Skip to comments.Another reason businesses can't fill their jobs
Posted on 07/16/2014 10:48:49 AM PDT by Night Hides Not
While many businesses contend that a "skills gap" is a major reason that they're not filling jobs, a new survey says the companies themselves may be a big reason they can't hire anyone.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
Reasons jobs aren't being filled:
1. Interview process takes too long/too many interviews.
2. "Disappointing" compensation.
3. Applicants turn down jobs at companies experiencing layoffs and retirements (i.e. jump into the frying pan).
Those of us who are "seasoned" are used to the grind. On too many occasions, though, I was advised 45 minutes into the interview that my resume was "too strong for the position." HR couldn't determine that before bringing me in for the interview?
I'm looking forward to comments from FReepers.
Tell them you can work down to their expectations.
HR is where most large companies bury the Affirmative Action hires. Asking them to use reasoned thought is sometimes too much of a heavy lift.
A company that has government contracts of any kind, must interview at least three people for a position.
According to some HR people I have talked with, they must show that they interviewed minorities, women and occasionally veterans for that job. I would assume that today’s list must also include homosexuals and transgendered as well. All candidates must also pass a drug screening that the company must pay for.
It’s difficult to find people with the ordinate skills required in the first place, much less with all the other qualifications that are imposed by the imperial government..................
Thanks for the tip! lol
I was stuck on "can you help me dumb down my resume to better qualify for the position?" When I saw the look on their faces, I got up, thanked them for their time, and ended the interview.
Sounds logical, but I was just offered a job at a federal agency after a phone interview. It took over six months to land the interview, though.
Then there was the 16 year old high school intern from the local creme de la creme charter school, the Jalen Rose Leadership Academy, who put on his application that he’d never had a job before and under his skills he listed he could “count money real good, dancing and cooking”. Nothing pertaining to academics, extra-curriculurar, computers or even lawn mowing jobs. This one made it through HR, I was wondering what the rejected applications looked like.
What these companies need are children from Guatamala who can’t speak English.
That just means “I don’t want to hire someone smarter or more ambitious than I am.”
Although I’m out of the workforce I keep in touch via consulting and former colleagues who would confirm these factors exist. But dig a little deeper into the “long interview process” issue and I think you’ll find there is still a strong reluctance to hire, especially in “high cost regions” like the US. And especially in public companies, where the total cost of an employee is ever-increasing and surrounded by uncertainty at this time. The safest course of action is the delay, drag feet, hope for that “perfect candidate” that will erase any doubts, etc.
Not the complete answer, but the one option that always exists and usually has low risk is to “do nothing”.
“don’t be gunning for MY job”
“billionaire CEO who is calling for more visas for Indian workers thinks your skills cost too much”
The third scenario (which I’ve also encountered) is “older than the coworkers” (and I’m not even 50). But age discrimination doesn’t go on these days. Not with employment acts...
It really depends on the situation. If companies need somebody right away to get vital work done, they usually sing a different tune. I have seen situations where lots of candidates were interviewed quickly, trying to find someone qualified who could be brought on board immediately.
Number One reason why companies can’t fill positions: The HR people tend to be idiots who don’t know how to interview. They have a job description with boxes that need to be checked off. The interviewer has no understanding of the job or of the interviewee’s true ability to do the job. HR people don’t bother thinking and the companies don’t want to spend a nickel providing any training to someone who may be a terrific employee, but doesn’t have experience with one lousy piece of software.
#3 will be a challenge for companies in WA & CO.
It’s a tremendous legal and financial obligation to hire a worker.
Imagine you want to hire somebody. Now imagine standing right next to them during the interview a passel of slip-and-fall lawyers, sexual harassment lawyers, safety bureaucrats, etc.
Now imagine next to them a pile of medical bills, extended leave applications, late and absentee records, etc.
Then imagine what it would cost you to fire or layoff that person, if the need arose.
So true—Yet, an incompetent HR department can bring a viable company to its knees, if not kill it outright.
One of my former employers lost a number of integral, highly competent professionals (myself included) when they assigned us to a newly-graduated, minority HR type who didn’t have the slightest idea what we did but decided we were overpaid.
I was advised 45 minutes into the interview that my resume was “too strong for the position.
They would rather tell you that than tell you the truth.
So, what is the truth?
That they had already decided to hire someone younger, with less experience, and for less money.