Why Companies Aren't Getting the Employees They Need 7

[Fisch88]

There have been several posts on this topic, kudos to the WSJ for getting it straight. The only change I would ask for is to provide more data. Without the data, the chata don't mata!

 

[moltenmetal]

Great post. The article nails it. As you said, they're light on the data, which are plentiful on the subject. Unemployment rates are terrible in North America, but youth unemployment rates are the worst of all, despite larger percentages of youth graduating from universities.

Employers that don't figure this out and find a way around it, are doomed.

 

[TheTick]

The biggest instance of irony I have seen lately was an unemployed HR manager I had met. He could not find a job because all the available openings had very specific requirements and employers felt that they did not need to deviate from those requirements. Nice to see someone get chewed up by their own beast.

 

[cranky108]

I agree to a point. Employeers are not training, and are in general not willing to pay for good talent.

However, a good part of the unemployment is the fault of the people who are unemployeed. If you get a degree in a field where there are already to many qualified people, then only the best would be expected to find jobs. Unions do tend to skuew this to not the most qualified, but to the most politically savvy.

Is it strange that there is a shortage of qualified welders? Welding schools are abound, yet there is a shortage of qualified people.

 

[zdas04]

Getting a degree takes a few years. In 1983 (for example), the Oil & Gas industry was begging for people and paying great salaries. Attendence in Petroleum Engineering departments was the highest it has ever been and many universities started Petroleum departments that year. The class of 1986 graduated more Petroleum Engineers than had ever been graduated at one time before or since. In the Spring of 1986 the industry tanked and 500,000 jobs disappeared world wide and the number of jobs in Oil & Gas did not reach 1st quarter 1986 levels until 2008 (when we had another massive blood letting, but that is another story).

The people who entered Petroleum Engineering programs in 1982-86 were reacting to thier perception of the Supply Demand equation. They got screwed in a big way.

David

 

[JohnRBaker]

Our own company is experiencing this phenomenon:

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/06/07/now-hiring-siemens-needs-3-000/

http://wtvbam.com/news/articles/2011/oct/13/jobs-but-no-one-to-fill-them/

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/foreign-ceos-hard-to-find-skilled-us-workers/

The company is going so far as to basically set up something like an apprenticeship program to actually 'train' new hires in the skills needed rather than depend on finding them in the market place.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

UG/NX Museum:

http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[moltenmetal]

We've done the same, John, except we're a microscopic little company. We hire co-op students, pick the best ones and hire them permanently, then pair them with a senior mentor on each project to teach them the ropes. We find this works better than hiring more experienced engineers and trying to teach them what works in our niche. Trying to recruit people who are already familiar with our niche is a fool's errand, and yet we never have a shortage.

 

[Comcokid]

The primary issue is that companies don't want to pay for knowledge and experience, OR, dont want to train and develop existing engineering talent to meet the needs. Both of these are serious indications of a oversupply of engineers.

Even following JohnRBaker first posted link, in the very first sentence it reads:

Siemens is looking to hire more than 3,000 workers over the next several months, and many of their ideal candidates are experienced, recent college grads.

"Recent Grads" is another way of stating "lower pay history", so what they want is experience at lower pay.

 

[msquared48]

Screw the article!

I've been putting out my resume for the past three years and no one wants to hire someone my age. Apparently, experience is a liability. I have heard the same complaint in from too many other people in too many industries for it not to be true.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

[cranky108]

48 I don't see that. In the power areas there truely is a shortage, but there also is a shortage of training positions.

The problem is not just industry growth, but regulatary pressure on the electricity industry. The goverment is also hireing and paying better because they can with tax payer money.

I always thought going into managment as the dark side, but now there is a darker side (auditer for the goverment).

Right now the training is happening in suppliers, and smaller utilities. The suppliers know they have to train, because they burn people out. Smaller utilities just don't want to pay market wages. However these positions are limited in numbers.

I don't doubt there are other industries in very different conditions.

 

[moltenmetal]

The article nails it, as I said before. There is no labour shortage- there's a labour over-supply- and yet there's still a perceived "skills shortage". The reason is a change in the attitudes of employers.

Employers don't like training "new" people, and don't like paying a premium for experienced people. As far as new people go, it doesn't matter if they're fresh grads who are new to the profession, or experienced people who are new to a particular market segment, i.e. automotive engineers looking for O&G jobs- they're equally undesirable relative to someone who has everything they're looking for and has demonstrated it locally for 10 years already. Those folks ARE in short supply because they weren't hired as fresh grads 10 years ago- those folks left the profession entirely for greener pastures.

Successive recessions taught employers that they no longer needed to hire new people and train them. Now many of them have lost the ability to do this- it atrophied from disuse. They'll learn again, or they'll fail when the baby boomers go.

msquared48: from an employer's perspective, if a candidate is too long in the tooth, employers will be reluctant to hire unless the candidate is a near perfect fit. Such a person costs too much and has too few years available to pay back the training investment, even if that training investment is merely lower productivity for a while and doesn't involve any actual expenditure on "training" per se.

In our niche industry, we've tried a few people who had plenty of experience outside our niche. Some worked out fine, but others after a year or more invested were unable to get the box off their heads that was put there by previous employers. That's a costly mistake for all involved, so you can imagine why we're reluctant to make it again.

 

[zdas04]

There is a reason for "experienced" people not working out--many of them don't really have 25 years experience, they have 6-months experience 50 times. The problem is that you can't tell this from most resume's and most interviewers don't know enough about the place the interviewee came from to ask the right questions. You hire a guy who learned something new nearly every day for 25 years and he will fit in and excel. You hire the guy who has been coasting on his accomplishments of 24.5 years ago and he will be a slug.

Problem is that like moltenmetal said, the necessary management skills have atrophied. They'll come back, but some companies will not survive the learning curve.

David

 

[lacajun]

Recently I interviewed for an engineering management position, with a big box controls house, which I ended about 30 minutes into the process. The interview progressed as though it was an engineering position. I wasn't driving so I wanted to see where it would go and let the interviewers ask away.

After I had explained my history of 10+ systems and 7,000+ points, P&IDs, loop sheets, logic diagrams, ROI, etc., the hiring manager asked, "So, how much controls work have you done?" That said it all to me. He hadn't understood a single word, from the written page to the spoken word.

He then began to criticize my education, which wasn't good enough. So, a degree in EE and a master's in systems engineering are not good enough. Who knew?? I had to laugh inside and wonder if there was something wrong with my PE, in his viewpoint.

He then began to degrade my experience in automation, with claims that I was really not a true automation professional but "they" were.

He was looking for ways to disqualify me rather than ways I qualified. And typical of the vendor side, engineers with real plant experience are dunderheads.

That's when I decided I would not make the cross-town commute and ended the interview. It was an enlightening experience.

With manager's like that, why accept an offer?

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[Comcokid]

I think lacajun has hit on a fundamental problem in the interviewing approach that companies always fall into.

"He was looking for ways to disqualify me rather than ways I qualified."

Think about it --- the whole mindset of the interview approach that is practiced in industry today is to discover and focus upon;
What is wrong about this candidate
rather than
What is right about this candidate.

By taking this approach a company is placing themselves in a What about this candidate makes the glass half-empty mindset.

 

[SNORGY]

Cheer up, lacajun. He was probably an MBA.

Regards,

SNORGY.

 

[lacajun]

Comcokid, I've been told by other engineers they are running into the same tactics. It's as if they have written a requisition for a position but not funded it; consequently, they are window shopping.

Interestingly enough, this position came across my desk three times in about a year's span. The third time was compelling so I went through the process. I asked the hiring manager about that but that was news to him. I checked around town and learned more. Needless to say, all information did not match up, which was another reason to end the interview.

SNORGY, I don't think he has an MBA. He seemingly did not understand ROI. I am not upset in any way. It was truly enlightening to witness firsthand. I've followed this company, periodically, for a number of years. Having interviewed with them, I can see why, partially, they have problems.

I was criticized for not having enough of their products listed on my resumé, too. I quickly informed him that is not my problem but their sales problem. I've seen very few of their sales people over my career. As an end user, my job was to assess the technology and adhere to plant or corporate standards unless a deviation was highly warranted. He had no further comment on that point.

Until we realize we all have value, purpose, and definition, we will continue to pursue the wrong paths.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC