• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Employers Aren’t Just Whining – the “Skills Gap” Is Real

ksen

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
6,540
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Calvinist
http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/08/employers-arent-just-whining-the-skills-gap-is-real/

Every year, the Manpower Group, a human resources consultancy, conducts a worldwide “Talent Shortage Survey.” Last year, 35% of 38,000 employers reported difficulty filling jobs due to lack of available talent; in the U.S., 39% of employers did. But the idea of a “skills gap” as identified in this and other surveys has been widely criticized. Peter Cappelli asks whether these studies are just a sign of “employer whining;” Paul Krugman calls the skills gap a “zombie idea” that “that should have been killed by evidence, but refuses to die.” The New York Times asserts that it is “mostly a corporate fiction, based in part on self-interest and a misreading of government data.” According to the Times, the survey responses are an effort by executives to get “the government to take on more of the costs of training workers.”

Really? A worldwide scheme by thousands of business managers to manipulate public opinion seems far-fetched. Perhaps the simpler explanation is the better one: many employers might actually have difficulty hiring skilled workers. The critics cite economic evidence to argue that there are no major shortages of skilled workers. But a closer look shows that their evidence is mostly irrelevant. The issue is confusing because the skills required to work with new technologies are hard to measure. They are even harder to manage. Understanding this controversy sheds some light on what employers and government need to do to deal with a very real problem.

I've posted an article before about how the skills gap is a myth. Here's an equal time thread to the other side.

Of course, I think this guy is full of BS and surprisingly most of the comments at the bottom of the article seem to agree.
 
Interestingly, I recently noted two positions at our corporate retail grocery store that required computer skills and software knowledge that I know that none of our employee base has at present because the only way to attain the software knowledge is to actually be working with the systems. Two years grocery experience is usually a prerequisite and then management will have to select viable candidates and send them out to their own educational venue.

Therefore, in my opinion, at least some of the skills gap is of their own making.
 
Commenter said:
If I can't find the exact shade of purple squirrel needed, for the price I'm willing to pay, there must be a shortage.

Yep.

Comment said:
This shows that there is also a deficiency in the hiring process.

Do you really need a "10 year experience in mobile application design" if what you really want is a one screen promo app? And is there really anyone who can seriously claim that?
 
I have great difficulty finding well-paid positions. Almost all the positions I do find want to negotiate with regards to my pay, and don't simply pay me what I want. Those that do pay what I want have unrealistic expectations with regards to how much work I do. This is obviously a deep problem with the economy as a whole - a pay gap - whereby people like are expected to actually work for a living, rather than just being handed great piles of money merely for turning up.

I'm sure companies would find it much easier if they didn't need to worry about training staff or retaining skilled staff. But they do. I don't think there is anything we can do to help them. They need to recognise that skilled employees are rare, and that they need to work to attract and keep them. This may involve changes to the company that go beyond the HR department.
 
Take a look at current hiring practices, as well.

If I need someone in my business who is a CAD operator, why would I need to run a credit check on her?

Every day hundreds of people are turned away from jobs not because they lack skills, but because they have low credit scores, suspended driver's licenses, even a debt of back child support.

I agree with Under the Rose
 
I'm in the software industry. In this industry employers have a hell of a time finding people that they need. Consider when you need someone at an architect level, but every architect is so extremely employable that they're already working. What do you do? Do you hire someone who's nowhere close to that skill level and train them? That could literally take years, and it may not even work out.

This doesn't speak to an endemic shortage of skilled workers, but in my industry it isn't lollipops and candy for hiring managers.
 
I'm in the software industry. In this industry employers have a hell of a time finding people that they need. Consider when you need someone at an architect level, but every architect is so extremely employable that they're already working. What do you do? Do you hire someone who's nowhere close to that skill level and train them? That could literally take years, and it may not even work out.

This doesn't speak to an endemic shortage of skilled workers, but in my industry it isn't lollipops and candy for hiring managers.


There is no guarantee any relationship is going to work out. Half of all marriages end in divorce and these were two people who loved each other. I don't know about you, but I have never fallen in love a HR department.

If you need workers, and the workers need training, guess what?

Every employee takes a chance on her employer, it is not unreasonable to expect employers to take a chance on their employees.
 
I'm in the software industry. In this industry employers have a hell of a time finding people that they need.

:unsure:

Consider when you need someone at an architect level, but every architect is so extremely employable that they're already working.

Every single one? Really?

What do you do? Do you hire someone who's nowhere close to that skill level and train them?

Yes, that's exactly what you do. Or you go without or you try to hire the architect away from her current employer . . . unless of course your company is one of those that have agreed with the other companies to not try and poach employees from each other.

That could literally take years, and it may not even work out.

So what? You need the slot filled so badly then you take the risk. It is unreasonable to ask the potential employees to take all the risk.

This doesn't speak to an endemic shortage of skilled workers, but in my industry it isn't lollipops and candy for hiring managers.

It must be tough for those HR guys and gals to turn on the program every day that automatically rejects 99.9% of resumes submitted to them before they even get before human eyes.
 
Take a look at current hiring practices, as well.

If I need someone in my business who is a CAD operator, why would I need to run a credit check on her?

Every day hundreds of people are turned away from jobs not because they lack skills, but because they have low credit scores, suspended driver's licenses, even a debt of back child support.

I agree with Under the Rose

Credit checks are run on employment applicants because it is easy to do and it yields a number that can be compared to another number. It's less messy than a criminal background check. There's really no other reason.

One of the root causes of this problem is we have lost our "corporate family" culture. No one expects to go to work for a company today and work 40 years at the same place. We are the mobile job society. The natural result of this is a reluctance to invest in employee training. Why spend time and money on someone who will working for a competitor?

I live in a city of about 600,000 people. As of today, I know of five job openings which would pay $75K or better for a qualified person. It takes about ten years to accumulate the experience and training needed to perform the job. The work is hard and those qualified are aging out of the work force. There are not five such people in this city who do not already have such a job. This situation is the direct result of the reduction in corporate training programs over the past 30 years.
 
I'm in the software industry. In this industry employers have a hell of a time finding people that they need. Consider when you need someone at an architect level, but every architect is so extremely employable that they're already working. What do you do? Do you hire someone who's nowhere close to that skill level and train them? That could literally take years, and it may not even work out.

This doesn't speak to an endemic shortage of skilled workers, but in my industry it isn't lollipops and candy for hiring managers.


There is no guarantee any relationship is going to work out. Half of all marriages end in divorce and these were two people who loved each other. I don't know about you, but I have never fallen in love a HR department.

If you need workers, and the workers need training, guess what?

Every employee takes a chance on her employer, it is not unreasonable to expect employers to take a chance on their employees.

I agree, but sometimes the math just doesn't work out.
 
I agree, but sometimes the math just doesn't work out.

The math is just fine. What's out of whack is employer expectations. Until they get out of the mindset that they can get something for nothing it won't change and they'll still cry about there being a skills shortage because they can't find anyone to fill the position they think needs ridiculously narrow qualifications plus 5-10 years of experience for $15/hr.

Why should employees be the one to bear the risk of paying to learn a whole new skill set when all they have to go on is their best guess and then just pray that they guessed right and that by the time they are done what they've learned will already be outdated?

It's a stupid system.
 
I agree, but sometimes the math just doesn't work out.

The math is just fine. What's out of whack is employer expectations. Until they get out of the mindset that they can get something for nothing it won't change and they'll still cry about there being a skills shortage because they can't find anyone to fill the position they think needs ridiculously narrow qualifications plus 5-10 years of experience for $15/hr.

Why should employees be the one to bear the risk of paying to learn a whole new skill set when all they have to go on is their best guess and then just pray that they guessed right and that by the time they are done what they've learned will already be outdated?

It's a stupid system.

The flip side to that argument is equally valid though. Why should employers be the ones to bear the risk of paying to teach someone a valuable and competitive skill set, in addition to a comfortable salary, when all they have to go on is their best guess and just pray that they guessed right and that by the time they're done investing in that training the employee will still stick around and not move to a competitor?
 
The math is just fine. What's out of whack is employer expectations. Until they get out of the mindset that they can get something for nothing it won't change and they'll still cry about there being a skills shortage because they can't find anyone to fill the position they think needs ridiculously narrow qualifications plus 5-10 years of experience for $15/hr.

Why should employees be the one to bear the risk of paying to learn a whole new skill set when all they have to go on is their best guess and then just pray that they guessed right and that by the time they are done what they've learned will already be outdated?

It's a stupid system.

The flip side to that argument is equally valid though. Why should employers be the ones to bear the risk of paying to teach someone a valuable and competitive skill set, in addition to a comfortable salary, when all they have to go on is their best guess and just pray that they guessed right and that by the time they're done investing in that training the employee will still stick around and not move to a competitor?

No, it's not.
 
The math is just fine. What's out of whack is employer expectations. Until they get out of the mindset that they can get something for nothing it won't change and they'll still cry about there being a skills shortage because they can't find anyone to fill the position they think needs ridiculously narrow qualifications plus 5-10 years of experience for $15/hr.

Why should employees be the one to bear the risk of paying to learn a whole new skill set when all they have to go on is their best guess and then just pray that they guessed right and that by the time they are done what they've learned will already be outdated?

It's a stupid system.

The flip side to that argument is equally valid though. Why should employers be the ones to bear the risk of paying to teach someone a valuable and competitive skill set, in addition to a comfortable salary, when all they have to go on is their best guess and just pray that they guessed right and that by the time they're done investing in that training the employee will still stick around and not move to a competitor?
If an employer is just guessing, I think the skill set missing is Human Resource managment.
 
The math is just fine. What's out of whack is employer expectations. Until they get out of the mindset that they can get something for nothing it won't change and they'll still cry about there being a skills shortage because they can't find anyone to fill the position they think needs ridiculously narrow qualifications plus 5-10 years of experience for $15/hr.

Why should employees be the one to bear the risk of paying to learn a whole new skill set when all they have to go on is their best guess and then just pray that they guessed right and that by the time they are done what they've learned will already be outdated?

It's a stupid system.

The flip side to that argument is equally valid though. Why should employers be the ones to bear the risk of paying to teach someone a valuable and competitive skill set, in addition to a comfortable salary, when all they have to go on is their best guess and just pray that they guessed right and that by the time they're done investing in that training the employee will still stick around and not move to a competitor?
That is fine, but then they have no reason to whine when the labor market does not deliver their expected worker at their offered compensation.
 
The flip side to that argument is equally valid though. Why should employers be the ones to bear the risk of paying to teach someone a valuable and competitive skill set, in addition to a comfortable salary, when all they have to go on is their best guess and just pray that they guessed right and that by the time they're done investing in that training the employee will still stick around and not move to a competitor?

No, it's not.

It seems as though some additional reasoning might be merited. "Nuh-uh" doesn't seem sufficient.

- - - Updated - - -

The flip side to that argument is equally valid though. Why should employers be the ones to bear the risk of paying to teach someone a valuable and competitive skill set, in addition to a comfortable salary, when all they have to go on is their best guess and just pray that they guessed right and that by the time they're done investing in that training the employee will still stick around and not move to a competitor?
If an employer is just guessing, I think the skill set missing is Human Resource managment.

"Best guess" being that the prospective employee will be trainable in the needed skill and subsequently able to do the necessary work, and will also stick around.
 
The flip side to that argument is equally valid though. Why should employers be the ones to bear the risk of paying to teach someone a valuable and competitive skill set, in addition to a comfortable salary, when all they have to go on is their best guess and just pray that they guessed right and that by the time they're done investing in that training the employee will still stick around and not move to a competitor?
That is fine, but then they have no reason to whine when the labor market does not deliver their expected worker at their offered compensation.

Or perhaps the people without the skill shouldn't expect to receive the compensation of someone who does have the skill. If you had read the OP, you would have seen that the compensation isn't the problem being identified here - it's specific types of advanced skills. And employers are willing to pay for those specific skills - when they can find them. But they're not willing to pay top dollar to someone who does not have the needed skills.
 
The flip side to that argument is equally valid though. Why should employers be the ones to bear the risk of paying to teach someone a valuable and competitive skill set, in addition to a comfortable salary, when all they have to go on is their best guess and just pray that they guessed right and that by the time they're done investing in that training the employee will still stick around and not move to a competitor?
If an employer is just guessing, I think the skill set missing is Human Resource managment.

"Best guess" being that the prospective employee will be trainable in the needed skill and subsequently able to do the necessary work, and will also stick around.

If only employers had access to some sort of testing methods to help them find trainable people and some sort of probationary hiring period to help them determine if the employee will work out.
 
The math is just fine. What's out of whack is employer expectations. Until they get out of the mindset that they can get something for nothing it won't change and they'll still cry about there being a skills shortage because they can't find anyone to fill the position they think needs ridiculously narrow qualifications plus 5-10 years of experience for $15/hr.

Why should employees be the one to bear the risk of paying to learn a whole new skill set when all they have to go on is their best guess and then just pray that they guessed right and that by the time they are done what they've learned will already be outdated?

It's a stupid system.

The flip side to that argument is equally valid though. Why should employers be the ones to bear the risk of paying to teach someone a valuable and competitive skill set, in addition to a comfortable salary, when all they have to go on is their best guess and just pray that they guessed right and that by the time they're done investing in that training the employee will still stick around and not move to a competitor?


Why should employers bear the risk? Because they reap the profits. And no matter what they pay in compensation, they will get more in the value of the work provided.
 
That is fine, but then they have no reason to whine when the labor market does not deliver their expected worker at their offered compensation.

Or perhaps the people without the skill shouldn't expect to receive the compensation of someone who does have the skill. If you had read the OP, you would have seen that the compensation isn't the problem being identified here - it's specific types of advanced skills. And employers are willing to pay for those specific skills - when they can find them. But they're not willing to pay top dollar to someone who does not have the needed skills.

That's what you got out of the OP?
 
Back
Top Bottom