"We can't find qualified employees"

[Yieu]

I think the confusion may have lied in that the thread title specifies "employees" rather than referrals or partners, so they were approaching the thread with the mindset that the discussion would be relating to a manager-employee relationship.

Anyway, it is true, in a partnership or referral situation you have less control over the outcome, so that is a more difficult situation in this respect. But what I was referring to in my previous post specifically was addressing a manager-employee relationship, in which the manager sets the expectations and you either meet them or you may get terminated.

Of course, it is up to the individual to decide that they want to keep the job and then to actually produce, and that does take a personal drive to be self-sufficient.

 

[osan]

..

 

[tttppp]

Yes, well it seems we have different standards.

How so? I'm generally a perfectionist and am not satisfied with anyone unless they are perfect. If you met me you'd be surprised anyone, let alone the majority of my employees passed my approval.

 

[VanBummel]

I'll agree that you get the best performance when you keep your employees busy. I don't slack off often, but the times I have, it's been because I really didn't know of anything else to do.

 

[tttppp]

I have sadly had to describe the same situation ten different ways in order for you to begin to understand, since you decided (based on next to nothing) to butt in and talk about how the rest of us were wrong about our own experiences. It is my responsibility to get this work done. I talked about partnerships right off the bat. Sadly, those partners let me down without fail. All of them started out qualified, and when they were given more complicated work, they failed to perform, and it reflected on me.

This is similar to what Icy said, as well. This is similar to most proofreading circles I'm aware of. This is very much like the situation that other employers I speak to have found themselves in. This is absolutely the problem with a large number of "entitlement" kiddos who swap positions repeatedly over their lifetimes the moment they are annoyed with responsibilities at an initial job. Look into how long someone stays at one job now, compared with even 30 years ago.

Whatever floats your boat, though; you may continue arguing with yourself as long as you please.

You may have contradicted yourself about 10 times but you were not explaining the same thing 10 different times. I believe I gave you guys the benefit of the doubt. After I explained my opinion, I stated that was my experience. I never gave my opinion of your situation until after you did a terrible job explaining your situation over and over again, to the point they appear to be 4-5 different situations. Your final situation doesn't even appear to address the topic of the thread at all.

 

[specsaregood]

This is similar to what Icy said, as well. This is similar to most proofreading circles I'm aware of.

you can certainly add graphic designers to that list.

 

[oyarde]

my experience, layers and layers of supervisors, managers, project managers, consultants (and more consultants, while staff keep heading for the door), directors, in meetings, jib jabbing (designing, describing) what needs to be done. one great big circle jerkfest.
can't complain, get paid well, while this company still exists, not much longer though.

I hate meetings .

 

[ryanmkeisling]

But I am so good at it

Awesome!

You'd still be fired.

 

[oyarde]

Awesome!

You'd still be fired.

Nah , I am good at a lot of other things as well , they could fire me where I work , I suppose , probably would have to move the first shift manager to my position , hire a couple more people , then I would just eventually go somewhere else ( eventually , like,no hurry ), take more money .... in the end , it is what it is

 

[idiom]

Doesn't anybody just walk in and start working for free for the first month or two?

If the employer won't let you do that they are not worth working for anyway.

In New Zealand btw, we have a mandatory three month trial period at the end of which either party can terminate the arrangement without cause. It stops the red tape of employment being a huge trap.

 

[tttppp]

I'll agree that you get the best performance when you keep your employees busy. I don't slack off often, but the times I have, it's been because I really didn't know of anything else to do.

I agree that the better managers keep their employees generally more busy than bad managers, but the good managers focus on results, not necessarily that employees keep themselves busy. Employees respond much better to this because it give their job meaning because they do work because its important not just to keep busy. Additionally they can have more fun in down time when they have their job done. Its just a coincidence that the better managers who focus on results, generally do keep their employees busy too.

 

[DamianTV]

The work has to be Meaningful. Tell an employee to go clean a toilet he just cleaned 30 seconds ago is hardly what I would call Meaningful work. Busy work is degrading to employees and could be better spent by the company by providing new skillsets to an employee rather than just making them "look busy", which is what so many managers do. Why? Because the managers dont want competition. They would rather have a stupid employee that doesnt have the time to improve themselves than to risk actual competition for their position. Not all, but too many managers are like that. So lets waste the companys money and the employees time for the sake of the moron manager who knows that anyone worth their weight in salt is going to oust them from their pedestal of power as soon as the managers manager realizes that it really is the employee that make the managers shine.

The weight of all companies are carried on the shoulders of the employees that are paid the least.

 

[furface]

Since so much of our economy is based on "services" it's virtually impossible to measure job performance. It's not like an assembly line where you can count the number of items produced.

The "service" economy is a load of crap if you ask me. It's almost all make work with very little value added for anything. The worst offenders, of course, are governments where they force you to buy "services" that nobody wants at exorbitant rates. There are other related fields like medicine, law, accounting, & finance that are equally inefficient and over compensated. The reason the can get away with it is that the government grants them monopolies or semi-monopolies in exchange for complacency. The loser in all of this is the dwindling American middle class.

So it's not surprising that employers claim they can't find qualified candidates when there are an abundance of people who can do the job. It's all part of the illusion of "meritocracy" where the elite government empowered bureau class constantly needs to assure themselves that they are part of the elite because they're better than other people, but in reality they are just monopolistic exclusioners.

 

[Pericles]

Doesn't anybody just walk in and start working for free for the first month or two?

That would violate US labor law.

 

[Pericles]

I agree that the better managers keep their employees generally more busy than bad managers, but the good managers focus on results, not necessarily that employees keep themselves busy. Employees respond much better to this because it give their job meaning because they do work because its important not just to keep busy. Additionally they can have more fun in down time when they have their job done. Its just a coincidence that the better managers who focus on results, generally do keep their employees busy too.

The best managers align the individual job, rewards, and company objectives, so the individual is rewarded for contributing to company success.

 

[tttppp]

The work has to be Meaningful. Tell an employee to go clean a toilet he just cleaned 30 seconds ago is hardly what I would call Meaningful work. Busy work is degrading to employees and could be better spent by the company by providing new skillsets to an employee rather than just making them "look busy", which is what so many managers do. Why? Because the managers dont want competition. They would rather have a stupid employee that doesnt have the time to improve themselves than to risk actual competition for their position. Not all, but too many managers are like that. So lets waste the companys money and the employees time for the sake of the moron manager who knows that anyone worth their weight in salt is going to oust them from their pedestal of power as soon as the managers manager realizes that it really is the employee that make the managers shine.

The weight of all companies are carried on the shoulders of the employees that are paid the least.

I couldn't agree more. When my employees had their job done and had a little free time, I let them enjoy it. If they had a lot of free time, I would use it teaching them a new responsibility.

I also agree that most managers don't want competition, thats why so many of them surround themselves with stupid employees. The best way to judge a manager is by examining his staff. Great managers have great staffs. Bad managers have bad staffs.

 

[tttppp]

The best managers align the individual job, rewards, and company objectives, so the individual is rewarded for contributing to company success.

I agree.

 

[thoughtomator]

The weight of all companies are carried on the shoulders of the employees that are paid the least.

That is very poetic but it doesn't match reality at all... sometimes people are paid well because they are bearing the weight.

 

[newbitech]

As far as news goes, this is really old news. Companies have been keyword screening with software for at least a decade now. I don't find it particularly hard to get my apps through the screening process.

Employees need to learn to screen themselves tho. That is the trick to finding the match IMO. It also helps to keep in mind that while this article doesn't mention it, the screening process has been amped up to filter out all kinds of other things COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO SKILLS.

Credit checks, background checks, employment gaps, "shell" companies, 3rd party screening, character screening aka personality tests aka COGNITIVE testing... these are all reason HR departments SAY they can't find qualified candidates.

What is left out of this article as well is the complete disconnect from the actual job duties and what HR says you are going to be doing.

Others have mentioned it in the thread, but requiring a degree to perform work that really requires 2 weeks of training or a script is retarded. Companies that do this are setting themselves up for failure in the long run because those employees will not be using the skills they picked up in their degree in the short term, and assuming the economy rebounds, those employers will have to retrain new workers once the OVERQUALIFIED people leave to greener pastures.

Oh, and don't get me started on the OVERQUALIFIED spiel. The article doesn't mention that either.

Bah, employers whining about not finding qualified candidates = company in distress. I am definitely short companies with retarded HR departments. I have a list heh.

 

[MelissaWV]

you can certainly add graphic designers to that list.

Yep.