On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 17:01:56 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 08:01:13AM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:36:13 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 06:00:51PM -0400, Jerry wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:33:29 -0700 David Brodbeck articulated:
> > > > >
> > > > >Again, this is one of the reasons credit scoring is becoming so
> > > > >popular -- it's an almost automatic way to narrow down the pile.
> > > > >Another method in common use right now is to throw out applications
> > > > >from anyone who's currently unemployed, and only look at ones who
> > > > >already have a position and are looking to change jobs.
> > > >
> > > > I have been told by several people in HR that the trend to give
> > > > preference to those all ready working as opposed to the unemployed is
> > > > based on the philosophy that if no one else will hire them, then why
> > > > should we. While we could argue whether that logic is flawed, it is
> > > > never-the-less presently in use. However, it doesn't really pertain to
> > > > entry level openings. With the glut of individuals entering the job
> > > > market, for an applicant to not be proficient in the skills being
> > > > advertised for by the prospective employer is just a waste of time. If
> > > > the employer is looking for skill "A" and "B", crying to him/her that
> > > > you have skill "C" is just a waste of both your times.
> > >
> > > It *does* pertain to "entry level" positions, because (from what I have
> > > seen) most "entry level" positions come with an experience requirement of
> > > at least two years.
> > But then this would invalidate "ENTRY level". How exactly is
> > an applicant supposed to get a job from that "entry level" pool
> > when he doesn't have previous experience because he simply wants
> > to ENTER that field of profession?
> Yes -- that is *exactly* the question that comes up. These are not jobs
> that are "entry level" in terms of requirements, even if they are "entry
> level" in terms of pay and actual skill required to do the job to a
> reasonable level of competence. Consider examples like first-level call
> center jobs that require a college degree and a couple years expericence,
> as pretty much the canonical example.
Seems to exactly that way in Germany. I did talk to a HR guy
last week and he explained that those requirements are typical.
I think he wasn't honest about the reasons. One may be the
continuous degrading of school education and the recent loss
of quality in university education (due to european processes).
Another reason might be that companies need to be _certified_
theirselves in order to get orders from other companies, and
for that kinds of certification, it seems they have to show
that they employ lots of "highly qualified personnel" in order
to justify their prices.
Combined with mis-naming call center positions ("virtualisation
administrator / system administrator" being such a kind of 1st
level phone support job, even though the name might make you
thing of something totally different), it seems to be a means
to lower wages by "presenting the fact" that the current
applicant doesn't have a B.A. degree, but will be hired: "You
know, well... we could pay you more if you've had substantial
experiences and the required degree, but we can afford to pay
you on entry level only. Be glad the we are doing that!"
> In some cases, these jobs may simple be advertised this way so hiring
> managers can use the lack of "qualified" applicants to help justify
> offshoring jobs.
That also sounds familiar: the current "lack of professionals"
can be explained that way. It's not that the professionals are
lacking per se, it's just that nobody wants to pay them proper
wages. Personnel costs baaaaaad.
If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. It is that simple. The "we
can't get" argument often is "we don't want to pay". Of course,
this is understandable if you consider how expensive work is:
taxes, taxes, lots of taxes... 1000 Euro wage can easily turn
into 2000 Euro costs. (And don't believe that 1000 Euro _paid_
is much - it isn't. It's almost less worth than 1000 DM!)
> In other cases, this is just an example of how HR "best
> practices" have gotten ridiculously out of control, where everybody tries
> to copy what everyone else is doing because if everyone else is doing it
> you can't get in trouble for doing the same thing.
This might be important in the B2B sector, especially the "pro-
paganda" that brings orders to companies. In case the word "they
hire lower-qualified personnel" or "they pay their workers too
much" might result in a loss of orders for that company, because
they're "doing it wrong".
Note that innovative business has always "done wrong". :-)
> I think a far worse problem than the failure to understand what skills
> are needed is the failure to understand things like
> 1. what skills can be learned easily in a very short period of time so
> that focus on other necessary skills already existing can be employed in
> selecting candidates
That shouldn't be any UNfamiliar. You don't learn to be a programmer
at the university, and you don't get experience for working in
company B during your professional education in company A. There
is _always_ some time needed to get familiar with how things are
done at your new workplace - and that's no problem. It hasn't been
a problem for over 100 years, why should it now?
As I said, a GENERIC SKILL is learning per se. If you can do that,
you will be good at knowing how to do things in your new job in a
few time. And you are treated fair, you _may_ even invest your
free time (non-work time) to learn more.
We currently have a cultural problem of "work vs. non-work" that
is present nearly everywhere, in production and in service. The
things you're doing at work are likely _not_ things you do in
your free time. However, "geeks & nerds" tend to do programming
stuff, reading docs and practicing coding in their free time too.
In the past, I did often say: "You're paying me for what I would
do for free anyway." :-)
The "standard" scaling models of "being good at <static thing>"
are hard to make a proper selection, because learning is not
static. Just because someone is _now_ good at some programming
language does not neccessarily imply that he will be able to
learn a different language quickly (by both sharing the aspect
of being "a programming language"). I think we're talking about
POTENTIAL here, and how would one measure that? It's a thing
that comes into action by applying it.
> 2. why disqualifying candidates for stupidities that have nothing to do
> with their skills and other actually suitable qualities for the job is
Again, sometimes the best candidates slip here. Many "geeks & nerds"
appear to be "socially unaccomodated", so that disqualifies them,
even though if they're better at a job than the whole programming
team. Applicants with disabilities are also "problematic", they
cannot work exactly the same way healthy people do, and this may
interfere with established procedures and processes, and therefore
harm the certification of the company.
You might be aware that there is legal regulation that forces
employers to have a certain share of disabled employees (starting
at a specific company size). But there's a backdoor: They can
"buy theirselves free" of that obligation. Remember? That penalty
fees would be material costs. Material costs gooooood, personnel
Of course, things "need to fit", but after all, isn't the employing
process a thing to GET WORK DONE, on the long run? Shouldn't _THAT_
be the primary goal, instead of "growing a corporate monoculture"?