7 ms·

There is no business plan in any applicant tracking system, no profit in a job posting, no future in federal employment metrics, no solution in HR departments,

by salemh 13y ago

There is no business plan in any applicant tracking system, no profit in a job posting, no future in federal employment metrics, no solution in HR departments, and no answers in databases or algorithms. Meh, not really the problem. Every company realizes there is a buyers market (sans Technical) for every position, and can interview 20+ people for a help desk role. No training is available because, what is the ROI? I know several companies (this is SLC) who don't train even for automated testing. After the testing, the employees find a better job. Symptom or syndrome? Symptom is employee skills > company re: new job, vs higher position in company (or, in better English, training leads to employees finding better companies, vs staying with a current company and building that company.) There is no loyalty amongst most companies for training or career development, as the ROI is not there (under utilization, a fallacy of implementation). Should your company be based on ROI metrics per-project, and per-resource? Do you call your employees resources? Utah (which has a large influx of Silicon companies trying to find cheap labor (typically they do) at lower cost of living thus for salary (typically they do) can look at 20+ candidates with marginal requirements met (experience/projects), but, it is a buyers market. Its not panacea like Silicon Valley, and SLC is rated very high for business, tangentially, you should be able to find top talent for top dollar. Talent shortage, there is not, but training / development there is, and no company wants to take that on, because companies realize loyalty exists at a quarter-quarter statement (worse with a PE firm), so how do employee's progress? Change jobs every 2-3 years for a 10k+ raise. I realize I am ranting, but skill matching to a position is broken, and no automated ATS system will fix a resume/pubic facing publication. /end: The "problem" at a symptom level is companies holding out for "best of best" when they probably do not need such candidates, and could train for such. Given, a SharePoint admin at $20 / hr (case study), they found it, after I placed them, and they left after six months when they realized their skill set warranted a $20k raise. Companies can under pay undergrads and mid-level candidates (who are not ivy/target/"rock star guru beer whatever") and do so, only to find a high turn-over rate. Fix turn-over rate? Or just keep filing the desperate mid-esque level folks who just need work and would fulfill Senior level demands of work fulfillment? /ranting

duney 13y ago
With the exception of the last one, every instance of "their" in your post should have been "there." I say this not to be a pedant, but because it made your otherwise good post difficult to read.
- salemh 13y ago
  Tried to edit, thank you for pointing out the confusion. :)
cpprototypes 13y ago
There is an easy solution and I don't know why so many companies can't understand this. It's simple, pay a fair amount and there will be lower turn over. Every employee should be evaluated every two years so that their salary is at least the market median. And a raise doesn't even have to match what an employee would get from switching jobs. For example, if an employee could get 10k raise by changing jobs, many would stay if given a raise half of that. The reason is, switching jobs is risky. Next job could have a bad boss, bad coworkers, etc. If offered, it would often make sense to stay at a good job and take the 5k instead of going for the 10k with unknown risks. But instead they just give no raises, or even insult their high performers with a "generous" 3% and cause resentment and lower morale.
- nostrademons 13y ago
  If every employee's salary is at least the market median, the market median will rise until half of the employees have salaries below the median. By definition. You can't have Lake Wobegone in a market.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    This is true, but if the market is moving and you are still...its moving further away from you. There has to be a balance there. As an employer, you are trying to reap profit from investing early in the cycle (cheap wages). As an employee, you need to induce re-pricing (either promotion, job offer, or switch-eroo).

by salemh 13y ago

duney 13y ago

With the exception of the last one, every instance of "their" in your post should have been "there." I say this not to be a pedant, but because it made your otherwise good post difficult to read.

salemh 13y ago
Tried to edit, thank you for pointing out the confusion. :)

cpprototypes 13y ago

There is an easy solution and I don't know why so many companies can't understand this. It's simple, pay a fair amount and there will be lower turn over. Every employee should be evaluated every two years so that their salary is at least the market median. And a raise doesn't even have to match what an employee would get from switching jobs. For example, if an employee could get 10k raise by changing jobs, many would stay if given a raise half of that. The reason is, switching jobs is risky. Next job could have a bad boss, bad coworkers, etc. If offered, it would often make sense to stay at a good job and take the 5k instead of going for the 10k with unknown risks. But instead they just give no raises, or even insult their high performers with a "generous" 3% and cause resentment and lower morale.

nostrademons 13y ago
If every employee's salary is at least the market median, the market median will rise until half of the employees have salaries below the median. By definition. You can't have Lake Wobegone in a market.
- 001sky 13y ago
  This is true, but if the market is moving and you are still...its moving further away from you. There has to be a balance there. As an employer, you are trying to reap profit from investing early in the cycle (cheap wages). As an employee, you need to induce re-pricing (either promotion, job offer, or switch-eroo).