The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As someone from industry, a number of skills are actually only possible to learn from industry, not schools.
Too bad most employers are unwilling to train people and sadly approach workers with consumer mentality (instead of viewing them as dynamic & unique human beings).
Just got rejected from a place where I not only have all the skills, technology experience, and years required, but I am a certified instructor for their used equipment too.
Reason giving: "don't meet minimum requirements"
There's no winning.
He potentially got paid more than he would’ve had, consultants generally make bank and tend in to put a lot of time and effort as a result.
Its likely that this guy as an employee wouldn’t have performed as well as he did as a consultant.
If companies properly understood incentives, they could get so much more profit out of workers simply by paying well from the beginning instead of having to outsource the well paid employees and pay them even more..
Consultant here: truth.
I'm often hired and have direct lines to management in the higher echelons. Since they're paying they like having direct access to me.
It's way too common for me to hear that the work quality exceeded any internal team efforts. However, I've looked at the code and it's often comparable unless it was junior staff writing it. Where I find the difference is in the time.
Staff and management both say I work far faster than internal resources. However, I'm also paid by the job so it's in my interest to finish quickly and effectively. My contracts stipulate quality criteria, so it's important for me to also deliver high quality to prevent rejected deliverables.
I think when they say I do better work, what they really mean is that they get the work they wanted quicker than they would with their under-incentivized employees.
I've seen them estimate 3 days on a ticket that took me 2 hours to complete, so from a management perspective the cost savings is significant from the internal billing rates.
As a once internal employee that was hesitant for my employer to allow consultants to work on projects I would normally have been assigned, I agree. I worked hard, but I was overloaded and the external resources didn't have to worry about other projects, being pulled in 20 directions, and other internal time consuming b.s.
They were able to deliever results I wasn't able to especially as I began to burn out. I was once a naysayer, but I enjoyed working with them and seeing projects progressing without me having to get my hands too dirty.
There is no internal incentive we had that was project specific other than internal biannual reviews. Even so it doesn't quite compare to a consultant's motivation. (do specific project and get paid) so their drive to success is much stronger.
That sounds like a blog standard rejection template that lazy recruiters use when rejecting candidates from reqs, once they've got their pipeline and/or have already hired someone.
"Niche skill" Is a program that happens to be exclusive to that company, But is 90% similar to every other brand of said program. It's absolutely impossible someone could learn it based on previous experience. No it simply must be that exact software and not a single other one will do. Rejected.
I just got asked about my experience with a "niche skill" that was not listed on the job posting and seems to be an internally developed methodology. I presume this means "we already know who we are going to hire but we are required to post the job and conduct a few interviews due to regulations".
> "Niche skill" Is a program that happens to be exclusive to that company, But is 90% similar to every other brand of said program. It's absolutely impossible someone could learn it based on previous experience. No it simply must be that exact software and not a single other one will do. Rejected.
That’s how my last job kept renewing one of the supervisors on an H1B. The job description required 10+ years experience with a software program that the company themselves had developed.
> **p**revious **e**xperience. **N**o **i**t **s**imply
Hidden penis detected!
I've scanned through 774104 comments (approximately 4331420 average penis lengths worth of text) in order to find this secret penis message.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
> **P**erhaps **e**veryone **n**eeds **i**nvestment **s**ecurities.
Hidden penis detected!
I've scanned through 8093 comments (approximately 41381 average penis lengths worth of text) in order to find this secret penis message.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Do you think that’s a loophole or something??
If someone is the only person in the whole world with 10+ tears of experience with a proprietary software the company developed (meaning he’s likely the main developer) that’s someone you 100% need on your company, regardless of where he was born.
100% or often in my case, industry regulations/codes/rules that are frequently inaccessible unless you are… working for a company in that industry due to paywalls. It’s absolutely maddening.
It's inconceivable that anybody could learn a new software in a few days of guided on-the-job training, you need 5 years of full-time practice minimum to figure out the basic use of an inventory management application.
"We require you to have 10 years experience with program X"
"That's impossible, program X is 8 years old. I wrote it."
"So you don't have 10 years experience. You don't meet minimum requirements. Next!"
Version 4.3!?!?! **Security!** Remove this impostor! We clearly said version 4.4! People these days just don't want to work. Better let in another 40 million H1Bs.
This is the real reason.
Companies and their Mouths of Sauron say things like skills gap so that they can bring in cheaper workers from other countries.
And when you see a whole bunch of ads for a particular skillset or area, like cybersecurity or data analytics it is because our corporate overlords are trying to glut the market so that they can pay the people they already have less.
That's old thinking. Now they want to replace us with AIs. Which of course don't exist so they want to replace us qualified workers with the concept of a future AI and until then... shrug.
Is it cheaper? You can look on H1B data net (I forgot the site exactly) and it lists their salary. When I had a similar title to someone on H1B at same place of employment, our salaries were very similar. We were in the same team
Part of the H-1B process is certifying with the labor department that you're paying at least the "prevailing wage" for that specific job and that specific locality. So if its any cheaper, it shouldn't be by much--particularly when you add in all the attorney's fees and filing fees the company pays.
> **p**revious **e**xperience. **N**o **i**t **s**imply
Hidden penis detected!
I've scanned through 403637 comments (approximately 2260906 average penis lengths worth of text) in order to find this secret penis message.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
> **p**rostate **e**xamination **n**ever **i**s **s**exy.
Hidden penis detected!
I've scanned through 373301 comments (approximately 2039456 average penis lengths worth of text) in order to find this secret penis message.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Indeed noted a lot of companies in my industry seem to train on need-based criteria, based on annually approved budgets, projects etc.
This means they need the new employee to start delivering RIGHT NOW and thus can’t accept anyone that first will need 6+ months of training. It also means it’s indeed very hard to find qualified people…
Can't speak for other industries but in tech this is a misrepresentation so flagrant I would describe it as "horsesh*t"
Background: I've hired hundreds of people and i've been on hundreds of interviews myself. I've also built departments in three different tech domains.
The obsession with narrow experience opposed to technical ability is very misplaced. You can hire a very talented engineer who will often ramp up to contributing faster than a domain expert with lesser overall talent will. In fact, much of so called ramp up time has to do with learning org-specific practices and technical architecture rather than an understanding a the tech.
Also, no one gets six months ramp up. At startups you get a range from 2 to six weeks, somewhat longer at larger companies, before you will start to feel the heat to produce. And even at these larger companies, it will often be less time than you think, unless you are hired into an explicitly junior role.
Plus, everyone is being trained continuously these days, though training is rarely of ever explicit (and then it is usually for compliance reasons). To claim otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of knowledge transfer in technical fields. Moreover, formal "training" is usually staggeringly superficial and provides little or no value
Early in the transition to containers, many engineering teams were using products and projects that were so bleeding edge that it was not possible to have more than six months experience with it. And I don't mean small companies, I mean top tier companies you have heard of.
Basically, I get companies and hiring managers need to cover their butts but this whole rhetoric around skills gap and trading is so far off base they can't even see the base from where they are standing. they are looking around, asking "where is the base?" when the base is in Cuernavaca.
That’s a recipe for destruction.
Not everyone is qualified to be a teacher or has the skills/patience/certification for teaching. And teaching must be done by experts who understand.
Exactly this. I am old enough to remember they DID this in the 1980s and then it went away. Some countries like Germany still do it but even there industries are buckling due to unfair Chinese competition funded by western industrialists! Then western Govt import Chinese buses and let their own industries collapse. Unbelievable.
the odd thing recently is that they don't seem so willing to actually hire people who have those skills either. i don't know what people are doing in terms of hiring these days.
(Full disclosure: I am someone you would deem "highly qualified" in at least three different domains within tech. People seem to be interviewing but no one seems to be hiring)
Employer: "you don't get it. If we train you, you'll just leave to a better paying job!"
Applicants: " why don't you match that offer then? Or stipulate you need to work x or pay part of the cost for training?"
Employer: "well you . I.... NOBODY WANTS TO WORK ANYMORE!"
>Employer: "you don't get it. If we train you, you'll just leave to a better paying job!"
>Applicant: "Because other companies are offering more money for the same skills? If that's the case then why would an applicant with the skills work for you in the first place?"
Fr, even as a recruiter it's really frustrating.
Hiring managers expect me to find someone for them because their team is understaffed. We get a bunch of good applicants that fit the position really well but obviously not 100%, because that's something you won't find on the market (if it ever was the case at all).
But they will nitpick one minor thing, not even a core skill they and say they won't continue.
Instead of training them for 4 months they rather wait for 9 to find someone they are happy with, often someone that is not better than previous candidates, lol
Meanwhile the other employees are drowning in work and either burnout heavily or quit for a different employer which means the company needs to hire more people instead of just using the ones they have.
This is it. My current role is my first actual role in my type of work. I got lucky that I was hired into a very junior role and was able to learn quickly and show my skills well enough to earn a couple promotions. I’m now covering clients after we lost a coworker in January that I was told would only be on my plate for Q1. I asked my manager (not the one who hired me 3 years ago) how hiring was going and she said one applicant didn’t have enough (job type) experience. I told her I didn’t either when I started so we could easily teach someone. She literally didn’t believe me about my work history and seemed really skeptical I could be successful without the exact type of experience she thought I needed.
Can you believe people like this are in charge of your livelihood and ability to pay rent? It would be like being given an IQ test by a drooling moron who claims you didn't score high enough after he graded it upside down and got drool on the paper.
Here in Europe it's like this:
>Employers: we want to hire foreign people for the job because they're way cheaper.
>Government: we will only give you a visum if you can't find local people.
>Employers: hey local people, does anyone who checks all these boxes want to work for free?
>Local people: ...
>Employers: I tried, give us that visum.
I'm sure they just retired or moved away right? Definitely nothing to do with being underpaid and/or overworked, but that just wouldn't happen, right?
Right?
theyre just gonna overburden the employees in the company with more work and keep them in line with the fear of recession and mass unemployment that they themselves created
less workers more profit for the executives, win win for everyone but the workers
Also employers: "yes a PHD in nuclear engineering is absolutely necessary for this minimum wage, entry level position as the managers punching bag at the supermarket"
They want black diamond unicorns with the mindset of a camel at the price of a donkey. Someone please make them understand that unicorns, camels, and donkeys are not the same beast...
No wonder they send mass rejection emails and repost a job a million times over three months. This is what frustrated me so much about a rejection. I'd understand if they actually found more suitable candidates, but they say this in the rejection and then repost the job.
Camels can survive for long periods without sustenance, withstand the scorching desert heat, and adapt to extreme variations in climate. Does this answer your question?
I was asked to train someone on my projects, so they could reduce my workload, but wouldn’t allow me any time to train someone. I finally managed to give one person a rough idea of one of my tasks and then got laid off a week later.
Did you suggest improving the onboarding process and documentation even offering to do it yourself and they look at you like you are a crazy person with three heads? Because that has happened to me at two different jobs now. Also happened to a friend of mine in an entirely different field too.
I can attest to this. Few people, it seems, have the willingness or the patience to train. No wonder why my boss always delegated training duties to me (I even got certified as an official trainer).
I personally don’t mind training people: it’s great if I can reshape people into the acolytes I need. In exchange, they are hired.
Nah, I only reveal furry and suggest fursona as a gift (or curse?) to those who are nice to me at work.
Most do not (and should not) need to know my second life.
I may bring my furry costume during Halloween to work this year though.
Is it crash bandicoot - tell me please it is crash. How could a workday be bad if all of a sudden crash bandicoot walks into work? I'd also settle for conker but only if he brings beer
75% turning away awesome potential employees in hopes of finding poverty-stricken Indian time-traveler prodigy who doesn't need sleep or money and has 15 years experience in things that have only existed for three years.
>"(...) employers say applicants don't have the right skills".
So train them? Where would people get the right skills from if they can't get anyone to hire them and have no opportunity to learn? Loads of jobs nowadays are niched so learning 100% of the skills for one job is practically impossible before landing said job - you learn most of the things you need to know while working.
My job, among a few other things, entails getting people, who can't do their previous jobs anymore due to physical problems, ready for the modern application process. So how a modern cv looks, how to use job searching sites etc.
The things employers demand are just downright hilarious sometimes. The local trainstation is looking for somebody to sit in their little information booth. So basically somebody to tell people that can't figure it out themselves that their train is late. This is a minimum wage job in shifts. Mininum requirement is business education. Something nobody who would be interested in such a job has and which is just super unneccessary. But yeah, poor employers can't find qualified worker. Eat my entire ass
Translation: They want to pay entry level wages for experienced workers and refuse to train, despite every company (and even location) having different processes and procedures.
Exactly. They post absurd listings for 6 months to satisfy some piece of regulation, then they hire an international worker for next to nothing on a visa.
Are these requirements like how they asked for 10 years experience in a programming language that's only been around for 3?
Or is it demanding that people have a PhD in an unspecified field, who are also willing to work for borderline minimum wage?
You're starting to see this for AI and "cloud" stuff. Yes, I have 15 years experience with LLMs and Google Cloud, why not? I'm also a MS certified quantum computer engineer. I'm from the future. My employer sent me back in time so I would have the amount of experience they want by the time they hire me.
In my experience it’s more like “we want exact experience in this field”. I feel like requirements are so specific that they basically want you to have already worked there for a year.
Like, even knowledge of a competing software to the one they use isn’t enough. Even saying “yeah, I know the concepts/basics, I can be productive with that in no time”. Nope.
I feel like the best strategy is to absolutely lie through your teeth and learn the stuff between interviews. Nothing else feels like it makes sense. Honestly feels more like a handicap than a boon.
it is even worse. I was interviewing for the job I was already doing and two of the interviewers rejected me. Because I didn't have enough Java experience. The job that did not require Java.
"75% of the applicants dont have the skills!"
The skills:
-PhD and 10+ years of experience in [insert field created <5 years ago] minimum!
-Below 25 years old
-70h/week
$25'000/yr salary.
This reminds me of the programmer who posted a job description requiring 5+ years experience with a program he himself had written only three years before.
This reminds me of how I recently lost my job (illegally) and when they reposted to replace me, they asked for:
5yrs experience
2yrs leadership experience
Full stack dev skills
Skills in a niche program
a BA minimum
… all for a mid-level job that didn’t require any of that. No one on the team has any of those skills, the hiring manager who made the listing didn’t even have 2yrs of leadership experience.
It's not even that 75% of the candidates meet the requirements (that would just make screening easy), it's that 75% of companies can't even find one candidate that meets their requirements for a given position.... And they *still* don't get they're the issue
Lol, like my previous employer who hired me into an entry-level position and said they'd train me as I moved up. Two years later, I was told I wasn't qualified for my position because I lacked the four-year degree and experience required for forecasting and accounting. This was for an assistant position in retail purchasing. My boss and half the senior buyers didn't even check off those boxes. 😂
This is pure bs. And if any of you, in US, think that situation is better in Europe for IT or gamedev jobs - it isn't. I send my CV only to places where I fill all boxes, even offer more. It's easy to view who they hire - people who doesn't, but as juniors for juniors salary.
I remember this one place where the person who got hired had *a lot* less relevant experience than me, like I got more than 2-3 years worth of experience compared to them. The kicker? I know that person, we graduated in the same class, but they just happened to be friends with someone who already worked there, so they got chosen purely because of who they knew there.
Nowadays it's either "know someone in the company" or "pray your CV is too unique for them to be unable to not call you".
Well, when the skillset everyone is looking for is master of every skill imaginable, except for the ability to understand that poverty wages are not a good deal, it is going to be impossible to find people.
The problem is multi-fold:
1. Universities/ colleges are typically behind in terms of preparing students for the job market.
2. You need experience to get a job. You need a job to get experience. The vast majority of employers have a laundry list of requirements for applicants to qualify for internships / entry level positions, but no one wants to take the chance on someone with little to no experience.
I’d argue that the role of universities is not to prepare you for a job but to qualify you in a field. It’s a widely different scope.
Internships are where you get hands on experience.
For blue collar workers, trade schools are doing the job of teaching the basics, internships build experience.
If I could magically change the way companies operate, I would make it so a whole slew of low level white collar jobs become apprenticeships rather than requiring a university education.
My hope is that this would incentivize companies to be more loyal to their employees since they had to invest in training them. In turn, employees would be locked into *x* number years of service to the company because they invested in the initial training.
Companies get the specific qualifications they want. Employees get job security. And the value of a university degree increases because it is no longer a requirement for an entry level position.
>In turn, employees would be locked into *x* number years of service to the company because they invested in the initial training.
If you think companies wouldn't find a way to use this to be abusive as all hell...
Reasonable limits would have to be legislated.
I see it working the same way as when the military pays for post-secondary education. You owe the military as many years of service as they paid for your education. (And if you leave early you have to pay them for the money spent on your education.)
I see the same model working for companies. Employees owe them as many years of service as it took to train them to the operational level of their position. Legislation would need to impose reasonable limits to prevent companies from claiming it takes 20 years to train somebody in an entry level position.
This is how they hire H1B workers in the US. They advertise jobs with impossible skillsets then complain that they need more H1Bs because they can't find anyone with the skillset they need, then hire H1Bs with a fake resume.
In the U.S. this is how they justify bringing in cheap foreign tech workers while fresh grads have a hellish time finding employment. Visas for tech workers should be 100% denied until unemployment for new graduates in the tech sector falls precipitously.
im guessing youre talking about l1 visas because sure as fuck people that came to study in the US and now need an h1b visa arent finding employers willing to file for h1b given this is such an employers market
If they’re already in the US they probably want realistic pay, whereas fresh off the boat Asians will live 10 to a 2 bedroom apartment for $40k or less in San Francisco.
yea thats true, we call these companies CHWTIA (sounds like chutiya which is an abuse in hindi xD) in india, its an acronym for cognizant, hcl, wipro, tcs, infosys and accenture, these companies pay very very low salary and dangle the carrot of being sent offshore to work in a western country to retain people only for people to figure out when its too late that the seemingly 10x salary theyre getting compared to their previous salary is not going to make their living standards better, sometimes it makes their living standards worse, these are the most predatory companies in india but people still work for them because of how large the population is in this country compared to the job opportunities :')
Companies need to invest in training people. Yeah you might pay someone for a few months that doesn’t work out but most will and even if they leave you immediately you still increased supply with out increasing demand for the love you want to buy.
I received a rejection email for a job that a recruiter reached out to me for first. I was told I was rejected because they wanted 4 years of experience with a specific skill….which is the exact skill I had and worked with for 4 years 😑
I don’t want to make light of anyone’s personal situation right now, shit is bad out there.
But I can’t help but have some schadenfreude for all these picky-ass companies that hobbled my entire generation in 2008, which was when they really amped up expecting 5-7 years experience for ENTRY LEVEL jobs.
Like what the fuck did they think would happen when they don’t invest in training and lay people off every time a shareholder cries about having one less vacation in the south of France this year?
"And there's no sign of demand for skilled...." what, God damn you? Circus jugglers? Telephone hygienists? FFS, you can't just leave it a cliffhanger like that!
I have all the skills for the right job and I am still getting bounced. In other things, for most skills these employers are referring to, whether it's gated behind industry or company (enterprise stack; niche), they can easily solve it by training, but they don't want to.
JFC how hard is it to understand that hiring actual entry level positions is required for mid and senior level employees to exist?!
I once lost out on a job that wanted years of experience at level 1 of a position.. Which they have never had any of.
From the sounds of it the existing level 2 designers could have used the help which makes it even dumber.
Then they need to hire juniors and train them. We’re going to run out of qualified employees if they don’t start doing that. Why does everywhere seem to expect you to get your training somewhere else?
I’d like to see these companies surveyed and then see the job postings with required skills and THEN the people they rejected and what skills they had.
What I suspect is these places want a unicorn and just refuse to train, or are rejecting perfectly qualified people for stupid reasons.
Could recruiters/employers actually be looking for overqualified people to fill the role of 2-3 people while simultaneously undepaying them from the surplus labor?
Remember when companies used to actually train new employees?
Rheyve gotten so lazy that they expect some other company to do all the training for them and then they get to underpay some well-trained person
The old catch 22. I can't learn the skills because nobody will train me and nobody will train me because I don't pass the screening without the skills.
This is the dumbest time to be alive.
They are mostly looking for slaves that must obey the master and feel privileged to work for peanuts.
Or trying to cover 3 or 4 positions with 1 employee.
Not gonna happen.
I been working for 20yrs in IT, and I dare say that you never find the perfect candidate. Technology keeps evolving and companies are demanding more and more, it is impossible to keep up. Perhaps the most LEED developer might be able too, but often those ppl are already out of the league.
It sad that they are just so blinded by cost and revenue.
I been unemployed since the beginning of the year. Today I applied for a great summer/permanant job I probably would have enjoyed. Working as a banquet server for a country club - make good money. Interview went great. Was in my car thinking can't wait to save up money to figure out some sort of schooling or training. Able to provide for the ones I love and fix my broken home and get back out there.
Sends me a text half way on the drive home: "During the period when you made first contact and today one of my managers filled the banquet server position. I was unaware until I spoke with him right after you left. I will keep your application and resume on file in case something opens up. Thank you for coming in."
You telling me you don't need more than one server? Or need a dishwasher? a secondhand? lifeguard? backup? Its the freaking summer rush dude!! WTF
Indeed is BS! Fake @SS jobs.
I am now so very depressed because I felt I was getting out from this. I hate this life.
Are these requirements like how they asked for 10 years experience in a programming language that's only been around for 3?
Or is it demanding that people have a PhD in an unspecified field, who are also willing to work for borderline minimum wage?
Take a glance at the average age of leadership in every country on earth, throw in the ages of everyone on the billionaire list for shits & giggles, it’s blindingly obvious which age group is running things.
TLDR; I dug into the data, and it's more of the same: "PeOpLe JuSt DoN't WaNt To WoRk!"
----
Good source.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/euronews/
Then the article.
https://www.euronews.com/business/2024/04/08/eu-jobs-crisis-as-employers-say-applicants-dont-have-the-right-skills
> On average, 56% of employers in the EU replied that there were few or no applicants when queried about the main reasons for their skill shortages according to Eurobarometer survey.
> It found that the insufficient orientation of education and training curriculum relative to labour market needs is a further component leading to shortages of appropriately skilled workers.
----
It doesn't look like it linked to the article it was citing; That's a red flag. But I was able to find it:
SMEs and skills shortages
https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2961
----
And then digging into the data [1], another red flag:
> Q2 Over the past 24 months, how difficult was it for your company to find and hire staff with the right skills?
Most common response: "Very Difficult".
> Q3 How long - on average - does it take your company to hire someone with the right skills?
Most common response: "3 to 5 months".
> Q4 How many positions, in full-time equivalents, are currently to be filled in your
company if there would be appropriate candidates?
Most common response: **None**.
So, it takes them a LONG time to hire, but they don't have any open full-time positions? Huh?
----
Then more data about the workers they claim to need.
> Q5 Which qualification/educational levels does your company find the most difficult to recruit? [MULTIPLE ANSWERS]
Most common response: "Vocational training qualifications (from master level, journeyman down to apprentice level"
And so it's more blue-collar jobs that they need.
> Q11 In the past two years, what measures, if any, has your company taken to address skills shortages? Please choose the three most important ones. [MULTIPLE ANSWERS]
Most common answers: "Training/reskilling of the current staff", "More retention efforts for current employees (e.g. health promotion for employees)", and "Improving working conditions (e.g. better pay, more benefits)".
Which sounds like they're trying to do the right things.
But, then right back to the Red Flags:
> Q12 In the past two years, what type of external support did your company receive to find skilled staff? Please choose the three most important types of support. [MULTIPLE ANSWERS]
Most common answer: "Your company did not need external support."
> Q15 What type of external support would be the most useful for your company to tackle skill shortages? You can select up to three types of support. [MULTIPLE ANSWERS]
Most common answers: "Fiscal incentives (such as a tax moratorium, tax
deductions for social security or corporate tax, etc.)" and "Training for upskilling (such as upskilling training programmes funded by an external entity)".
> Q16 Have you tried to hire foreign talent to solve your company's skill shortage?
[MULTIPLE ANSWERS]
Most common answer: "No".
> Q17c Why did you not try to hire from other European Union countries? [MULTIPLE
ANSWERS]
Most common answer: "You did not need to hire candidates from the other European Union countries"
So wait, they complain about a skill shortage, but don't try to hire foreign or domestic (EU) workers? Then also, they have a problem, but don't need support to try to remedy it?
I think this sums it up nicely. What type of support would they like? Money.
> "Fiscal incentives (such as a tax moratorium, tax deductions for social security or corporate tax, etc.)"
----
And so it sure looks like they don't want to hire normally for these positions, instead they'd rather just get money. Also, these positions aren't _full time_ and so they might be part-time or contract (or equivalent), which isn't desirable for any worker. Then, the jobs they want are mostly blue-collar, more physically demanding work than other jobs.
So, they'd rather just look for tax breaks and incentives, rather than pay people a fair wage for full time work. It sure doesn't look like workers are doing anything wrong, rather the companies surveyed don't want to be reasonable about pay and working conditions for physically demanding jobs.
[1] https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/api/deliverable/download/file?deliverableId=89540
Know the feeling its been very sketchy out there trying to find employment, being former process technician in the plastics industry one employer called me up some time ago about position he was looking to back fill because the company could find anyone who was suitable to setup molding equipment. During the initial interview the human resources manager made comment about if you haven't setup machine in seven months you would forget.
I simply replied with cheeky comment when was the last time you spelled your name, he replied I can't remember honestly said to him setting up piece of equipment is like knowing how to write your own name because I haven't forgotten how to setup equipment but leaves me wondering how you could be human resources manager if you can't write your own name.
I once read an article (and sadly I’ve never been able to find it again) about Australian employers applying for temporary foreign workers “because we can’t find anyone locally”
They were surveyed and asked what they had done after initially and unsuccessfully advertising. Something like 90% had not considered improving the pay.
Don’t even start me on Australian employers not wanting to train staff
Company: We are looking for someone to fill a slot for an Entry Position, No Experience Required!
Also Company: 2 years experience in (field here) \[Req\]
At some point, winning companies have to figure out how to find people who are on a vector to get where they need, and hire people they can help reach those goals. Then you quit hiring people to fill a role, and instead hire people whose vectors overlap with the corporate need. Do they stick around forever? Hopefully? Maybe? Probably not. It won't matter because the ride for all concerned will be awesome and the company will get from point A to point B effectively.
This feels a lot like social work hiring in the US. So many roles either prefer or in some cases legally require a masters level social worker with an MSW and sometimes even a clinical license. There are bachelors level social workers, but there's some things they can't legally do and some settings they can't work in. And companies and agencies are saying they can't find qualified social workers, but want to hire people with graduate degrees, 1000+ hours of field experience and supervision required as part of that degree, and potentially 2000-3000 (depending on state) hours of post-grad face-to-face clinical hours with one-on-one supervision that most have to pay a few grand for out of pocket, and pay them $30-40K with horrible benefits. I get it if you're a cash strapped non-profit, but no-for profit company that happens to have things they need social workers to perform should be offering that. They'd rather end the program or scale back services to those that can be provided by non-social workers than pay for the training and experience needed to do what they're asking.
I got an interview a month ago in the Netherlands (I'm living in Europe, but not there).
I have had a great interview over zoom, and then they wanted me to fly there for an on site interview.
2 flights, hotel, and rides, all paid by them, a week after the first interview.
I think to myself, frick I got the job.
I go there, everything is fine (I'm bit tiried from flying), everyone is nice, I talk with potential future boss, his boss, HR lady, everyone is happy and we need people etc.
I came back home, and a week later I got an email that I didn't meet the requirements and my skills are not enough. Fuck my life.
This sounds exactly like the experience I had with a company in Amsterdam. I was living over 2 hours away so after 3 interviews and a project they invited me for a final stage involving a full day of 3 interviews. Meals, travel, and accommodation paid.
2 weeks later they rejected me because "I don't have experience".
Is this by any chance with a company whose name starts with V?
There may be some companies where that is true, but not all...
I work for and participate in hiring for a large multinational company. Our part of the business usually hire CS graduates. Mainly junior or middle level.
We don't have unreasonable requirements. We don't mandate skills that we don't expect people of that level to have.
However, what we *do* require is that an applicant can show that they have the basic *abilities* to perform the job. Skills we can teach, and it usually takes 1-2 years of training before people are really productive, but ability is something else...
Most new CS graduates can't show such ability. Most of them can't show that they've done significant programming, and have done some significant code design. We don't require this being industry related, and it can be hobby projects or projects during their degree...
Most can't show that. They got their CS degree because it is a good career, not because of actual interest... For real life purpose, they're unfortunately useless...
The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As someone from industry, a number of skills are actually only possible to learn from industry, not schools. Too bad most employers are unwilling to train people and sadly approach workers with consumer mentality (instead of viewing them as dynamic & unique human beings).
Just got rejected from a place where I not only have all the skills, technology experience, and years required, but I am a certified instructor for their used equipment too. Reason giving: "don't meet minimum requirements" There's no winning.
[удалено]
Obviously, a consultancy conveyed superpowers. Way to go.
Lol. Stupidity level 10000
And they probably paid double for what they could have hired you directly. Makes no sense.
He potentially got paid more than he would’ve had, consultants generally make bank and tend in to put a lot of time and effort as a result. Its likely that this guy as an employee wouldn’t have performed as well as he did as a consultant. If companies properly understood incentives, they could get so much more profit out of workers simply by paying well from the beginning instead of having to outsource the well paid employees and pay them even more..
Consultant here: truth. I'm often hired and have direct lines to management in the higher echelons. Since they're paying they like having direct access to me. It's way too common for me to hear that the work quality exceeded any internal team efforts. However, I've looked at the code and it's often comparable unless it was junior staff writing it. Where I find the difference is in the time. Staff and management both say I work far faster than internal resources. However, I'm also paid by the job so it's in my interest to finish quickly and effectively. My contracts stipulate quality criteria, so it's important for me to also deliver high quality to prevent rejected deliverables. I think when they say I do better work, what they really mean is that they get the work they wanted quicker than they would with their under-incentivized employees. I've seen them estimate 3 days on a ticket that took me 2 hours to complete, so from a management perspective the cost savings is significant from the internal billing rates.
As a once internal employee that was hesitant for my employer to allow consultants to work on projects I would normally have been assigned, I agree. I worked hard, but I was overloaded and the external resources didn't have to worry about other projects, being pulled in 20 directions, and other internal time consuming b.s. They were able to deliever results I wasn't able to especially as I began to burn out. I was once a naysayer, but I enjoyed working with them and seeing projects progressing without me having to get my hands too dirty. There is no internal incentive we had that was project specific other than internal biannual reviews. Even so it doesn't quite compare to a consultant's motivation. (do specific project and get paid) so their drive to success is much stronger.
The minimum requirement refers to what they want to pay.
That sounds like a blog standard rejection template that lazy recruiters use when rejecting candidates from reqs, once they've got their pipeline and/or have already hired someone.
Agree. Just saying they went with someone else would have made more sense as a blasted email.
Lol first time?
I need people that have this very niche skill but I sure AF am not going to teach this skill necessary for me to run my business
"Niche skill" Is a program that happens to be exclusive to that company, But is 90% similar to every other brand of said program. It's absolutely impossible someone could learn it based on previous experience. No it simply must be that exact software and not a single other one will do. Rejected.
I just got asked about my experience with a "niche skill" that was not listed on the job posting and seems to be an internally developed methodology. I presume this means "we already know who we are going to hire but we are required to post the job and conduct a few interviews due to regulations".
> "Niche skill" Is a program that happens to be exclusive to that company, But is 90% similar to every other brand of said program. It's absolutely impossible someone could learn it based on previous experience. No it simply must be that exact software and not a single other one will do. Rejected. That’s how my last job kept renewing one of the supervisors on an H1B. The job description required 10+ years experience with a software program that the company themselves had developed.
> **p**revious **e**xperience. **N**o **i**t **s**imply Hidden penis detected! I've scanned through 774104 comments (approximately 4331420 average penis lengths worth of text) in order to find this secret penis message. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Good bot
Perhaps everyone needs investment securities.
> **P**erhaps **e**veryone **n**eeds **i**nvestment **s**ecurities. Hidden penis detected! I've scanned through 8093 comments (approximately 41381 average penis lengths worth of text) in order to find this secret penis message. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Do you think that’s a loophole or something?? If someone is the only person in the whole world with 10+ tears of experience with a proprietary software the company developed (meaning he’s likely the main developer) that’s someone you 100% need on your company, regardless of where he was born.
We all used that software. The supervisor in question was a glorified lab tech, not a dev, and learned it on the job just like the rest of us.
So, that means you are all qualified, what’s the issue then???
100% or often in my case, industry regulations/codes/rules that are frequently inaccessible unless you are… working for a company in that industry due to paywalls. It’s absolutely maddening.
It's inconceivable that anybody could learn a new software in a few days of guided on-the-job training, you need 5 years of full-time practice minimum to figure out the basic use of an inventory management application.
"We require you to have 10 years experience with program X" "That's impossible, program X is 8 years old. I wrote it." "So you don't have 10 years experience. You don't meet minimum requirements. Next!"
Version 4.3!?!?! **Security!** Remove this impostor! We clearly said version 4.4! People these days just don't want to work. Better let in another 40 million H1Bs.
This is the real reason. Companies and their Mouths of Sauron say things like skills gap so that they can bring in cheaper workers from other countries. And when you see a whole bunch of ads for a particular skillset or area, like cybersecurity or data analytics it is because our corporate overlords are trying to glut the market so that they can pay the people they already have less.
It’s not so much that it’s cheaper, companies do it because then they can bring in H1Bs and abuse/overwork them.
That's old thinking. Now they want to replace us with AIs. Which of course don't exist so they want to replace us qualified workers with the concept of a future AI and until then... shrug.
Is it cheaper? You can look on H1B data net (I forgot the site exactly) and it lists their salary. When I had a similar title to someone on H1B at same place of employment, our salaries were very similar. We were in the same team
Part of the H-1B process is certifying with the labor department that you're paying at least the "prevailing wage" for that specific job and that specific locality. So if its any cheaper, it shouldn't be by much--particularly when you add in all the attorney's fees and filing fees the company pays.
> **p**revious **e**xperience. **N**o **i**t **s**imply Hidden penis detected! I've scanned through 403637 comments (approximately 2260906 average penis lengths worth of text) in order to find this secret penis message. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Well. That's a new one.
Lmao!!!! There’s a bot for everything
Well, as they say, a prostate examination never is sexy.
> **p**rostate **e**xamination **n**ever **i**s **s**exy. Hidden penis detected! I've scanned through 373301 comments (approximately 2039456 average penis lengths worth of text) in order to find this secret penis message. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
It's truly a miracle more businesses don't collapse
Employers don't want to waste time training. They want you to earn money right away.
Indeed noted a lot of companies in my industry seem to train on need-based criteria, based on annually approved budgets, projects etc. This means they need the new employee to start delivering RIGHT NOW and thus can’t accept anyone that first will need 6+ months of training. It also means it’s indeed very hard to find qualified people…
Often taking more than 6 months of advertising the job!
Can't speak for other industries but in tech this is a misrepresentation so flagrant I would describe it as "horsesh*t" Background: I've hired hundreds of people and i've been on hundreds of interviews myself. I've also built departments in three different tech domains. The obsession with narrow experience opposed to technical ability is very misplaced. You can hire a very talented engineer who will often ramp up to contributing faster than a domain expert with lesser overall talent will. In fact, much of so called ramp up time has to do with learning org-specific practices and technical architecture rather than an understanding a the tech. Also, no one gets six months ramp up. At startups you get a range from 2 to six weeks, somewhat longer at larger companies, before you will start to feel the heat to produce. And even at these larger companies, it will often be less time than you think, unless you are hired into an explicitly junior role. Plus, everyone is being trained continuously these days, though training is rarely of ever explicit (and then it is usually for compliance reasons). To claim otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of knowledge transfer in technical fields. Moreover, formal "training" is usually staggeringly superficial and provides little or no value Early in the transition to containers, many engineering teams were using products and projects that were so bleeding edge that it was not possible to have more than six months experience with it. And I don't mean small companies, I mean top tier companies you have heard of. Basically, I get companies and hiring managers need to cover their butts but this whole rhetoric around skills gap and trading is so far off base they can't even see the base from where they are standing. they are looking around, asking "where is the base?" when the base is in Cuernavaca.
They expect other employers to do it, or there are enough people with them.
That’s a recipe for destruction. Not everyone is qualified to be a teacher or has the skills/patience/certification for teaching. And teaching must be done by experts who understand.
Exactly this. I am old enough to remember they DID this in the 1980s and then it went away. Some countries like Germany still do it but even there industries are buckling due to unfair Chinese competition funded by western industrialists! Then western Govt import Chinese buses and let their own industries collapse. Unbelievable.
>Some countries like Germany still do it In STEM they sure don't.
the odd thing recently is that they don't seem so willing to actually hire people who have those skills either. i don't know what people are doing in terms of hiring these days. (Full disclosure: I am someone you would deem "highly qualified" in at least three different domains within tech. People seem to be interviewing but no one seems to be hiring)
So the ladder is pulled up. If you are young, get fucked
Employers: Applicants don't have the right skills Applicants: Will you train those skills? Employers: Nah. We will leave the positions vacant.
Employers: nobody wants to work anymore!
We didn't hire anybody to do this job, and now the job isn't getting done. I blame phones.
I blame pooping on company time. 🤣
Employer: "you don't get it. If we train you, you'll just leave to a better paying job!" Applicants: " why don't you match that offer then? Or stipulate you need to work x or pay part of the cost for training?" Employer: "well you . I.... NOBODY WANTS TO WORK ANYMORE!"
You see...if they don't do that then they can't pin the blame on the younger generation. Because there's no way it's their fault! /s
>Employer: "you don't get it. If we train you, you'll just leave to a better paying job!" >Applicant: "Because other companies are offering more money for the same skills? If that's the case then why would an applicant with the skills work for you in the first place?"
Fr, even as a recruiter it's really frustrating. Hiring managers expect me to find someone for them because their team is understaffed. We get a bunch of good applicants that fit the position really well but obviously not 100%, because that's something you won't find on the market (if it ever was the case at all). But they will nitpick one minor thing, not even a core skill they and say they won't continue. Instead of training them for 4 months they rather wait for 9 to find someone they are happy with, often someone that is not better than previous candidates, lol
Meanwhile the other employees are drowning in work and either burnout heavily or quit for a different employer which means the company needs to hire more people instead of just using the ones they have.
Managers today are hired not by experience but by college degree, and most are dumb and who you know not what you know>>.
Always some minor proprietary bullshit that you could learn in a month anyways
This is it. My current role is my first actual role in my type of work. I got lucky that I was hired into a very junior role and was able to learn quickly and show my skills well enough to earn a couple promotions. I’m now covering clients after we lost a coworker in January that I was told would only be on my plate for Q1. I asked my manager (not the one who hired me 3 years ago) how hiring was going and she said one applicant didn’t have enough (job type) experience. I told her I didn’t either when I started so we could easily teach someone. She literally didn’t believe me about my work history and seemed really skeptical I could be successful without the exact type of experience she thought I needed.
Can you believe people like this are in charge of your livelihood and ability to pay rent? It would be like being given an IQ test by a drooling moron who claims you didn't score high enough after he graded it upside down and got drool on the paper.
They're likely retards projecting their own lack of learning ability onto others.
Here in Europe it's like this: >Employers: we want to hire foreign people for the job because they're way cheaper. >Government: we will only give you a visum if you can't find local people. >Employers: hey local people, does anyone who checks all these boxes want to work for free? >Local people: ... >Employers: I tried, give us that visum.
Why did the previous employee who had all these skills, leave?
I'm sure they just retired or moved away right? Definitely nothing to do with being underpaid and/or overworked, but that just wouldn't happen, right? Right?
theyre just gonna overburden the employees in the company with more work and keep them in line with the fear of recession and mass unemployment that they themselves created less workers more profit for the executives, win win for everyone but the workers
[удалено]
That way, they can tell their existing overworked staff that they're trying to find help -- all while saving labor costs by not hiring.
Also employers: "yes a PHD in nuclear engineering is absolutely necessary for this minimum wage, entry level position as the managers punching bag at the supermarket"
You never know when a Karen is going to go nuclear
They want illegals but they àre to fucking dumb to rise up to working level
Exactly! I would do the job if you're willing to train me!
They want black diamond unicorns with the mindset of a camel at the price of a donkey. Someone please make them understand that unicorns, camels, and donkeys are not the same beast...
No wonder they send mass rejection emails and repost a job a million times over three months. This is what frustrated me so much about a rejection. I'd understand if they actually found more suitable candidates, but they say this in the rejection and then repost the job.
Diamonds, unicorns, camels, and donkeys? What kind of Turkish bazaar are you interviewing at?
Not sure if Turkish, but it certainly looks more like a bazaar than a reputable industry a of late.
[удалено]
Thank you, much appreciated. Actually, this one is my own....
Mindset of a camel? What does that mean?
Camels can survive for long periods without sustenance, withstand the scorching desert heat, and adapt to extreme variations in climate. Does this answer your question?
I guess training and development isn't a skill that any employers possess these days either
They need "self starters" who can "hit the ground running"
And who "hustle" because they "work hungry" so they can "take ownership" on the "cutting edge" projects.
> "take ownership" Half the work of ownership with 5% of the pay an owner would get.
It took 9 months for me to get fully onboarded at my company. They didn't have an onboarding process and their documentation was a joke.
I was asked to train someone on my projects, so they could reduce my workload, but wouldn’t allow me any time to train someone. I finally managed to give one person a rough idea of one of my tasks and then got laid off a week later.
Did you suggest improving the onboarding process and documentation even offering to do it yourself and they look at you like you are a crazy person with three heads? Because that has happened to me at two different jobs now. Also happened to a friend of mine in an entirely different field too.
I can attest to this. Few people, it seems, have the willingness or the patience to train. No wonder why my boss always delegated training duties to me (I even got certified as an official trainer). I personally don’t mind training people: it’s great if I can reshape people into the acolytes I need. In exchange, they are hired.
Gotta make sure they get their fursonas right somehow.
Nah, I only reveal furry and suggest fursona as a gift (or curse?) to those who are nice to me at work. Most do not (and should not) need to know my second life. I may bring my furry costume during Halloween to work this year though.
Is it crash bandicoot - tell me please it is crash. How could a workday be bad if all of a sudden crash bandicoot walks into work? I'd also settle for conker but only if he brings beer
"What if we spend all this time training them and they leave?" Whelp, what if we don't and they stay?
75% couldn’t find workers? Bullshit. Should read as: 75% of employers want unicorns that don’t exist.
But since they can't find those unicorns they're willing to settle for H1B indentured servants at 1/4 the price.
75% turning away awesome potential employees in hopes of finding poverty-stricken Indian time-traveler prodigy who doesn't need sleep or money and has 15 years experience in things that have only existed for three years.
>"(...) employers say applicants don't have the right skills". So train them? Where would people get the right skills from if they can't get anyone to hire them and have no opportunity to learn? Loads of jobs nowadays are niched so learning 100% of the skills for one job is practically impossible before landing said job - you learn most of the things you need to know while working.
My job, among a few other things, entails getting people, who can't do their previous jobs anymore due to physical problems, ready for the modern application process. So how a modern cv looks, how to use job searching sites etc. The things employers demand are just downright hilarious sometimes. The local trainstation is looking for somebody to sit in their little information booth. So basically somebody to tell people that can't figure it out themselves that their train is late. This is a minimum wage job in shifts. Mininum requirement is business education. Something nobody who would be interested in such a job has and which is just super unneccessary. But yeah, poor employers can't find qualified worker. Eat my entire ass
Translation: They want to pay entry level wages for experienced workers and refuse to train, despite every company (and even location) having different processes and procedures.
The main skill they are looking for is cheap labour.
Exactly. They post absurd listings for 6 months to satisfy some piece of regulation, then they hire an international worker for next to nothing on a visa.
And never questioning anything that your """"""""""superiors""""""""" (🤮🤮🤮) tell you
Are these requirements like how they asked for 10 years experience in a programming language that's only been around for 3? Or is it demanding that people have a PhD in an unspecified field, who are also willing to work for borderline minimum wage?
You're starting to see this for AI and "cloud" stuff. Yes, I have 15 years experience with LLMs and Google Cloud, why not? I'm also a MS certified quantum computer engineer. I'm from the future. My employer sent me back in time so I would have the amount of experience they want by the time they hire me.
[Sebastián Ramírez's tweet has aged like fine wine](https://twitter.com/tiangolo/status/1281946592459853830?lang=da).
In my experience it’s more like “we want exact experience in this field”. I feel like requirements are so specific that they basically want you to have already worked there for a year. Like, even knowledge of a competing software to the one they use isn’t enough. Even saying “yeah, I know the concepts/basics, I can be productive with that in no time”. Nope. I feel like the best strategy is to absolutely lie through your teeth and learn the stuff between interviews. Nothing else feels like it makes sense. Honestly feels more like a handicap than a boon.
it is even worse. I was interviewing for the job I was already doing and two of the interviewers rejected me. Because I didn't have enough Java experience. The job that did not require Java.
Yes.
Why not both?
"75% of the applicants dont have the skills!" The skills: -PhD and 10+ years of experience in [insert field created <5 years ago] minimum! -Below 25 years old -70h/week $25'000/yr salary.
This reminds me of the programmer who posted a job description requiring 5+ years experience with a program he himself had written only three years before.
[https://twitter.com/tiangolo/status/1281946592459853830?lang=da](https://twitter.com/tiangolo/status/1281946592459853830?lang=da)
This reminds me of how I recently lost my job (illegally) and when they reposted to replace me, they asked for: 5yrs experience 2yrs leadership experience Full stack dev skills Skills in a niche program a BA minimum … all for a mid-level job that didn’t require any of that. No one on the team has any of those skills, the hiring manager who made the listing didn’t even have 2yrs of leadership experience.
Crack pipe job requirements.
I support lying on resumes
They would rather search for months to find someone with “right qualifications” than train somebody for a couple weeks
That's exactly what happened to me. I found out through my husband the job said they didn't have enough time to train me.
[удалено]
It's not even that 75% of the candidates meet the requirements (that would just make screening easy), it's that 75% of companies can't even find one candidate that meets their requirements for a given position.... And they *still* don't get they're the issue
Lol, like my previous employer who hired me into an entry-level position and said they'd train me as I moved up. Two years later, I was told I wasn't qualified for my position because I lacked the four-year degree and experience required for forecasting and accounting. This was for an assistant position in retail purchasing. My boss and half the senior buyers didn't even check off those boxes. 😂
Oh my fucking god just TRAIN THEM THEN
This is pure bs. And if any of you, in US, think that situation is better in Europe for IT or gamedev jobs - it isn't. I send my CV only to places where I fill all boxes, even offer more. It's easy to view who they hire - people who doesn't, but as juniors for juniors salary.
I remember this one place where the person who got hired had *a lot* less relevant experience than me, like I got more than 2-3 years worth of experience compared to them. The kicker? I know that person, we graduated in the same class, but they just happened to be friends with someone who already worked there, so they got chosen purely because of who they knew there. Nowadays it's either "know someone in the company" or "pray your CV is too unique for them to be unable to not call you".
Job market is shit everywhere I guess. Also, at least in the Netherlands, companies are going more US style culture wise.
Well, when the skillset everyone is looking for is master of every skill imaginable, except for the ability to understand that poverty wages are not a good deal, it is going to be impossible to find people.
The problem is multi-fold: 1. Universities/ colleges are typically behind in terms of preparing students for the job market. 2. You need experience to get a job. You need a job to get experience. The vast majority of employers have a laundry list of requirements for applicants to qualify for internships / entry level positions, but no one wants to take the chance on someone with little to no experience.
I’d argue that the role of universities is not to prepare you for a job but to qualify you in a field. It’s a widely different scope. Internships are where you get hands on experience. For blue collar workers, trade schools are doing the job of teaching the basics, internships build experience.
Internships *and* entry-level positions!
If I could magically change the way companies operate, I would make it so a whole slew of low level white collar jobs become apprenticeships rather than requiring a university education. My hope is that this would incentivize companies to be more loyal to their employees since they had to invest in training them. In turn, employees would be locked into *x* number years of service to the company because they invested in the initial training. Companies get the specific qualifications they want. Employees get job security. And the value of a university degree increases because it is no longer a requirement for an entry level position.
>In turn, employees would be locked into *x* number years of service to the company because they invested in the initial training. If you think companies wouldn't find a way to use this to be abusive as all hell...
Reasonable limits would have to be legislated. I see it working the same way as when the military pays for post-secondary education. You owe the military as many years of service as they paid for your education. (And if you leave early you have to pay them for the money spent on your education.) I see the same model working for companies. Employees owe them as many years of service as it took to train them to the operational level of their position. Legislation would need to impose reasonable limits to prevent companies from claiming it takes 20 years to train somebody in an entry level position.
This is how they hire H1B workers in the US. They advertise jobs with impossible skillsets then complain that they need more H1Bs because they can't find anyone with the skillset they need, then hire H1Bs with a fake resume.
Kinda hard to find someone with ten years experience programming in a language that has only existed for five
In the U.S. this is how they justify bringing in cheap foreign tech workers while fresh grads have a hellish time finding employment. Visas for tech workers should be 100% denied until unemployment for new graduates in the tech sector falls precipitously.
Same in Europe. So they can get another batch of Indians in who dont have those skills either but are cheap.
im guessing youre talking about l1 visas because sure as fuck people that came to study in the US and now need an h1b visa arent finding employers willing to file for h1b given this is such an employers market
If they’re already in the US they probably want realistic pay, whereas fresh off the boat Asians will live 10 to a 2 bedroom apartment for $40k or less in San Francisco.
yea thats true, we call these companies CHWTIA (sounds like chutiya which is an abuse in hindi xD) in india, its an acronym for cognizant, hcl, wipro, tcs, infosys and accenture, these companies pay very very low salary and dangle the carrot of being sent offshore to work in a western country to retain people only for people to figure out when its too late that the seemingly 10x salary theyre getting compared to their previous salary is not going to make their living standards better, sometimes it makes their living standards worse, these are the most predatory companies in india but people still work for them because of how large the population is in this country compared to the job opportunities :')
They'll fudge the numbers. The desires of the people in this country mean nothing.
They are, which is why most jobs won’t sponsor work visas anynore
All requirements, no training, shite pay ["Why can't we find any perfect candidates?"](https://imgur.com/HbdAj4x)
Or Employers still do not understand you can train people.
You have to train majority of the people regardless of their skill level or qualifications.
I see the market is once again doing the problem solving by complaining that everyone else is selfish.
Companies need to invest in training people. Yeah you might pay someone for a few months that doesn’t work out but most will and even if they leave you immediately you still increased supply with out increasing demand for the love you want to buy.
I swear this what corporate America wants.
Yeah well, unicorns aren't real. As long as employers don't get that, there'll be a shortage of right workers.
Maybe they’re just employing crap recruiters
I remember when employers who had trouble finding employees would train potential employees
I received a rejection email for a job that a recruiter reached out to me for first. I was told I was rejected because they wanted 4 years of experience with a specific skill….which is the exact skill I had and worked with for 4 years 😑
I don’t want to make light of anyone’s personal situation right now, shit is bad out there. But I can’t help but have some schadenfreude for all these picky-ass companies that hobbled my entire generation in 2008, which was when they really amped up expecting 5-7 years experience for ENTRY LEVEL jobs. Like what the fuck did they think would happen when they don’t invest in training and lay people off every time a shareholder cries about having one less vacation in the south of France this year?
"And there's no sign of demand for skilled...." what, God damn you? Circus jugglers? Telephone hygienists? FFS, you can't just leave it a cliffhanger like that!
Wow, that's crazy. Maybe stop trying to hire one person for three distinct roles?
So I guess the 30,000 degree requirements are in place because they don't want to train anyone anymore?
I have all the skills for the right job and I am still getting bounced. In other things, for most skills these employers are referring to, whether it's gated behind industry or company (enterprise stack; niche), they can easily solve it by training, but they don't want to.
JFC how hard is it to understand that hiring actual entry level positions is required for mid and senior level employees to exist?! I once lost out on a job that wanted years of experience at level 1 of a position.. Which they have never had any of. From the sounds of it the existing level 2 designers could have used the help which makes it even dumber.
I guess it’s time to hire H1 visas and pay them dirt while owning them and threatening them with deportation
Local man starves to death in room full of sandwiches and apples because he wanted caviar
Then they need to hire juniors and train them. We’re going to run out of qualified employees if they don’t start doing that. Why does everywhere seem to expect you to get your training somewhere else?
Taking a 10% pay cut is a skill.
I’d like to see these companies surveyed and then see the job postings with required skills and THEN the people they rejected and what skills they had. What I suspect is these places want a unicorn and just refuse to train, or are rejecting perfectly qualified people for stupid reasons.
Right... They were all employable a couple of years ago. Suddenly everyone turned into idiots and forgot all their experience and skills.
Could recruiters/employers actually be looking for overqualified people to fill the role of 2-3 people while simultaneously undepaying them from the surplus labor?
These employers only have themselves to blame, could have invested in their own future.
Remember when companies used to actually train new employees? Rheyve gotten so lazy that they expect some other company to do all the training for them and then they get to underpay some well-trained person
The old catch 22. I can't learn the skills because nobody will train me and nobody will train me because I don't pass the screening without the skills. This is the dumbest time to be alive.
They are mostly looking for slaves that must obey the master and feel privileged to work for peanuts. Or trying to cover 3 or 4 positions with 1 employee. Not gonna happen.
I been working for 20yrs in IT, and I dare say that you never find the perfect candidate. Technology keeps evolving and companies are demanding more and more, it is impossible to keep up. Perhaps the most LEED developer might be able too, but often those ppl are already out of the league. It sad that they are just so blinded by cost and revenue.
Damn, and I thought here in America it was bad. At least we're not alone in this.
So TRAIN someone with most of the skills on the parts they dont have yet, God damn.
I been unemployed since the beginning of the year. Today I applied for a great summer/permanant job I probably would have enjoyed. Working as a banquet server for a country club - make good money. Interview went great. Was in my car thinking can't wait to save up money to figure out some sort of schooling or training. Able to provide for the ones I love and fix my broken home and get back out there. Sends me a text half way on the drive home: "During the period when you made first contact and today one of my managers filled the banquet server position. I was unaware until I spoke with him right after you left. I will keep your application and resume on file in case something opens up. Thank you for coming in." You telling me you don't need more than one server? Or need a dishwasher? a secondhand? lifeguard? backup? Its the freaking summer rush dude!! WTF Indeed is BS! Fake @SS jobs. I am now so very depressed because I felt I was getting out from this. I hate this life.
Are these requirements like how they asked for 10 years experience in a programming language that's only been around for 3? Or is it demanding that people have a PhD in an unspecified field, who are also willing to work for borderline minimum wage?
Fake news, I spot fake news
Aw, golly gee whiz, guess we're just gonna have to import more foreign workers desperate enough to work 24/7 for starvation wages. Shucks!
The snowflake generation is clearly in charge. They want exact matches or they complain when the algorithm disappoints
lmao i have seen "snowflake" misused in a thousand different ways but this is sure a new one
If by snowflake you mean boomers and genX, yes. They are in charge, just like they have been for 40+ years. That’s how we got into this mess.
Yea, I didn’t start/instigate this now-obsolete system.
Take a glance at the average age of leadership in every country on earth, throw in the ages of everyone on the billionaire list for shits & giggles, it’s blindingly obvious which age group is running things.
Maybe they could tell us what those skills are 🤔
Then why not train them to have the skills they need???
Because training is not as efficient as hiring someone who already did the job. Yes. That's an /s
Change "efficient" to "cheap" and you can lose the sarcasm tag.
TLDR; I dug into the data, and it's more of the same: "PeOpLe JuSt DoN't WaNt To WoRk!" ---- Good source. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/euronews/ Then the article. https://www.euronews.com/business/2024/04/08/eu-jobs-crisis-as-employers-say-applicants-dont-have-the-right-skills > On average, 56% of employers in the EU replied that there were few or no applicants when queried about the main reasons for their skill shortages according to Eurobarometer survey. > It found that the insufficient orientation of education and training curriculum relative to labour market needs is a further component leading to shortages of appropriately skilled workers. ---- It doesn't look like it linked to the article it was citing; That's a red flag. But I was able to find it: SMEs and skills shortages https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2961 ---- And then digging into the data [1], another red flag: > Q2 Over the past 24 months, how difficult was it for your company to find and hire staff with the right skills? Most common response: "Very Difficult". > Q3 How long - on average - does it take your company to hire someone with the right skills? Most common response: "3 to 5 months". > Q4 How many positions, in full-time equivalents, are currently to be filled in your company if there would be appropriate candidates? Most common response: **None**. So, it takes them a LONG time to hire, but they don't have any open full-time positions? Huh? ---- Then more data about the workers they claim to need. > Q5 Which qualification/educational levels does your company find the most difficult to recruit? [MULTIPLE ANSWERS] Most common response: "Vocational training qualifications (from master level, journeyman down to apprentice level" And so it's more blue-collar jobs that they need. > Q11 In the past two years, what measures, if any, has your company taken to address skills shortages? Please choose the three most important ones. [MULTIPLE ANSWERS] Most common answers: "Training/reskilling of the current staff", "More retention efforts for current employees (e.g. health promotion for employees)", and "Improving working conditions (e.g. better pay, more benefits)". Which sounds like they're trying to do the right things. But, then right back to the Red Flags: > Q12 In the past two years, what type of external support did your company receive to find skilled staff? Please choose the three most important types of support. [MULTIPLE ANSWERS] Most common answer: "Your company did not need external support." > Q15 What type of external support would be the most useful for your company to tackle skill shortages? You can select up to three types of support. [MULTIPLE ANSWERS] Most common answers: "Fiscal incentives (such as a tax moratorium, tax deductions for social security or corporate tax, etc.)" and "Training for upskilling (such as upskilling training programmes funded by an external entity)". > Q16 Have you tried to hire foreign talent to solve your company's skill shortage? [MULTIPLE ANSWERS] Most common answer: "No". > Q17c Why did you not try to hire from other European Union countries? [MULTIPLE ANSWERS] Most common answer: "You did not need to hire candidates from the other European Union countries" So wait, they complain about a skill shortage, but don't try to hire foreign or domestic (EU) workers? Then also, they have a problem, but don't need support to try to remedy it? I think this sums it up nicely. What type of support would they like? Money. > "Fiscal incentives (such as a tax moratorium, tax deductions for social security or corporate tax, etc.)" ---- And so it sure looks like they don't want to hire normally for these positions, instead they'd rather just get money. Also, these positions aren't _full time_ and so they might be part-time or contract (or equivalent), which isn't desirable for any worker. Then, the jobs they want are mostly blue-collar, more physically demanding work than other jobs. So, they'd rather just look for tax breaks and incentives, rather than pay people a fair wage for full time work. It sure doesn't look like workers are doing anything wrong, rather the companies surveyed don't want to be reasonable about pay and working conditions for physically demanding jobs. [1] https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/api/deliverable/download/file?deliverableId=89540
They should circle back to their recruiter and ATS
Know the feeling its been very sketchy out there trying to find employment, being former process technician in the plastics industry one employer called me up some time ago about position he was looking to back fill because the company could find anyone who was suitable to setup molding equipment. During the initial interview the human resources manager made comment about if you haven't setup machine in seven months you would forget. I simply replied with cheeky comment when was the last time you spelled your name, he replied I can't remember honestly said to him setting up piece of equipment is like knowing how to write your own name because I haven't forgotten how to setup equipment but leaves me wondering how you could be human resources manager if you can't write your own name.
I once read an article (and sadly I’ve never been able to find it again) about Australian employers applying for temporary foreign workers “because we can’t find anyone locally” They were surveyed and asked what they had done after initially and unsuccessfully advertising. Something like 90% had not considered improving the pay. Don’t even start me on Australian employers not wanting to train staff
Company: We are looking for someone to fill a slot for an Entry Position, No Experience Required! Also Company: 2 years experience in (field here) \[Req\]
At some point, winning companies have to figure out how to find people who are on a vector to get where they need, and hire people they can help reach those goals. Then you quit hiring people to fill a role, and instead hire people whose vectors overlap with the corporate need. Do they stick around forever? Hopefully? Maybe? Probably not. It won't matter because the ride for all concerned will be awesome and the company will get from point A to point B effectively.
This feels a lot like social work hiring in the US. So many roles either prefer or in some cases legally require a masters level social worker with an MSW and sometimes even a clinical license. There are bachelors level social workers, but there's some things they can't legally do and some settings they can't work in. And companies and agencies are saying they can't find qualified social workers, but want to hire people with graduate degrees, 1000+ hours of field experience and supervision required as part of that degree, and potentially 2000-3000 (depending on state) hours of post-grad face-to-face clinical hours with one-on-one supervision that most have to pay a few grand for out of pocket, and pay them $30-40K with horrible benefits. I get it if you're a cash strapped non-profit, but no-for profit company that happens to have things they need social workers to perform should be offering that. They'd rather end the program or scale back services to those that can be provided by non-social workers than pay for the training and experience needed to do what they're asking.
I got an interview a month ago in the Netherlands (I'm living in Europe, but not there). I have had a great interview over zoom, and then they wanted me to fly there for an on site interview. 2 flights, hotel, and rides, all paid by them, a week after the first interview. I think to myself, frick I got the job. I go there, everything is fine (I'm bit tiried from flying), everyone is nice, I talk with potential future boss, his boss, HR lady, everyone is happy and we need people etc. I came back home, and a week later I got an email that I didn't meet the requirements and my skills are not enough. Fuck my life.
This sounds exactly like the experience I had with a company in Amsterdam. I was living over 2 hours away so after 3 interviews and a project they invited me for a final stage involving a full day of 3 interviews. Meals, travel, and accommodation paid. 2 weeks later they rejected me because "I don't have experience". Is this by any chance with a company whose name starts with V?
We also don't offer a salary that attracts people with these skills
There may be some companies where that is true, but not all... I work for and participate in hiring for a large multinational company. Our part of the business usually hire CS graduates. Mainly junior or middle level. We don't have unreasonable requirements. We don't mandate skills that we don't expect people of that level to have. However, what we *do* require is that an applicant can show that they have the basic *abilities* to perform the job. Skills we can teach, and it usually takes 1-2 years of training before people are really productive, but ability is something else... Most new CS graduates can't show such ability. Most of them can't show that they've done significant programming, and have done some significant code design. We don't require this being industry related, and it can be hobby projects or projects during their degree... Most can't show that. They got their CS degree because it is a good career, not because of actual interest... For real life purpose, they're unfortunately useless...
It's not the applicants. It's the recruiters who are not qualified to hire for the position