The_Silversword
Explorer
IM guessing its an old truck or car that he plans on "fixxing up" but in reality is just going to sit in his drive way rusting until his ol' lady finally makes him get rid of it.
What Do You Want To Talk About? (EnWorld edition)
- Thread starter The_Silversword
- Start date
sabrinathecat
Explorer
For an economy that is supposedly improving, unemployment around here is still nutso high.
And the policies that are in place with HR are just plain insanely divorced from reality. "If you were any good, someone would have snapped you up." Really? Where? Have you people noticed that there are nearly no jobs out there? That people are desperate? To the point where highly skilled tech people will work at burger-flipping or shelf-stocking just to have a job? "Oh, we'd rather hire someone who is already working than someone that is unemployed." WT Flaming F??? You'd rather create a hole in someone else's structure than give a job to someone who is desperately seeking work and would probably treat the company with fanatical loyalty out of gratitude? (OK, and because there is no where else to go).
I worked 8 months in a restaurant just to have something on my resume more current than 8 years ago. If it wasn't for the rental property I manage, I'd be a useless leach on society.
Rather than advertising the jobs they already plan on filling internally by promoting or transferring someone, why don't they just advertise the real job that will be opened by the person moving? That might, oh, I don't know... Make some frikkin' sense.
I have a friend working in upper management at one company. Her advise was "Don't put in any qualifications more than the job you're applying for. If you do, they'll weed you out." What? The hiring staff will screen you out of consideration for having more skills than they are looking for? That makes no sense--a variety of skills in MORE useful, not less.
Can someone explain any of this logic? Or rather, can someone translate these asinine policies into logic? Justify insanity?
And the policies that are in place with HR are just plain insanely divorced from reality. "If you were any good, someone would have snapped you up." Really? Where? Have you people noticed that there are nearly no jobs out there? That people are desperate? To the point where highly skilled tech people will work at burger-flipping or shelf-stocking just to have a job? "Oh, we'd rather hire someone who is already working than someone that is unemployed." WT Flaming F??? You'd rather create a hole in someone else's structure than give a job to someone who is desperately seeking work and would probably treat the company with fanatical loyalty out of gratitude? (OK, and because there is no where else to go).
I worked 8 months in a restaurant just to have something on my resume more current than 8 years ago. If it wasn't for the rental property I manage, I'd be a useless leach on society.
Rather than advertising the jobs they already plan on filling internally by promoting or transferring someone, why don't they just advertise the real job that will be opened by the person moving? That might, oh, I don't know... Make some frikkin' sense.
I have a friend working in upper management at one company. Her advise was "Don't put in any qualifications more than the job you're applying for. If you do, they'll weed you out." What? The hiring staff will screen you out of consideration for having more skills than they are looking for? That makes no sense--a variety of skills in MORE useful, not less.
Can someone explain any of this logic? Or rather, can someone translate these asinine policies into logic? Justify insanity?
Jet Shield
First Post
Working vs. Unemployed: There are a lot of people who are supposedly looking for work that, in reality, don't have any desire to work. In most places (that I know of), you have to show that you're actively looking for work in order to get public assistance. Also, people who are between jobs and collecting unemployment for more than a few weeks tend to "settle in" to a non-working lifestyle. These people, when they do return to work, often (in my experience) don't give full effort in the first few weeks and are prone to either quit and look for other work or to coast by. Someone who is already working has shown that they both want to work and that they are willing to do the job to the best of their ability. From a hiring perspective it makes sense to get a worker rather than take a chance. There are exceptions to the rule, of course, but you have to remember that it costs the company money (above and beyond that person's paycheck) to hire someone. It's wise to err on the side of caution.
Job advertisement: No company is going to advertise a job that isn't actually open at the time. Just because they might expect to fill the position internally, doesn't mean they actually will. They may not find anyone internally that is both qualified for the job and that actually wants it. They may have a few people that would do okay at the job internally, but, by advertising the position, they may find someone outside the company that will do a superior job at that position.
Qualifications: It's better (for the company) to hire someone they have to give some training to than to hire someone who is overqualified for the job. Someone who is overqualified will, almost inevitably, view the job as temporary and be looking for work that pays them their perceived value and allows them the full use of their skills. They become frustrated by working a job that is "beneath" them, or they look for wage increases above what the job ordinarily provides. These people can be a good hire if you expect to be able to promote them to a more suitable position quickly, but that is rarely the case.
Job advertisement: No company is going to advertise a job that isn't actually open at the time. Just because they might expect to fill the position internally, doesn't mean they actually will. They may not find anyone internally that is both qualified for the job and that actually wants it. They may have a few people that would do okay at the job internally, but, by advertising the position, they may find someone outside the company that will do a superior job at that position.
Qualifications: It's better (for the company) to hire someone they have to give some training to than to hire someone who is overqualified for the job. Someone who is overqualified will, almost inevitably, view the job as temporary and be looking for work that pays them their perceived value and allows them the full use of their skills. They become frustrated by working a job that is "beneath" them, or they look for wage increases above what the job ordinarily provides. These people can be a good hire if you expect to be able to promote them to a more suitable position quickly, but that is rarely the case.
sabrinathecat
Explorer
Again, all of that fails to take into account the devastation of the collapsed economy, and that people are desperate for work. Some are even willing to (shudder) move to Texas. Remember when the dot-coms became dot-bombs, and suddenly all these highly trained tech people were unemployed? They glutted the market taking whatever jobs they could find. Remember that? And how suddenly there were employees at Fry's Electronics who actually knew something about the products? Sound familiar at all? That's the situation again here.
Yes, hiring someone is a risk for the company. Employees are both an asset and a liability. If, however, you have a PhD willing to flip burgers because he/she needs income, sure, it would (hopefully for him/her) be short term, but isn't that the case with any burger flipper?
Again, I'm not talking about under educated High school kids, but people with technical skills and college degrees. People who are motivated and want to work. (Yes, there are the lazy people happy to collect unemployment and whatnot, but I hope they are the exception.)
How is having additional skills (say, both Illustrator and CorelDraw) a bad thing? Knowledge/training of two pieces of software that do the same thing can be handy for troubleshooting.
Yes, hiring someone is a risk for the company. Employees are both an asset and a liability. If, however, you have a PhD willing to flip burgers because he/she needs income, sure, it would (hopefully for him/her) be short term, but isn't that the case with any burger flipper?
Again, I'm not talking about under educated High school kids, but people with technical skills and college degrees. People who are motivated and want to work. (Yes, there are the lazy people happy to collect unemployment and whatnot, but I hope they are the exception.)
How is having additional skills (say, both Illustrator and CorelDraw) a bad thing? Knowledge/training of two pieces of software that do the same thing can be handy for troubleshooting.
EscherEnigma
Adventurer
I pretty much agree with Jet Shield, but here's a few other things...
Re: Hiring someone whom is currently employed vs. not
Consider two prospective employees. They have the same qualifications, same years in industry, same education. But one is currently employed and the other has been out of work for six months. If you're a hiring manager, what do you do? Well, for one thing you know that whatever their qualifications, the guy that's out of a job did something to be out of a job. And whatever that something is, whether it's simply not being practically perfect in every way, working for the wrong company, or sleeping with the CEOs underage daughter, the hiring manager doesn't really expect to find out. The currently employed guy, on the otherhand, is still currently employed, aka, they haven't screwed up enough to get fired/downsized/whatever. Throw in that skills atrophy without constant use (I would raise a critical eye at any prospective computer programmer who hasn't programmed in a few years)...
As for the "but the economy!" and "they're making a hole in another company!"... sorry, but companies are selfish. They don't actually care that you "really need" a job, they don't care they're making a problem for someone else, they don't care about the larger picture, for the most part. They want the most qualified person (for the right price), and let the rest of the world burn.
Re: Advertising jobs they plan to fill internally
Well, that can be kinda complicated. Depending on what the organization it, it could be anything from "well, we want to fill it internally, but policy requires we advertise and consider all canidates, even our preferred one, in an equitable manner". It could be "we want to yank Steve's chain around some". It could be "I'd love to put you into that managerial position Steve, but I'm not allowed to fill positions, that's entirely in HR's hands" It could be lots of things. Most likely it's an attempt to give a fair shake at other qualified people so, while their intended candidate may enjoy some bias, they aren't guaranteed. After all, sometimes you get that motorcycle-riding alligator-wrestling Ph.D that cold-calls in response to a newspaper ad and they're just too awesome to not hire, so sorry Steve, maybe next time.
Re: Not hiring over-qualified candidates
Jet Shield got it pretty good. If someone is clearly over-qualified, then any hiring manager is gonna sit there and wonder if they're going to be right back in the same position in six months.
As a side note, this isn't conjecture. I've sat in on the hiring commitee at a quasi-public institution before (university library), and these were some of the things we talked about. We looked at the over-qualified candidates, discussed/projected/navel-gazed about their motivations and desires, dissected their current employment status vs. their work history, talked about internal posting vs. external posting, and so-on. Our situation was even more constrained because, due to HR policies, we weren't allowed to ask any candidate a question we didn't askof all the candidates, so we were hamstrung on getting answers to some of the things that concerned us about individual applicants.
Conclusion: two things to remember: the people hiring you are human, and they are selfish. Don't expect them to act perfectly logically (if that was a reasonable expectation we wouldn't have a Civil Rights Act, after all), do expect them to respond more from their "gut" and "feelings", and don't expect them to think of the larger picture outside their organization. They want what's good for them, not what's good for you.
Now, you may not like that this is how people think, and you may think they should think differently, but how does the phrase go... "If wishes were fishes, Mon Calamari would be running Rebel Command"
Re: Hiring someone whom is currently employed vs. not
Consider two prospective employees. They have the same qualifications, same years in industry, same education. But one is currently employed and the other has been out of work for six months. If you're a hiring manager, what do you do? Well, for one thing you know that whatever their qualifications, the guy that's out of a job did something to be out of a job. And whatever that something is, whether it's simply not being practically perfect in every way, working for the wrong company, or sleeping with the CEOs underage daughter, the hiring manager doesn't really expect to find out. The currently employed guy, on the otherhand, is still currently employed, aka, they haven't screwed up enough to get fired/downsized/whatever. Throw in that skills atrophy without constant use (I would raise a critical eye at any prospective computer programmer who hasn't programmed in a few years)...
As for the "but the economy!" and "they're making a hole in another company!"... sorry, but companies are selfish. They don't actually care that you "really need" a job, they don't care they're making a problem for someone else, they don't care about the larger picture, for the most part. They want the most qualified person (for the right price), and let the rest of the world burn.
Re: Advertising jobs they plan to fill internally
Well, that can be kinda complicated. Depending on what the organization it, it could be anything from "well, we want to fill it internally, but policy requires we advertise and consider all canidates, even our preferred one, in an equitable manner". It could be "we want to yank Steve's chain around some". It could be "I'd love to put you into that managerial position Steve, but I'm not allowed to fill positions, that's entirely in HR's hands" It could be lots of things. Most likely it's an attempt to give a fair shake at other qualified people so, while their intended candidate may enjoy some bias, they aren't guaranteed. After all, sometimes you get that motorcycle-riding alligator-wrestling Ph.D that cold-calls in response to a newspaper ad and they're just too awesome to not hire, so sorry Steve, maybe next time.
Re: Not hiring over-qualified candidates
Jet Shield got it pretty good. If someone is clearly over-qualified, then any hiring manager is gonna sit there and wonder if they're going to be right back in the same position in six months.
As a side note, this isn't conjecture. I've sat in on the hiring commitee at a quasi-public institution before (university library), and these were some of the things we talked about. We looked at the over-qualified candidates, discussed/projected/navel-gazed about their motivations and desires, dissected their current employment status vs. their work history, talked about internal posting vs. external posting, and so-on. Our situation was even more constrained because, due to HR policies, we weren't allowed to ask any candidate a question we didn't askof all the candidates, so we were hamstrung on getting answers to some of the things that concerned us about individual applicants.
Conclusion: two things to remember: the people hiring you are human, and they are selfish. Don't expect them to act perfectly logically (if that was a reasonable expectation we wouldn't have a Civil Rights Act, after all), do expect them to respond more from their "gut" and "feelings", and don't expect them to think of the larger picture outside their organization. They want what's good for them, not what's good for you.
Now, you may not like that this is how people think, and you may think they should think differently, but how does the phrase go... "If wishes were fishes, Mon Calamari would be running Rebel Command"
sabrinathecat
Explorer
But the hiring manager DOESN'T know that the person unemployed for 6 month did something wrong. Maybe his/her only mistake was working for a company that went under. That has happened A LOT around here.
Homicidal_Squirrel
Adventurer
EE covered that. Both E and Jet have given good and lengthy explanations. The short answer is that life isn't fair. Not all people are nice and/or caring. Companies are more interested in making a profit.
On a related note, last week I heard a segment on NPR about STEM education and careers, and how this shortage of qualified applicants was actually a myth. According to the guy who they had on, we don't have a shortage of qualified applicants for tech jobs. What we have is a shortage of qualified applicants for tech jobs that are willing to take garbage pay. So these tech companies cry about not having enough people to hire and having to hire people from other countries. The truth is that they don't want to pay good wages, so instead they'll hire out workers from countries were $28K/year is seen as a fortune.
During the interview, the guest said there were some stats showing that on average, tech workers only have about 15 years worth of employment. After that they get replaced by younger and cheaper workers.
The moral of the story? Start your own company. It sucks working for other people. If you want to make a lot of money, working for someone else is not going to get you there.
sabrinathecat
Explorer
That kinda brings us to my other pet peeve: Required experience. Yes, I understand that experienced workers are preferred--they've been broken in and proved that they can do the job, or just broken. However, someone, somewhere, has to provide a basic entry job in the field. Even the so-called entry jobs I've seen at companies in the last 2 years specify 1-2 years experience or 1-4 shipped titles. Great. So what? Supposed to work for free for a year? Get an internship. OK, I can do that. Oh, Internships are only for current students, not those who have already graduated.
It's like banging your head into a wall.
One person suggested simply faking the resume, and BSing through the interview, hoping that the people wouldn't notice. Nice. Of course, if the interviewers bother to even spot-check those references, your chances of employment are toast.
It's like banging your head into a wall.
One person suggested simply faking the resume, and BSing through the interview, hoping that the people wouldn't notice. Nice. Of course, if the interviewers bother to even spot-check those references, your chances of employment are toast.
Homicidal_Squirrel
Adventurer
Thats why you should start your own company. You won't have to worry about all that BS.
Last edited:
sabrinathecat
Explorer
If I started my own company, I'd probably do something mindlessly idealistic like only hire recent college grads.
Similar Threads
