not rehired. It's a recycling bin for those companys: no benefits, no security.
Don't blame the employers folks. Blame your own ineptitude at building a personal brand that presents employers with what they want - experience, skills, education and a proven ability to get the job done.
Yes - employers want all those things and they want them in people under 30 and who will take a couple of dollars over minimum wage and no benefits.
That isn't the problem. You can build up your skills or education and no matter what, it's not good enough. Have a bachelor's degree? We want a masters. Entry level work? You need a bachelor's degree. Your associate's degree isn't enough. Unemployed? Not good enough.
The problem is the employers want it both ways. Have hands-on experience? Not good enough because you don't have a degree. Have a degree? Not good enough because you have no experience. Have experience? Too bad, you're too old. Not enough experience? Too bad, so sad. We're not willing to train you.
The world doesn't work like this. These employers want candidates who, honestly, do not exist. It's going to come back to haunt them some day.
This is why I freelance. I may be poorer, but I'm a lot happier.
Hey Todd, you left out a couple of things that employers want, such as the willingness to work for less than half of what that same position was worth six or eight years ago. Or the "flexibility" to be on-call 24 x 365, including vacations. Or the masochistic stupidity to attempt to do the work of the three previously laid-off workers whose positions you are expected to fill. Or the "dedication" to work 100 hour weeks without a break, simply because they don't want to hire another worker. Just correcting your little omissions.
Some of the people doing the hiring, don't understand the job they are hiring to fill themselves. Take maintenance for instance. Is the job mechanical maintenance, electrical maintenance, building maintenance, grounds maintenance. They don't see that it takes a different mindset to get a robot operational as opposed to a lawn mower, because they live in an office where their problem is keeping the copier filled with paper.
No, this has nothing to do with employers being 'choosy'. If you think it would be helpful to resort to self-blame that is also a mistake. The employers that are refusing to hire are waiting it out to get as much productivity as they can with limited human resources to increase their bottom lines. All the while putting the pressure on their current employees and refusing to get them help when they need and ask for it. We the populous gave them a pass in thinking that it was reasonable for large industries and employers of the like to resort to putting a freeze on hiring, sifting through their personnel, deciding on mass terminations and lay-offs during a huge economic downturn. But the recession is over and now it's time to grow again. Not hiring because people were out of work too long during a slide in the economy is a laughable rationale. More than that it is an excuse to not hire that people are buying as valid. It's an excuse nonetheless. Data suggests that now more than any time in history large industries among other employers are paying their personnel back less and less though revenue and earnings are increasing. As productivity goes up wages and salaries of the very people that made that happen remains mostly stagnant. This was not the case in the past and it's simply a reflection of the sentiment from the decision makers at the top in these companies. Let's not resort to arguing over their schemes and blaming ourselves.
All the profits go to the CEO and his/her cronies. Not very many companies re-invest in their people.
Correction: No companies re-invest in their people.
There is a need to discuss corporate policies here.
It is entirely possible the Corporation is dictating the hiring practices, not just the HR reps. They want the hiring process to be as difficult as possible, so they can prove they couldn't find a qualified applicant;Henceforth, they had to offload the position to an overseas agency with no regrets. Consequently, they don't have to justify their practices, because they tried everything humanly possible to find a "qualified applicant".
Wake up!!!!! You've turned this country into a "third world nation" with two separate classes. There is very little "middle class" left.
Off topic......I vote we boycott Apple Iphones/Ipads, until they bring some of the manufacturing back into the US.....where much of their business occurs. That might solve some of the unemployment problems.
Absolutely the case where I work.
mariann - unfortunately - you need to 'get it' that the commodity known as humans is what the corp execs call employees. It is NOT what you bring to the table because there is another body just waiting to take your place - it's how much you cost. And if the person standing behind you can be had for 10 cents less - you're gone.
And APPLE is at the top when it comes to humans as commodities.
I'ts beginning to feel like humans are more like "chattel", employers can treat you however they want....including what they pay....I'm agreeing with you, if you didn't get that.
Commodities fluctuate with supply and demand. Yes, demand for employment is high, so there is a decrease in overall wages. However, if this trend continues, there won't be anyone left to purchase or support the companies that are paying the less than poverty wages.
Case in point....how many businesses have gone under in your town during the past couple of years? I can't even afford a dinner at Applebees or Shari's anymore. Dinners out are too much of a luxury. Just recently had the landline disconnected. I believe someone suggested tightening your belt? Mac and cheese(out of the box) doesn't exactly result in weightloss.
When your boss says "you are an asset to the company" he/she means you're disposable.
"Picky" is the under-the table, slight-of-hand means of establishing criteria for a position knowing no one will qualify - and then using that as the vehicle to lower the pay scale because no one measured up.
Yes, EMPLOYERS establish the requirements - and then set about to disqualify everyone so that they don't have to pay the posted salary.
If you are over 50 and do notspeak Spanish, no one will hire you. Out of work for 2 years, 25 yrs of experience, many, many interviews (so my resume must be attractive), but they see me and immediately ask if I speak a language other than English, and it all goes downhill from there. I was told that I should not even bother to apply for any government jobs - local or Federal - because the new rule is to speak another language. Being a woman also not not help my job search.
Job requirements should be requirements. In most cases they are not and many employees could do the job well without degrees. On the other side I have worked with some on the most highly educated idiots. PHDs who can't come in out of the rain. Give me an employee with training, common sense and a desire to succeed any day over Harvard grads without the last two.
At my former job, the "Director of IT" had ZERO IT experience - but he did have a degree in math! There wasn't a project to be done that didn't involve his training.