Post by twodogsandababy on Sept 20, 2012 9:57:35 GMT -5
I generally just lurk over here, but my dad is a jail superintendent and says that he loses so many candidates over psych evals and drug tests. He hired a guy I went to college with and ended up having to fire him, but offered him the option of resigning. The guy asked to call his mom before deciding what to do.
Of course it is important, but a big motivator is promotion potential. If the only way to get a promotion is to leave and go to another company where you will have to build new all new relationships, I think it probably does impact the effort younger people devote to their current positions.
(I'm not picking on you promise
I think the shorter stints makes professionalism and work ethic MORE important. You don't know where your paycheck is going to be coming from in 5 or 10 years, so you better impress the people you work with now.
I was just talking about this with a coworker, our boss thinks I have loyalty to the company because I've been here going on 7 years. No. I have loyalty to myself. And I know the better I do here, the more skills I learn, the higher I can bump my position and salary, and the better I can foster connections with my coworkers who will be working in the valley with me for decades to come, the better off I am when this place eventually goes down in a ball of flames.
I think we agree based on your last paragraph though (although I fully admit I am drive by posting with one hand and a nursing baby lol) There is a perceived benefit and growth in staying with your current company so going above and beyond is worth it. The young people I see who aren't motivated at my job feel there is no where to go and their work reflects they have one foot out the door and they are on to the next one.
I think it's that people are simply less invested in their jobs when they know that they, as employees, are disposable.
We live in a world where everything is disposable now, including customers if you're a large corporation. Why bother paying people more or investing in better customer service employees when you don't really need to impress customers (see: airline industry, cell phone providers, insurance companies)?
This is going to sound really boring. Really, really boring. But being on-time has a lot to do with transportation. 80 yearsa ago, when my great grandfather got injured and my grandmother left school to go to work in R.H. Macy's, it was easy and affordable for her to get on a subway from Brokklyn to Manhattan to work as a "girl" in the accounts department.
If you move your plant or base of operations to the middle of nowhere because land is cheap and taxes are low, and there is no infrastructure for entering workers to get there - you can't be that surprised that people who can't afford reliable cars, insurance and gas can't get there with any sort of regularity.
Actually this is a great point, one that I almost never see mentioned. Plus, traffic is far worse in most major cities than it was a generation ago, and since housing is far more expensive than it was a generation ago, most workers have to live farther from their workplaces.
This whole thing kinda sounds like excuses to me. Yes, businesses move and traffic is worse than it was but as long as it's within a reasonable distance there shouldn't be any reason that people can't get there and on time. I commute an hour each way and (other than any unforeseen conditions) if I can't get in to work on time, it's my own fault for not catching an earlier bus.
I hire for early career professional positions. I get a lot of candidates who have basically demotivated themselves by getting an MPH--they think they are now worth 60k, but they don't know how to do anything. Do they know how to use Excel? No? Then I can't hire them for $35k, not that they would be happy or motivated then anyway.
This is kind of what I talking about though. Excel isn't that hard. You can do a self study in a couple of hours, not to mention there is a help function. Why toss out a candidate because of this?
You're right, Excel isn't all that hard and pretty much everything about can be self-taught by playing around with it or using the help function, but I don't see why it should be the company's responsibility to teach you. If you're going in for a job that requires Excel skills, take the time on your own to sit and learn the basics of the program before going in for your interview. Take a class, ask a friend/family member to show you, or get Excel for Dummies from the library, I can't understand why a company should be willing to pay you 60k and then teach you the basic skills required to do your job.
This is kind of what I talking about though. Excel isn't that hard. You can do a self study in a couple of hours, not to mention there is a help function. Why toss out a candidate because of this?
You're right, Excel isn't all that hard and pretty much everything about can be self-taught by playing around with it or using the help function, but I don't see why it should be the company's responsibility to teach you. If you're going in for a job that requires Excel skills, take the time on your own to sit and learn the basics of the program before going in for your interview. Take a class, ask a friend/family member to show you, or get Excel for Dummies from the library, I can't understand why a company should be willing to pay you 60k and then teach you the basic skills required to do your job.
OK, but then companies can't complain about how they can't find employees with those skills. If you're not willing to invest anything in your employees, why do you expect them to invest their own time for you?
And this is another reason why the drug policy in this country is so effed up. Who cares if someone smokes a joint on the weekend?!
From a manufacturing standpoint, you care when you have to show that your workforce is 100% drug-free to get lower liability insurance rates. when you're working with steel slitters, forklifts, whatever, you often have to show your insurance company that you're making sure that people are using your equipment drug-free.
What's the easiest way to do that? Drug test at hire and random drug testing a sample of your employees throughout the year.
But there's also only so much I can do in the classroom. That kid that's slumped over in the back row, sleeping through half of the class that thinks he's going to graduate and get an awesome job working on the next presidential PR campaign? Yeah. Probably not going to happen.
I agree with this. I sometimes guest-speak to seniors at my alma mater about my career, how I got here, my recommendations, etc. One of the things I tell them is that when they start their job search, they should change the outgoing message on their voicemail to something reasonably professional instead of "hey whatup this is J-dog! You know I'm probably out partying so leave a message" (true story, I've heard it!). The looks of horror on their face when I give this advice are simply amazing.
And this is another reason why the drug policy in this country is so effed up. Who cares if someone smokes a joint on the weekend?!
From a manufacturing standpoint, you care when you have to show that your workforce is 100% drug-free to get lower liability insurance rates. when you're working with steel slitters, forklifts, whatever, you often have to show your insurance company that you're making sure that people are using your equipment drug-free.
What's the easiest way to do that? Drug test at hire and random drug testing a sample of your employees throughout the year.
I can understand this for industries like manufacturing. But does it really matter if your receptionist, whose most dangerous task is to refill the copier with paper, smokes a joint over the weekend?
From a manufacturing standpoint, you care when you have to show that your workforce is 100% drug-free to get lower liability insurance rates. when you're working with steel slitters, forklifts, whatever, you often have to show your insurance company that you're making sure that people are using your equipment drug-free.
What's the easiest way to do that? Drug test at hire and random drug testing a sample of your employees throughout the year.
I can understand this for industries like manufacturing. But does it really matter if your receptionist, whose most dangerous task is to refill the copier with paper, smokes a joint over the weekend?
Have you SEEN some of those copy machines?!? kidding. I actually agree with you philosophically.
Front-office staff for a manufacturing company would still need to be clean because they can be pulled in the random sample for testing because they might have to walk out onto the floor on occasion.
Receptionist for a non-manufacturing job? DT might be a waste of resources, tbh.
Post by Daria Morgandorffer on Sept 20, 2012 10:38:52 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure if my company drug tested, we'd be missing half the office. Seriously. But these people are occasional tokers, not coke addicts, so we just don't give an eff.
OK, but then companies can't complain about how they can't find employees with those skills. If you're not willing to invest anything in your employees, why do you expect them to invest their own time for you?
Yeah, I think it's a little unreasonable for you to expect someone who meets 90% of the requirements for a job they are applying for to teach themselves the other 10% of stuff they need just in case they get an interview. Or to drop everything and give themselves a crash course once they know about the interview. It's not like they would be pros. How would someone who is applying for ten jobs a week keep up?
It's much easier for the employer to train the one person who is otherwise qualified. Companies shoot themselves in the foot by waiting to hire someone until everyone else is overworked and no longer has time to train the new guy, also while cutting training budgets.
I can see that to a certain point, maybe it just depends on the job? I could never imagine walking into any sort of job that I'd be sitting at a computer all day and NOT know the basics of Office (Excel, Outlook, Word). I'm not saying that if you get an interview that you should run out and take a crash course but if you want a job and you see that it's a skill that companies are looking for, then people should take some initiative and familiarize yourself with software.
I'm pretty sure if my company drug tested, we'd be missing half the office. Seriously. But these people are occasional tokers, not coke addicts, so we just don't give an eff.
I used to call them Stupidity Tests. We gave so much advanced notice that if you didn't piss clean, you were stupid.
Yeah, I think it's a little unreasonable for you to expect someone who meets 90% of the requirements for a job they are applying for to teach themselves the other 10% of stuff they need just in case they get an interview. Or to drop everything and give themselves a crash course once they know about the interview. It's not like they would be pros. How would someone who is applying for ten jobs a week keep up?
It's much easier for the employer to train the one person who is otherwise qualified. Companies shoot themselves in the foot by waiting to hire someone until everyone else is overworked and no longer has time to train the new guy, also while cutting training budgets.
I can see that to a certain point, maybe it just depends on the job? I could never imagine walking into any sort of job that I'd be sitting at a computer all day and NOT know the basics of Office (Excel, Outlook, Word). I'm not saying that if you get an interview that you should run out and take a crash course but if you want a job and you see that it's a skill that companies are looking for, then people should take some initiative and familiarize yourself with software.
We do skills testing after the interview and before the offer. It's hilarious to see the self proclaimed "excel experts" completely fail the intermediate tests.
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
I can see that to a certain point, maybe it just depends on the job? I could never imagine walking into any sort of job that I'd be sitting at a computer all day and NOT know the basics of Office (Excel, Outlook, Word). I'm not saying that if you get an interview that you should run out and take a crash course but if you want a job and you see that it's a skill that companies are looking for, then people should take some initiative and familiarize yourself with software.
We do skills testing after the interview and before the offer. It's hilarious to see the self proclaimed "excel experts" completely fail the intermediate tests.
Yeah, my H has to hire people who know excel. People think because they formatted one spreadsheet and now how to make the "SUM" formula work that they have good excel skills. There is so much more to excel than that, and it's not something people can just pick up by themselves in a matter of a couple weeks by sitting at home with a blank spreadsheet and a For Dummies book. You actually need real data to work with to begin to really pick up advanced skills. There comes a point where those advanced skills should be expected, but for many entry level positions, I think it's unrealistic to expect people with 0-3 years of work experience to be able to run complicated reports and manage data effectively and independently.
So I can see both sides of this. I do think people need to do more to make sure they have the skills that employers want. But I also think employers need to revisit their expectations and invest more in training.
A few random thoughts on the subject: Blue collar workers often make more than a college graduate Finding employees who not only will work for the full 8 hours, but finding those who are willing to extend themselves beyond what is expected is rare. GM is having a hard time finding highly skilled workers who will work for the salary range allowed by the gov't bailout cap imposed.
Okay, hear me out here. I think this is what happens when you have an entire system that is driven by "skills" training rather than actual learning. They don't learn how to be intuitive; they don't learn how to think independently. Everything ends up being "Is this going to be on the test?" So you get an entire population of people who lack that real fundamental basic knowledge that combines sociology with history with literature (i.e. This is how people interact with each other and this is what happens in certain interaction) and instead you have a population of workers who are like, "So... I don't get it. What if the caller asks a question that isn't on the script?"
I want to hug you right now.
Anecdote: Just this morning in class, I was going through something that was 100% subjective with my class. One girl finally said out loud, multiple times "I HATE THIS. I hate things where there is no right or wrong answer."
I also don't think students do enough research on their own about what they actually need to get a job and expect that just going with the flow will get them there.
But really, the skills this article talks about potential employees missing aren't things that are taught in school. They are taught at home or in your part-time jobs in high school or college.
I totally agree. My parents both have excellent work ethics, and also excellent interpersonal communication skills. My mom has mentioned that she's NOT a "people person," but taught herself to be one. (Same with being a "morning person" and getting up at an appropriate time to get things done/ready and get to work on time.)
Now that my dad is older he's scheduling in some more vacation time, but he's taken like 1 sick day in the past 8 years. Partially because he is rarely sick, and partially because you just go to work unless you can't function (he also works at home and travels to clients, so no coworkers to spread germs to if he's doing office work).
Over the past 6 years, my supervisors and coworkers have learned that I'm punctual. This gives me a lot of leeway if I need to be late or leave early for a doctor's appointment or something. I request vacation well in advance and communicate when I will be out of the office, in writing. I have a friend who was so upset once because she had scheduled a day out of the office and her boss "forgot" and was mad at her. Well, then be better at communicating.
I read articles like this and think, "Damn, I should always have a job, right?!" Although I know life doesn't work that way.
The experience I had in the South Bay while looking for about 18 months was that nobody wants to train, they want a specific set of skills for a certain niche and will not look at you without A, B, and C.
The big thing I found is ISO 13485, medical device companies would not look at you if you didn't have that specific experience; they didn't want to train it. Didn't matter If you knew 9001, 14001, 16949, AS9100, etc. they must have their box checked off.
So ditto the others who put some blame on employers.
Post by Daria Morgandorffer on Sept 20, 2012 11:52:32 GMT -5
Another issue I'm having with the younger hires is that they all think I'm supposed to be their friend. They don't totally grasp the boss/employee relationship and they think it's cool to come up to me with their personal problems and then tell me they really need to go home right now (that's cool right?). Um, no.
I also had one girl (on her second day) just assume she could leave a half hour early because she took a half hour lunch. She argued that she just needed to put in her 8 hours and she didn't see why she'd need to be here until 5 since she's already done with her 8.
Proper respect for authority figures is very rare.
It's starting to get very hard for me to not automatically feel biased toward 22-23 year old candidates.
The experience I had in the South Bay while looking for about 18 months was that nobody wants to train, they want a specific set of skills for a certain niche and will not look at you without A, B, and C.
The big thing I found is ISO 13485, medical device companies would not look at you if you didn't have that specific experience; they didn't want to train it. Didn't matter If you knew 9001, 14001, 16949, AS9100, etc. they must have their box checked off.
So ditto the others who put some blame on employers.
I'm going to take this but narrow it to recruiters, not employers. A lot of this problem is because of keyword searches, which is a function of the volume of applicants and positions these days. I don't think recruiting has found an effective way to scale.
I'm sure I'm going to offend someone here, but we've now created this whole category of work around recruiting, and I'm skeptical about the value add. Don't get me wrong, it's great to have someone who has the time to search and post and schedule, but how much do they really know about what is needed when they don't do it?
The experience I had in the South Bay while looking for about 18 months was that nobody wants to train, they want a specific set of skills for a certain niche and will not look at you without A, B, and C.
The big thing I found is ISO 13485, medical device companies would not look at you if you didn't have that specific experience; they didn't want to train it. Didn't matter If you knew 9001, 14001, 16949, AS9100, etc. they must have their box checked off.
So ditto the others who put some blame on employers.
I'm going to take this but narrow it to recruiters, not employers. A lot of this problem is because of keyword searches, which is a function of the volume of applicants and positions these days. I don't think recruiting has found an effective way to scale.
I'm sure I'm going to offend someone here, but we've now created this whole category of work around recruiting, and I'm skeptical about the value add. Don't get me wrong, it's great to have someone who has the time to search and post and schedule, but how much do they really know about what is needed when they don't do it?
This is a really good point. And it's not just recruiters but so many of those online application databases and key word searches probably aren't as effective as one would think.
Once, I tried applying for a job at a place that had me fill out an online form. They had a drop down menu for colleges. So if you didn't attend one of the colleges on the list, there was no way you could apply for the job. Considering my college was more highly ranked than many of them on the list, I had to wonder who the moron was that designed the form. I wound up calling and after much persistence, I got someone that allowed me to email them my resume. Where I'm sure it just got dumped into a garbage bin.
I also had one girl (on her second day) just assume she could leave a half hour early because she took a half hour lunch. She argued that she just needed to put in her 8 hours and she didn't see why she'd need to be here until 5 since she's already done with her 8.
I don't understand why this is so horrible. There has to be some limit on hours, right? Obviously, this sort of thing is best addressed while interviewing for a job (learning about how flexible a place is) and she should not have assumed it's ok, but for many office jobs I don't see why employers can't be more flexible as long as the work gets done. People have mobile devices to stay in touch. Work invades home life on the regular so I don't get why employers can't be similarly accommodating. Maybe some are but it seems like employees are the ones bending over backwards most of the time. I can't begrudge younger people trying to bend workplace rules to be more reasonable.
I agree that it's not necessarily inappropriate. In particular if someone has only ever worked in hourly positions, this request would not only be normal and acceptable, but employers might even require that the person let it be known so they aren't at risk for either paying overtime or wage/hour violations.
I don't understand why this is so horrible. There has to be some limit on hours, right? Obviously, this sort of thing is best addressed while interviewing for a job (learning about how flexible a place is) and she should not have assumed it's ok, but for many office jobs I don't see why employers can't be more flexible as long as the work gets done. People have mobile devices to stay in touch. Work invades home life on the regular so I don't get why employers can't be similarly accommodating. Maybe some are but it seems like employees are the ones bending over backwards most of the time. I can't begrudge younger people trying to bend workplace rules to be more reasonable.
I agree that it's not necessarily inappropriate. In particular if someone has only ever worked in hourly positions, this request would not only be normal and acceptable, but employers might even require that the person let it be known so they aren't at risk for either paying overtime or wage/hour violations.
Yeah but even if you're working hourly it doesn't mean you can make your own hours. If your hours are 9-5 with a 1 hour lunch, you can't just decide to leave early because you took a half lunch instead of a full. If you're expected to be there til 5 then you should be there til 5, just take your full lunch.