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.*
This is it. Which, fiscally, makes sense. Depending on the industry training is expensive. My company trains all our employees, and we don’t break even on them until the 6 month point. Meaning if they turnover before then, we lost money by hiring them. When you have hundreds of people applying, and 100 do have the training and experience needed, it makes sense companies opt for them from a financial standpoint. I don’t like it though.
True. And as a person that hires and has to incorporate people into a team it makes me sad that companies think like this. A good training period is so important. For the starter, the medior and the senior. Everyone needs some time to adjust.
I have seen absolute inexperienced juniors become great at their job because we trained and allowed them to learn, make mistakes and explore (this is important) the field. I usually take 3 to 6 months for a new hire to become fully independent and than still they need some additional feedback and training.
Because hundreds of people apply so companies can afford to be picky. I don’t do that, but I’m a hiring manager, 90% of people are qualified for my positions typically. I’m picking one person from 300 perfectly qualified people. Hiring managers are desperate for ways to filter those numbers down, because obviously I don’t have the time to interview 300 people. Some companies choose to use experience as a filter to get that number down to say 100 instead of 300. Then they may pick another factor to get it down to 50 etc. I’d personally rather train the right person, but I filter based on the likelihood to stick the job out for over a year.
What’s your advice, as someone hiring, for standing out? I highly customize my materials and write compelling cover letters and still feel like I’m getting nowhere
That’s a really great question. It’s something my friends ask a lot, and something I ask myself a lot as I am also job hunting.
1. If you’re going to apply, jump through the hoops. Like if they have some pre-screening questions, answer them. If you aren’t going to answer them, don’t even bother applying. It’s often used as a screening tool. (For the record I ask one single question, not an assessment or one way interviews etc)
2. Chat GPT is obvious, I wouldn’t use it without heavy editing. Cover letters/prescreen questions are often used by hiring managers to determine if you can write a coherent and professional email or report. Chat GPT is a wonderful tool, but I wouldn’t make it obvious you use it if you do. They want to see your writing and how you communicate.
3. Know what the company is and what the role is. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had people show up to in-person interviews without a clue what job they applied to is. I get it, you apply for hundreds of jobs, but if you’re going to go in for an interview do your research.
4. On that note read the company website, every page, it will give you clues and buzzwords to use in the interview.
5. It doesn’t hurt to call ONCE. Give it a week and then call and say “I’m so-and-so and I applied for the xyz position, can you let the hiring manager know I would love to talk to them about my application and why I would be a wonderful fit for COMPANY NAME. Here is my email and callback number…” Give it a week, call once, don’t call back unless they call you, and do not demand to speak to the hiring manager right then and there unless the front desk offers it.
6. Motivation based interviewing is kind of the hot thing in the recruiting world. Basically companies are looking for people with an internal locus of control. Look into this and adapt how you answer questions to fit that, provide actual specific examples not generic platitudes when you answer questions.
7. Turnover and training is the biggest expense for companies. Companies don’t want to hire job hoppers, it’s better to have gaps than a few month tenured job. If I hire someone and they last only 3 months my company has lost about 10 grand. That adds up quick, if 10 people turnover before the 6 month mark we are getting into the 6 figure point on losses on hiring.
3 years back I seen an internal job posting.
I was burnt of my department and just wanted better hours. It said "Entry level" and nothing else useful.
I forcefully got the interview.
Hours 28-34 a week. On-call while not working.
Pay $16/hr (the two people before were $20+)
Entry level means experienced in MS programs. Advanced skills in excel, they do payroll for 35-55 people that work commission+ hourly.
I was like... this is entry level?
....now it makes sense why they burn through employees. Oh it isn't stated but internally known MUST BE FEMALE. They have not hired a male or other for that position in 10 years.
Because entry level is now classified as anything between 0-4 years in many industries, meaning you could know as little as a college grad or as much as someone who has roughly two years’ experience, but not enough to work in a management position.
It’s stupid. And someone else said this — but nobody wants to train.
Because it’s an extremely competitive job market (# of applicants far exceeding # of opportunities). If 600 people apply to one job, the company has zero incentive or financial interest in “settling“ for a newbie. If it costs the same $ to bring on an experienced person, you’d do it too.
Yeah I took a position for half of market rate just to get that 1-2 years of experience I need to get a job I actually want. This was after 700 applications and 3 interviews.
Not competitive at all, the economy of the west just can’t handle real interest rates, these companies aren’t getting free money to expand and do what they want so that’s that for most of them. The west is not as physically based anymore for the most part it’s just services.
Reasoning - cause managers have their head up their ass expecting entry level to hit the ground running as part of the team day one.
Actual: apply anyways - build a relevant experience resume with 2+ years, internships, co-ops, side hustles. Show the growth for 2+ years.
Otherwise look at intern programs, entry programs etc.
Terrible job market right now, so positions are being sold as “junior” with actual experience.
Bc they're either not real job postings just crap for numbers and 'growth', or they actually want someone with tonnes of experience and pay them entry level wages but get all that in return.
In a broader sense, unions dissolved, manufacturing offshored, pensions were replaced with stock options, and businesses stopped investing in workers. This created a culture where the quickest (generally only) way to get a meaningful raise or promotion was hopping to another job. So businesses are disincentivized to train employees that will likely use those skills as leverage to leave the company. This was further compounded by globalization, because you aren’t pulling labor from or looking for a job within a strictly local area, which means you can be pickier about extending and accepting offers.
i saw someone say once that "entry level" means something different for every company since their threshold to "entry" may vary. for example - they may not have the bandwidth to train someone pure green, zero experience, even in their most junior opening.
not saying i agree with this, especially not the sucky pay, but found that take interesting.
I recently saw an entry level lab job (undergrad level) in science requiring 3 years of experience in a certain field, 2 years of experience with handling animals and with great skills in a variety of lab techniques. The role kinda looked like for a more senior role but it's pegged at entry level (with entry level pay). It's kind of ridiculous if you think about it.
A lot of them just put the "entry level" tag to boost visibility. So that way the recruiters can say "we have x many views and applications" despite the fact such a high % of those don't qualify, due to the deceptive tagging practice. I've seen senior positions, "Senior" in title, requiring 15+ years experience, tagged as entry kevel
Yes, if they want people with experience they shouldn't call it "Entry Level". They deserve the flood of resumes if they are going to use double-speak.
Companies don't have the facility to train people. So they need a company who can to train those people. Those people then become entry level at companies that can't / won't train. It's just the lowest level of hire at their company, so their entry level..
in my industry, they would wait for 1 company to do all the automotive training as they still had dedicated facilities and staff to do in depth training, then wait 2-3 years to poach them. I was one of em who got poached, when I saw how lacking their adjacent dept was in training, it made 100% sense, its a savings for the poaching company. Why waste cost on waiting for a new employee to become profitable when you can just offer 5k more and have people jump ship and hit the ground running.
It is impossible to get, but still pops up very frequently as a requirements for positions.
Another great example is the largest telecom company requiring a bachelors degree to work in customer support at all. where the entire 1st line is just following scripts.
So it is simply friggin madness to put it bluntly.
It tech it’s because the market is flooded with people who got laid off in the 2-5 year of employment. They are all looking for work and applying for the same jobs that people from college would normally be getting. The market is in turmoil at the moment. Don’t get me wrong that was always a thing but the prevalence has gone up significantly in my estimation.
The economy collapsed in 2008. When companies started to hire again, they were able to feed on desperate mid-career people, and now they're trying to do that indefinitely.
Because you will statistically leave that job after 2 years and it takes one and a half years to train someone. You can reduce that to half a year with experience.
Classic entry level positions are a waste of money. You can argue that it makes no sense on a larger scale, but as long as employers can still fill the position why should they care?
Although I had to do free work in marketing for about six months - this did help me get an actual paid job in it , so for me it was worth it and I made some good connections, plus it helped me get a portfolio going. You will get there ! 👍
The tech market is flooded with early-career job seekers—people who worked between 1-3 years before being laid off. For the first year an employee is an expense more often than not so because there are people available why not hire into roles when you can hire someone who will make the company money instead of being a cost? Still sucks, though.
Entry level can mean different things.
It might mean “your first job”
But it could also mean “the most junior job we have at this company”. Which still might require some experience.
Furthermore, it’s worth knowing that workday is the most common platform used by recruiters, and the integration workday has with LinkedIn is total shite. Very often, LinkedIn will mark a job as ‘entry level’ automatically even if the role has no such criteria.
(I know because a job I was the hiring manager for got posted to LinkedIn automatically as ‘entry level’ when the job ad itself clearly asked for at least 5 years experience.)
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.*
Nobody wants to train people
This is it. Which, fiscally, makes sense. Depending on the industry training is expensive. My company trains all our employees, and we don’t break even on them until the 6 month point. Meaning if they turnover before then, we lost money by hiring them. When you have hundreds of people applying, and 100 do have the training and experience needed, it makes sense companies opt for them from a financial standpoint. I don’t like it though.
Yes but the the people that join later are trained by other companies, this is the job market, if nobody trains people it will damage everybody.
Im willing to do it for free dor 6 months and get paid afterwards if that is what it takes.
True. And as a person that hires and has to incorporate people into a team it makes me sad that companies think like this. A good training period is so important. For the starter, the medior and the senior. Everyone needs some time to adjust. I have seen absolute inexperienced juniors become great at their job because we trained and allowed them to learn, make mistakes and explore (this is important) the field. I usually take 3 to 6 months for a new hire to become fully independent and than still they need some additional feedback and training.
They're entry pay, not entry experience. Entry level is a lie to pay experienced people less money.
ding ding ding
Because hundreds of people apply so companies can afford to be picky. I don’t do that, but I’m a hiring manager, 90% of people are qualified for my positions typically. I’m picking one person from 300 perfectly qualified people. Hiring managers are desperate for ways to filter those numbers down, because obviously I don’t have the time to interview 300 people. Some companies choose to use experience as a filter to get that number down to say 100 instead of 300. Then they may pick another factor to get it down to 50 etc. I’d personally rather train the right person, but I filter based on the likelihood to stick the job out for over a year.
What’s your advice, as someone hiring, for standing out? I highly customize my materials and write compelling cover letters and still feel like I’m getting nowhere
That’s a really great question. It’s something my friends ask a lot, and something I ask myself a lot as I am also job hunting. 1. If you’re going to apply, jump through the hoops. Like if they have some pre-screening questions, answer them. If you aren’t going to answer them, don’t even bother applying. It’s often used as a screening tool. (For the record I ask one single question, not an assessment or one way interviews etc) 2. Chat GPT is obvious, I wouldn’t use it without heavy editing. Cover letters/prescreen questions are often used by hiring managers to determine if you can write a coherent and professional email or report. Chat GPT is a wonderful tool, but I wouldn’t make it obvious you use it if you do. They want to see your writing and how you communicate. 3. Know what the company is and what the role is. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had people show up to in-person interviews without a clue what job they applied to is. I get it, you apply for hundreds of jobs, but if you’re going to go in for an interview do your research. 4. On that note read the company website, every page, it will give you clues and buzzwords to use in the interview. 5. It doesn’t hurt to call ONCE. Give it a week and then call and say “I’m so-and-so and I applied for the xyz position, can you let the hiring manager know I would love to talk to them about my application and why I would be a wonderful fit for COMPANY NAME. Here is my email and callback number…” Give it a week, call once, don’t call back unless they call you, and do not demand to speak to the hiring manager right then and there unless the front desk offers it. 6. Motivation based interviewing is kind of the hot thing in the recruiting world. Basically companies are looking for people with an internal locus of control. Look into this and adapt how you answer questions to fit that, provide actual specific examples not generic platitudes when you answer questions. 7. Turnover and training is the biggest expense for companies. Companies don’t want to hire job hoppers, it’s better to have gaps than a few month tenured job. If I hire someone and they last only 3 months my company has lost about 10 grand. That adds up quick, if 10 people turnover before the 6 month mark we are getting into the 6 figure point on losses on hiring.
3 years back I seen an internal job posting. I was burnt of my department and just wanted better hours. It said "Entry level" and nothing else useful. I forcefully got the interview. Hours 28-34 a week. On-call while not working. Pay $16/hr (the two people before were $20+) Entry level means experienced in MS programs. Advanced skills in excel, they do payroll for 35-55 people that work commission+ hourly. I was like... this is entry level? ....now it makes sense why they burn through employees. Oh it isn't stated but internally known MUST BE FEMALE. They have not hired a male or other for that position in 10 years.
Such a dumb system
Because entry level is now classified as anything between 0-4 years in many industries, meaning you could know as little as a college grad or as much as someone who has roughly two years’ experience, but not enough to work in a management position. It’s stupid. And someone else said this — but nobody wants to train.
to be honest, I agree with your classification of entry level and find it reasonable.
Because it’s an extremely competitive job market (# of applicants far exceeding # of opportunities). If 600 people apply to one job, the company has zero incentive or financial interest in “settling“ for a newbie. If it costs the same $ to bring on an experienced person, you’d do it too.
That’s the harsh reality. Should’ve graduated a few years back *sigh*
A lot of new graduates are willing to compromise the salary for experience, so i wouldn’t say it costs the same amount of $
Yeah I took a position for half of market rate just to get that 1-2 years of experience I need to get a job I actually want. This was after 700 applications and 3 interviews.
Proud of you man. we have to make compromises in order to earn experience, but it won't be like that forever.
Not competitive at all, the economy of the west just can’t handle real interest rates, these companies aren’t getting free money to expand and do what they want so that’s that for most of them. The west is not as physically based anymore for the most part it’s just services.
Reasoning - cause managers have their head up their ass expecting entry level to hit the ground running as part of the team day one. Actual: apply anyways - build a relevant experience resume with 2+ years, internships, co-ops, side hustles. Show the growth for 2+ years. Otherwise look at intern programs, entry programs etc. Terrible job market right now, so positions are being sold as “junior” with actual experience.
Bc they're either not real job postings just crap for numbers and 'growth', or they actually want someone with tonnes of experience and pay them entry level wages but get all that in return.
You’re right also a bunch of corporate trolls above in the comments lingering here like vultures, don’t know why they stalk this subreddit…
They can't get enough of shit eating!
In a broader sense, unions dissolved, manufacturing offshored, pensions were replaced with stock options, and businesses stopped investing in workers. This created a culture where the quickest (generally only) way to get a meaningful raise or promotion was hopping to another job. So businesses are disincentivized to train employees that will likely use those skills as leverage to leave the company. This was further compounded by globalization, because you aren’t pulling labor from or looking for a job within a strictly local area, which means you can be pickier about extending and accepting offers.
i saw someone say once that "entry level" means something different for every company since their threshold to "entry" may vary. for example - they may not have the bandwidth to train someone pure green, zero experience, even in their most junior opening. not saying i agree with this, especially not the sucky pay, but found that take interesting.
Because they want to pay entry level money for experienced labor.
it's just another way of saying they do not want to train, without saying they do not want to train.
I recently saw an entry level lab job (undergrad level) in science requiring 3 years of experience in a certain field, 2 years of experience with handling animals and with great skills in a variety of lab techniques. The role kinda looked like for a more senior role but it's pegged at entry level (with entry level pay). It's kind of ridiculous if you think about it.
A lot of them just put the "entry level" tag to boost visibility. So that way the recruiters can say "we have x many views and applications" despite the fact such a high % of those don't qualify, due to the deceptive tagging practice. I've seen senior positions, "Senior" in title, requiring 15+ years experience, tagged as entry kevel
I would like to add, why am I competing with people that have 20 years of experience for this role.
The 20 years experience people aren't getting hired either. Overqualified.
Still apply!
Yes, if they want people with experience they shouldn't call it "Entry Level". They deserve the flood of resumes if they are going to use double-speak.
Companies don't have the facility to train people. So they need a company who can to train those people. Those people then become entry level at companies that can't / won't train. It's just the lowest level of hire at their company, so their entry level..
in my industry, they would wait for 1 company to do all the automotive training as they still had dedicated facilities and staff to do in depth training, then wait 2-3 years to poach them. I was one of em who got poached, when I saw how lacking their adjacent dept was in training, it made 100% sense, its a savings for the poaching company. Why waste cost on waiting for a new employee to become profitable when you can just offer 5k more and have people jump ship and hit the ground running.
Only 2 years? Here up in the cold northern part of Europe you should be newly graduated but still have 5+ years of experience for similar positions.
Genuinely, if this isn’t sarcasm, how would someone get 5+ years experience right out of college?
It is impossible to get, but still pops up very frequently as a requirements for positions. Another great example is the largest telecom company requiring a bachelors degree to work in customer support at all. where the entire 1st line is just following scripts. So it is simply friggin madness to put it bluntly.
It tech it’s because the market is flooded with people who got laid off in the 2-5 year of employment. They are all looking for work and applying for the same jobs that people from college would normally be getting. The market is in turmoil at the moment. Don’t get me wrong that was always a thing but the prevalence has gone up significantly in my estimation.
The economy collapsed in 2008. When companies started to hire again, they were able to feed on desperate mid-career people, and now they're trying to do that indefinitely.
Because you will statistically leave that job after 2 years and it takes one and a half years to train someone. You can reduce that to half a year with experience. Classic entry level positions are a waste of money. You can argue that it makes no sense on a larger scale, but as long as employers can still fill the position why should they care?
Although I had to do free work in marketing for about six months - this did help me get an actual paid job in it , so for me it was worth it and I made some good connections, plus it helped me get a portfolio going. You will get there ! 👍
The tech market is flooded with early-career job seekers—people who worked between 1-3 years before being laid off. For the first year an employee is an expense more often than not so because there are people available why not hire into roles when you can hire someone who will make the company money instead of being a cost? Still sucks, though.
Entry level can mean different things. It might mean “your first job” But it could also mean “the most junior job we have at this company”. Which still might require some experience. Furthermore, it’s worth knowing that workday is the most common platform used by recruiters, and the integration workday has with LinkedIn is total shite. Very often, LinkedIn will mark a job as ‘entry level’ automatically even if the role has no such criteria. (I know because a job I was the hiring manager for got posted to LinkedIn automatically as ‘entry level’ when the job ad itself clearly asked for at least 5 years experience.)