"Skilled jobs are difficult to fill" - from WSJ

The idea that everyone needs a college degree these days isn't helping this. Trades are not valued in our society like they used to be.

If we had a global or national apocalypse now we'd be lucky to recover - think about the number of people that have skills that involve more than sending an email or a phone call or the internet.

Mom2, I could read the entire article because I don’t subscribe to the WSJ. That said, reading the opening paragraphs I did find this gem – “Union Pacific struggles to find enough electricians who have worked with diesel engines.”

What ever happened to training people? I know quite a few struggling electricians with great work ethics who would have no problem learning a new skill if given an opportunity. If these positions are so important to the Union Pacific then they will hire and train people. Instead they want something for nothing.

Should have read - I coundn't read the entire...

D'oh...sorry Sensor. I don't subscribe to the WSJ either, but didn't have any problem opening the article.

Maybe because I initially clicked on it from Google news headlines?

Anyhow, I'll see if perhaps I can find the same content via a link that would actually be readable to everyone here?

Poked around on the web a little to figure out why I could open the article and no one else could.

Apparently when the referring source is Google News, you can read all the content.

Going to see if I can reformat the link properly so that it can be opened by everyone.

Ack! Sorry for the mix up. It was an interesting article (at least I thought so).

Sensor, try this link.

Yes, I know you hate Fox News...LOL...I don't typically read or watch it either. However, approximately half of the article is reprinted on that site with the WSJ's permission, and there is a link at the bottom of the page to be taken to the full article on the WSJ website.

(Where you should be able to open it, even if you aren't a subscriber.)

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/26/help-wanted-in-unexpected-twist-some-skilled-jobs-go-unfilled/

Or try clicking on it directly through Google...

http://news.google.com/news/story?gl=us&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=skilled+jobs&ncl=diBlVtYIGrGrzwMfpciidCkqLYkDM

(Side note: What's the point of the WSJ making articles available to subscribers only on their website, if they make them readable for free via Google anyhow?)

The last link didn’t m2 –
Few more tidbits -
A final factor is that, according to some experts, companies have become pickier amid the slow economy. Jeffrey Joerres, CEO of staffing firm Manpower Inc., said that with demand for their products weak, companies only want candidates who have all of the skills they are looking for, and if the companies can't find someone who fits the bill really well, they'll just leave the job unfilled.

Again, why don’t hire someone good with 70% of the needed skills and teach them the rest.

Union Pacific seem really naïve or real dicks –
After a website job posting, Ms. Bailey initially drew 58 applicants. Of them, she deemed about two dozen sufficiently qualified so that she invited them to take a $25 aptitude test, at their own expense.

She weeded out the unqualified then wanted the qualified applicants to pay $25 each to take an aptitude test? It costs money to hire. The job I’m in now made a recruiter $15K to find me and get me hired.

This doesn't require a bachelor's degree but demands technical skills gained either through an associates' degree or four years of experience in electronics. And it is grueling work. Technicians have to climb 50-foot communications towers, clamber up utility poles and work outdoors through Wyoming winters and Kansas summers.

They put in 10-hour days, in clusters of eight or ten days, and are routinely away from home more than half of each month. Apart from the necessary skills, said Union Pacific's construction manager for the Denver region, John Haberle, the job has two things that make attracting workers hard: the heights and the travel.

If they can’t get people to take a job that required long hours of grueling work and being away from the family 50% of the time, they’re going need to pay more.

It’s funny as an “educated” professional; it’s expected that a company will training you. I didn’t go to school to learn Java, WebSphere, SharePoint or C# and then find a job. They are skills that were required for a task or job and the company I worked for at the time either trained me or sent me to school to acquire the skill. Hell, my last company even dropped $25K on an MBA for me.

God forbid they invest a few dollars in there “non-college” educated work force.

I agree that it seemed odd that an employer would charge a candidate $25 to take an aptitude test. Especially for a position that was difficult to fill.

Regarding the pay for the position, it didn't seem so much that the pay was the biggest issue. I believe the article said that the base starting wage worked out to $48K per year, with additional paid for overtime?

(Sigh, I can't look it up for sure, as apparently I have used up the amount of times I can view it for "free." Kind of frustrating to try having a meaningful discussion when you can't even refer to the article. Grr.)

It seems like the major issue is not even having candidates with the right skills, which would lead to the obvious question of why those employers aren't helping to build their labor pool by implementing training programs?

By the way, my husband has applied for various positions with CSX, so I can at least speak for how their process goes.

The online aptitude tests must be taken at the time the application is submitted, and there is no charge to take the tests. If you don't meet the score cutoffs, I don't even think they look at your application.

Seems like CSX's process makes a little more sense than Union Pacific.

I think that any company who does not want to train there employees really has no desire to invest in them. Outside of the technical aspects of the job, training can reduce the learning curve for software or systems that the company uses.

The part about having them take a test that charges $25 was to weed out more candidates. If half of the 2 dozen say "screw this", guess what, less people for HR to go through.

All to find the "perfect" candidate.

I have a daughter who has worked for a major computer chip maker for 21 years. They have trouble filling jobs because they prefer foreign engineers who will work for less, be independent contractors with no benefits. etc.

On job training was the norm when I started working. My employer even paid for additional education at TU that I needed to keep my job.

Guess it is not so today.

In my case, the reason I was hired for my last 2 jobs was due to my ability to learn industry specific software. Many employers consider it a given that you are proficient in Word, Access and Excel, but since they may have software tailored to their industry (or them) they look for evidence of flexibility.

I'm sure it also didn't hurt that I love interviews and tend to do well on them.

BTW, as a newbie here what does the "#" mean after the time stamp on a post?

@OnePlainPerson the "#" is the link of that comment.

The U.S. has too many employers today who are cheap bastards and don't want to pay for anything whether it be training, wages, or benefits. They say they want quality, but only if they can get it without paying a living wage or health insurance. They know they have us over a barrel, and they're going to take full advantage for as long as they can. My employer is a full 7-day-a-week, 3-shift operation that designates all but management employees as "permanent part-time." All non management employees are scheduled for 37.5 hours per week. That's how they get out of paying overtime and benefits. They constantly prod us to work 40 hours each week because the workload is out of control and they can get away without paying appropriate compensation. They can go f*** themselves. I prefer to make do with less rather than bend over for these a*******.

They don't offer benefits to employees working 37.5 hours a week? That stinks.

At my husband's old job, his regular work schedule was also 37.5 hours/week. But they were eligible for benefits.

I think at my employer, you qualify for "full time" benefits as long as you work at least 32 hours a week.

This year they took away our Thanksgiving turkeys. I can hardly wait for Christmas. The only thing left to take from us is the lump of coal we got in our stockings last year!

I have never been forced to work at a job I disliked or where I was ill treated.

I could be wrong, but I thought I read on the Dept of Labor Website that full time doesn't automatically mean benefits, if there are any, are at the discretion of the employer. It just means that anything over forty hours/wk must be paid at the rate of time and a half/hr and breaks must to occur at certain intervals and be of at least a minimum amount of time.

That's correct - employers currently don't have to offer any sort of benefits.

I was referring to the scenario where the employer does have a benefit plan, but doesn't make it available to employees working 37.5 hour schedules. (As opposed to just not offering benefits at all.)

Most employers who offer benefits to full time employees have a "full time" cutoff slightly less than 40 hours - I think 36 hours might be pretty standard, but some (like mine) use 32 hours.

It's some pretty big BS to set schedules at 37.5 hours then say "oh, sorry, you're only part time." Most employers would call that full time. I don't blame shortysmom for being bitter about that!

OPP is right. We are allowed and encouraged to work 40 hours per week, but more than 40 is forbidden because they would have to pay OT.

Hmmm, Danneskjold just gave me food for thought. Since the market isn't exactly flush with well-paying jobs, maybe I'll just quit and go on welfare. That way he can help support me.

shortysmom - just out of curiosity, have you ever seen a copy of your employer's benefit book? (I am assuming that your employer does offer benefits to those employees it actually does deem "full time."

It would contain language specifying who is and isn't eligible for benefits. Depending on how the language is worded, employees who regularly do end up working 40 hours a week may have a valid legal argument against being denied benefits.

Since we're in open enrollment, I happen to have my own employer's language handy here to give you an example what I'm talking about:

Employees of XYX Company who are budgeted for 36+ hours in a week will be considered Full-Time Employees for XYZ Benefit plan for the 2012 enrollment year.

(Side note - I see that I was mistaken when I said above that the full time cut off was 32 hours. I knew it wasn't 40 hours, but I misquoted the exact figure.)

It seems like I have seen cases cited in the media where "part time (in name only)" employees have successfully won battles to get on the company's full time benefit plans, by virtue of working a full time schedule long enough.

Can't remember what state those stories were from though? I'll see if I can find any news links.

P.S. The reason why you'd have to check your employer's language in the summary plan description is because there isn't a specific state or federal law that defines part vs. full time status.

However, your employer is obligated to follow the language spelled out in its own benefit plan. If the language is unclear, you (or a co-worker) may want to have someone with an employment law background take a look at it.

I would never provide my skills to a person who I disrespect so much I feel they should... "Go F themself" or feel I should not "Bend over for these A..." or work for people who are "Cheap bastards."

That is a lot of negative emotion - (and I applaud you for venting your emotion here rather than in the bosses office) However, I do believe that when you simmer down the employee/employer dynamic and remove the emotional side it is merely an exchange. I exchange my time and talent for their compensation. If that exchange is no longer fair for either party because I am not producing or I feel that my employer is not compensating me enough for my contributions then it is in my best interest for one party to take action. That may involve sharpening my resume and filling out job applications or it might require me to seek a new trade and take evening classes to educate myself so that I may find a more rewarding career.

In any event - when I look down at my feet I am responsible for where I am standing - nobody else directs the actions that place me in the position I find myself in. If I am not happy in my position and I no longer respect the people I chose to go to work for then it's time to take steps away from that situation.

Seriously, good luck with "your life" and "your decisions", "Your actions" and eventually "your success."

One of my favorite quotes:
"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

So don't give your talent to that employer if it is not a fair exchange.

Danneskjold, not everyone get's to be fussy about where they work. Jobs can be tough to come by and not everyone can afford to quit their jobs. Some companies know this and treat their employees accordingly.

History proves that man or woman can be ever so resourceful when burdened or strained too much. Our ancestors have crossed oceans, tilled fields before automation, opened up new frontiers at times of great risk and sacrifice.

The problem is not that the times are too difficult to initiate man to venture out in search of a better life. It is that there is just enough comfort to keep a person miserably satisfied.

SensorG: you made an interesting point and a conundrum. We go to college to learn basic skills, and how to learn, and get a firm foundation plus a lot of other stuff.

But when you look at job that's require knowledge of a extremely proprietary system that might only be in use by a very small niche, or software (thinking SAP) that is so incredible inexpensive chances are you'll never touch it unless you work for a fortune 500 company.

So I agree there has to be a level of training that should be offered equal to the uniqueness of the position, or pay through the nose for someone who's already well seasoned and had another company train them.

swap inexpensive/expensive

Nice Danneskjold...note based on reality. Maybe it's time for you to head west to be with Galt and his perceptual motion machine...

It would contain language specifying who is and isn't eligible for benefits. Depending on how the language is worded, employees who regularly do end up working 40 hours a week may have a valid legal argument against being denied benefits.-Mom2

Good point and some examples naming who would be eligible to receive benefits would be only certain job titles (manager, director). I believe that employers can also stipulate that salaried positions only are eligible for benefits and not hourly.

I think you're correct, OnePlainPerson. Employers seem to have quite a bit of choice when defining who might be eligible for benefits - salaried vs. hourly, management vs. non-management, full-time vs. part time, etc.

Once they establish that criteria though, they have to actually stick with it!

Mom2-what job do you have that you are able to post on TT throughout the day?

Seriously though...I'm at a computer all day, except for the occasional meeting. Usually check TT at lunch, but depending on the day I might have a few moments to spare here & there.

(Shoot, part of my post cut off. Before the "seriously though..." I had a joke about being a schedule coordinator for Columbia Gas of Ohio. Maybe I should take this as a sign that it wasn't funny.) :(

I readily admit I am somewhat bitter. I lost a very well-paying job with great benefits and perks due to downsizing and spent a year searching before I found my current employment. It's humiliating to have useful skills and work full-time knowing that you qualify for, and must accept, food stamps. It's hard to accept being discarded on the backside of your prime working years - 7 more before I can collect Social Security. Most of all, it's difficult to accept losing the place I've called home for the last 22 years.

mom2, I looked through my employee handbook today. I was mistaken about my employment status. Most of us are classified as "temporary part-time" even though we are legitimately hired employees working up to 40 hours a week. This means we don't qualify for benefits of any kind; no insurance, no sick days, no paid time off, no vacation. Our only benefit is courtesy of the federal government: they can't fire us if we qualify for FMLA. Full-time (meaning management employees only) aren't mentioned in our handbook. I'm assuming they have one that applies exclusively to them.

Let's not forget the elephant in the room concerning hiring...ageism. Not sure how it is for men, but if a woman loses a good job that pays a decent amount and has benefits after 50, her ability to find another similar job is severely impacted and not in a positive way.

Oh sure, it's not supposed to happen, but it does...often.

Shortysmom, if you don't mind my asking, what field of work is your background in and/or what kind of work would you be looking for? Perhaps the TT users could keep an eye out, I know I would.

My husband has went through a somewhat similar situation as you the past few years (except he hadn't been at his employer as long as you and he's in his late 30s). But he has went through many of the same emotions you describe.

I worked many years as an executive secretary/administrative assistant in various fields. Right now I'm working as a transcriptionist. The downside is that I only completed 2 years of college. I do believe that age has been a major factor in my inability to find decent employment. Like OPP said, it's not supposed to be that way, but we all know discrimination exists and it takes many forms. My daughter is well-educated and is also fortunate to have been born with a gene combination that blessed her with physical beauty. She has never had trouble finding a good job regardless of the economy. To her credit, she has rejected some financially well-off men over the years, preferring to make it on her own. She recently applied for a management job at the new casino and was immediately called for a second interview. I won't be surprised if she is offered the job. Good looks give you an edge.

mom2, I appreciate your concern.

shortysmom,

Have you ever taken or considered taking a Dale Carnegie class?

Shortysmom - there was an administrative secretary position posted yesterday at my employer. It is only internally posted right now.

I'm on my phone, but when I get a chance tonight to get on the computer at home I will send you contact info via the PM function on TT.

shortysmom - I just sent you a message on the private message feature.

If you don't know how to access that...go to your profile and click on your microblog. You should be able to see the message there.

Sorry if my message sounds choppy - it is limited to 250 characters, so I was trying to get the gist across without going over!

P.S. If you want to send a private correspondence back, you'd make a microblog entry starting with "To:Mom2" followed by a space then the text of your message. You'll know it was a private response if it's highlighted in a color block after you submit it.

My daughter is well-educated and is also fortunate to have been born with a gene combination that blessed her with physical beauty. To her credit, she has rejected some financially well-off men over the years...she may be well educated and hot, but how about smart?!

Just to play devil's advocate why would they invest heavily in a worker that would leave in an instant once they have the required training for a better job with more pay? It seems cold but there doesn't seem to be that much worker loyalty to their employer. Just as in sports today you don't see that many players play for the same team through their whole career. As an employer why would I spend huge amounts of cash to train a new employee only to have that employee leave for a competitor in a short period of time?

That's just dumb, if you won't train anyone because you can't keep them because your pay sucks and because it sucks no one with the all the nessasary skills want to work for you then clearly you aren't paying you employees enough money.

Not just paying enough money, but are you giving enough benefits (vacation, perks, etc.) to make it desirable to work there?

I wouldn't be surprised if employees would have to sign a contract stipulating that they'd remain with that employer a certain amount of time after the training was completed.

For how long? I only had to stay for 3 years afters my company paid for my MBA. So some guy on the line is going to have to sign a 10 year contract so he can keep a $15 per hour job? That would be nuts. Talk about indentured servitude...

Worker loyalty to their employer? Hmmm. Some "training" for workers in hourly positions is highly job specific and not easily transferable, such as learning the company's proprietary computer system software to operate a specific machine. That kind of training is not going to be an incentive for a worker to go elsewhere. Hence, companies often treat those employees as expendable. As everybody knows, it's extremely difficult to get full time hours because companies dont want to pay any benefits. In hard times they're the first to be let go.

For other employees with transferable skill sets its a different story. To keep good talent you have to pay them and provide reasonable benefits. Even then, at mid level, you're a bottom line cost center.If the budget numbers don't add up you get a pink slip and maybe some temporary assistance in finding new employment.

Wall Street pays huge bonuses, stock options and other bennies to keep what they believe is their top talent, even when that talent doesn't deliver on company profitability. There is very much a double standard in the treatment of employee compensation and retention. At the lower end there is little loyalty from the company to the employee. At the upper end its obscene.

Two thirds of my career have been as an employee and one third as an employer. I have seen both sides of the coin. I have seen well treated employees embezzle from a company due to addiction. I have seen incredible and loyal employees who I have the utmost respect for chastised unfairly. I have seen employers who have been as fair as profit allows and I have seen employers who considered employees interchangeable. I would never tell an employee who respectfully brought up a grievance - "Fine, I'll just hire someone else." Nor would I ever tell my employer who asked something of me that was unpleasant "I'll quit and go to work elsewhere."

There is a certain measure of tact so that neither side need offend but also so that neither side is treated as a doormat. I have always tried to bring up my concerns in a respectful manner and when I overstepped my bounds I have apologized. If there is no resolution nor satisfaction and my compensation is not fair exchange for my services I continue to work at my present job out of necessity but I invest any spare time I have in educating myself and seeking better terms with a new employer. When I have found that new position I give my present employer notice, thank them for the opportunity and experience I have gained from my situation and let them know of my willingness to help them through any transition as a result of my departure. I have gained opportunity and experience in every job I have ever worked and I have been thankful for those who have hired me.

I have never gone out into the World expecting that a good job should be provided to me anymore then a mouse should expect a piece of cheese to be at his doormat each day. Finding the right job, the right employee, the right spouse all takes work. Sometimes it may require moving to a different city. It might require borrowing money to pay for education and startup cost for a new business. I do not believe in pointing fingers at others. Do you realize the incredible gains women have made in the last 100 years. I am astounded! Look at women’s sports in the last 25 years – incredible! Women are outpacing men in the classroom as well. There are more women in executive position in the United States then in any time in our history. Blessed? Somewhat… but women are also working for it! Now, think about women born in this country compared to the opportunity for women born in China, in India, in Africa, in Russia, in the Middle East…. What percent of the population of women in the World have the type of opportunity that a woman born in the United States has? Our women have earned it! And not by good looks or youth – they earn it with winning attitudes, drive and persistence.

Each morning we are given opportunity – not a guarantee. The World owes us nothing nor should we expect it to be fair.

Danneskjold - Have you ever read the Magna Carta and are you aware of its influence on the US Constitution?

I have not Holland. A recommendation?

For how long? I only had to stay for 3 years afters my company paid for my MBA. So some guy on the line is going to have to sign a 10 year contract so he can keep a $15 per hour job? That would be nuts. Talk about indentured servitude...SensorG

I have no idea what the length of time would be with regard to those types of contracts, but if an employee felt that the time stipulated by that contract was unfairly long, they can just say that it's unacceptable and move on. It appears that in your situation you felt that 3 years was fair.

I personally liked how the new casino had people pay a couple hundred bucks to attend a dealing school without giving any guarantee of future employment.

It rid them of wondering if the people at the dealer school really wanted a job.

Especially during the current economy, companies have the upper-hand regarding training and compensation.

I don't believe these jobs are difficult to fill. I do believe companies use it as an excuse to bring in workers willing to work for lower wages.

While I don't at all blame companies for doing that, I also do not like the gov't handing corporations tax incentives to hire people.

Crony capitalism and corporate welfare are wrong.

If these jobs being discussed are so highly skilled as they claim to be, eventually the wages will rise.

Have people really thought about whether or not most, if not all workers in America are paid too much? There are several billion people in the world that would love to have a fraction of what we take for granted.

If you apply at Rent A Center you have to agree in writing to a day of unpaid on the job "observation" prior to them offering employment. People I know say its really unpaid training. Plus, if you don't catch on quick enough out the door you go without ever having been on the payroll. Such are the times.

Side note. I do believe in premployment testing for basic skills and a basic personality assessment. There are too many nut jobs out there and a high school diploma doesn't guarantee that a person can read or do even the most basic math skills.

Nice post, Danneskjold. I pride myself on always providing a trained replacement for myself when I leave a job, or failing that, I write up an instruction manual to help smooth the transition. In these times, all we can control is our own quality of work and whether or not we live up to our own standards.