We should be happy that our economy only needs the cream of the crop, while the rest are unneeded?MrWhiteCoffee wrote: ↑ Which is why it's a poor indicator for an economy that is focused on and needing quality candidates. There is a huge skills shortage in many sectors for skilled workers. There being many available laid off unskilled/semiskilled manufacturing or retail workers doesn't change that as they can't fill the jobs but show up in overall unemployment rate
We should be happy our economy doesn't need unskilled/semiskilled worker as we aren't a developing country
Bailing out of an hiring process?
- Last Updated:
- Nov 13th, 2017 3:40 pm
Tags:
- SCORE
- blitzforce
- Deal Addict
- Nov 22, 2009
- 2782 posts
- 664 upvotes
- Toronto
- burnt69
- Deal Addict
- Oct 6, 2015
- 2463 posts
- 1401 upvotes
Only problem with that is that there's such a glut that lots of great people aren't even being interviewed. So lots of quality out there, but a lot ends up leaving Canada or rotting in their basements. IT compensation is crazy low in the GTA, so there really can't be big demand for decent developers. Pay lags behind many other professions requiring a 4-year degree.MrWhiteCoffee wrote: ↑ There is if they are wanting to hire a quality candidate. There big demand for decent IT developers and etc and companies know they will have to pay for it
I believe low-skilled people, who are happy working on a help desk, or in lower-level support type roles, or as developers but not paid much, actually do better than higher-end talent.It's the low value low skilled IT worker's who get the treatment you describe
- maxppp
- Newbie
- Aug 20, 2017
- 66 posts
- 37 upvotes
Herein lies the problem with this discussion. In no other profession do we mix call centre staff (AKA in the IT world as "help desk") with "high-end talent". IT is such a broad profession and you can't take a subset of it and say labor oversupply is a problem. In almost every organization I've worked for, the pay bands for roles within IT are higher than almost any other department in the organization. This applied to retail, telcos, banks. A profession that is highly compensated always attracts a large supply of candidates, who are on the outside looking in. Employment rate is a terrible gauge of a sector's health as employment only takes into account the population who wants employment, but does not necessarily mean that they are qualified, which means that this metric does not take into account skillset shortages.
- burnt69
- Deal Addict
- Oct 6, 2015
- 2463 posts
- 1401 upvotes
Perhaps so, but a lot of employers exaggerate 'skillset shortages', by refusing to consider people who are qualified, but may not have a specific skillset. For instance, employers right now are claiming a shortage of "mobile app programmers", but there are hoardes of people who are qualified to program more traditional "desktop" applications out there. Someone who can program on the 'desktop' or in the 'enterprise' certainly can, with a bit of time and learning, program "mobile apps". But employers and their HR people won't even consider an enterprise or desktop app programmer for a mobile app developer position, and thus a fake "skill shortage" arises.maxppp wrote: ↑ Herein lies the problem with this discussion. In no other profession do we mix call centre staff (AKA in the IT world as "help desk") with "high-end talent". IT is such a broad profession and you can't take a subset of it and say labor oversupply is a problem. In almost every organization I've worked for, the pay bands for roles within IT are higher than almost any other department in the organization. This applied to retail, telcos, banks. A profession that is highly compensated always attracts a large supply of candidates, who are on the outside looking in. Employment rate is a terrible gauge of a sector's health as employment only takes into account the population who wants employment, but does not necessarily mean that they are qualified, which means that this metric does not take into account skillset shortages.
The same thing even happens with 'experience', by refusing to consider people who have too much or not enough of it numerically, even though they can do the job.
So I think that employment rate is a pretty good measure of a sector's health overall, and I disagree with your characterization. The IT and engineering sectors in Canada are profoundly unhealthy from an employment perspective.
- Sociology1
- Member
- Jan 10, 2017
- 235 posts
- 112 upvotes
So, you learned that monetary-related items are not to your appeal and you are considering dropping out before even getting the facts?typer100 wrote: ↑ Hi! I'm looking around for a new job. IT ,Unix, devops. I went for a first interview an hit an home run. I have a second interview with HR next week.
99% sure I could have the job. Problems is, during the first technical interview, I got a lot of info about the benefits.
In short, more hours, OT not paid, pension is a lot less, no premium for being on call.
So unless, they throw a lot of money at me, which they won't, the job is a lot less interesting for me.
I don't want to waste their time... go through the second interview, knowing that I will refuse the job anyway.
Any advice?
How do people like this land successful jobs - or find themselves in these positions to begin with?
Buddy, this is all speculation and it's irrelevant when you do not know the wage they will offer you; nor have you actually received their final offer (post negotiation). Actually get an offer and then decide whether it's up to snuff. If the amount - which will need to be deemed "all-in" is not good enough, throw them a counter that reflects the unpaid OT, reduced pension, and lack of on-call premiums.
This is all about negotiation - but taking advantage of negotiations only happens to people that get offers. Backing out before you have anything on account of speculation is insane.
So, you should have killed the second interview and got the job offer - then built a counter-offer based on all the facts. I am in disbelief you drafted an email without even doing the slightest bit of research. Google this shit - it would have told you exactly what I just did. My god - where is the common sense!
- plymouthhater
- Deal Fanatic
- Mar 10, 2004
- 7220 posts
- 5989 upvotes
- pinkpearl
- Member
- May 12, 2011
- 291 posts
- 48 upvotes
- TORONTO
I see this a lot in my field. The junior HR person has no idea about the job they're screening resumes for, has no idea what is a transferable or close-enough skill or knowledge base, so they ditch anyone who doesn't have 5 years experience (why is it ALWAYS five years??) in the exact same job at another company. They don't seem to check whether anyone, anywhere, has done the exact same job, or if their kitchen-sink list of requirements can actually be found in one candidate.burnt69 wrote: ↑ Perhaps so, but a lot of employers exaggerate 'skillset shortages', by refusing to consider people who are qualified, but may not have a specific skillset. For instance, employers right now are claiming a shortage of "mobile app programmers", but there are hoardes of people who are qualified to program more traditional "desktop" applications out there. Someone who can program on the 'desktop' or in the 'enterprise' certainly can, with a bit of time and learning, program "mobile apps". But employers and their HR people won't even consider an enterprise or desktop app programmer for a mobile app developer position, and thus a fake "skill shortage" arises.
The same thing even happens with 'experience', by refusing to consider people who have too much or not enough of it numerically, even though they can do the job.
So I think that employment rate is a pretty good measure of a sector's health overall, and I disagree with your characterization. The IT and engineering sectors in Canada are profoundly unhealthy from an employment perspective.
In general most employers inflate the job requirements. Loads of jobs that supposedly require post-secondary education actually don't, for just one example.
- No Frills
- Deal Fanatic
- Dec 3, 2009
- 6029 posts
- 1391 upvotes
- Toronto
Hahaha reminds me when my GF switched departments at her work and HR "strongly recommended" not switching because the position required "7 years experience" and she only had 5 and "still learning". They've been trying to fill that spot for months and the manager had to step in an get someone himself (my GF) and HR said she "should have went through the proper channels"...lol would have screened her out because of 2 years less.pinkpearl wrote: ↑ I see this a lot in my field. The junior HR person has no idea about the job they're screening resumes for, has no idea what is a transferable or close-enough skill or knowledge base, so they ditch anyone who doesn't have 5 years experience (why is it ALWAYS five years??) in the exact same job at another company. They don't seem to check whether anyone, anywhere, has done the exact same job, or if their kitchen-sink list of requirements can actually be found in one candidate.
In general most employers inflate the job requirements. Loads of jobs that supposedly require post-secondary education actually don't, for just one example.
Remember to be an RFD-er and NOT a degenerate.
- dealguy2
- Deal Fanatic
- Jan 11, 2004
- 5000 posts
- 611 upvotes
- Victoria
You got NOTHING now. Wait and see what the OFFER is if any. If it's no good just say listen I would love to join your organization but your offer is not attractive because:typer100 wrote: ↑ Hi! I'm looking around for a new job. IT ,Unix, devops. I went for a first interview an hit an home run. I have a second interview with HR next week.
99% sure I could have the job. Problems is, during the first technical interview, I got a lot of info about the benefits.
In short, more hours, OT not paid, pension is a lot less, no premium for being on call.
So unless, they throw a lot of money at me, which they won't, the job is a lot less interesting for me.
I don't want to waste their time... go through the second interview, knowing that I will refuse the job anyway.
Any advice?
1) OT not paid
2) xyz
3) moola
etc.
Next time just to put this out there if they ask what your salary range is, provide what you feel would make you leave your current position. So say you make 150K now, say I'd move at 180K (my situation) for example. I know recruiters get a bad rap but if this is one area where it's good to work with them. If you're honest with them and say hey look I make X and want Y and won't move unless you can do that then you'll only go to interviews where the budget is Y.
Not a political sig
- maxppp
- Newbie
- Aug 20, 2017
- 66 posts
- 37 upvotes
Yeah, I do agree with your point that employers exaggerate skillset shortages. I'm not sure if they unknowingly do so though because IT is one of those fields that have been traditionally difficult to recruit using HR, as it is very difficult assessing a candidate's technical qualifications subjectively. So what ends up happening is that recruitment always seems to focus on matching of keyword buzz terms and technologies. They won't be able to see the similarities of a Mobile app developer vs a desktop developer as to them, they look entirely different. I do think that there is a lot of displacement of highly qualified technical candidates because although their experiences may not be on trend with IT, even though their may be a very small learning curve to the latest technology. For many of the clients I worked for, I would laugh when they would immediately discount candidates who have had experience on the same technology platform just because they weren't using the latest version. I had one client who would search high and low for SharePoint developers and would not look at candidates that had SharePoint 2010 experience, since it was no longer good enough for a company that was on SharePoint 2013.burnt69 wrote: ↑ Perhaps so, but a lot of employers exaggerate 'skillset shortages', by refusing to consider people who are qualified, but may not have a specific skillset. For instance, employers right now are claiming a shortage of "mobile app programmers", but there are hoardes of people who are qualified to program more traditional "desktop" applications out there. Someone who can program on the 'desktop' or in the 'enterprise' certainly can, with a bit of time and learning, program "mobile apps". But employers and their HR people won't even consider an enterprise or desktop app programmer for a mobile app developer position, and thus a fake "skill shortage" arises.
The same thing even happens with 'experience', by refusing to consider people who have too much or not enough of it numerically, even though they can do the job.
So I think that employment rate is a pretty good measure of a sector's health overall, and I disagree with your characterization. The IT and engineering sectors in Canada are profoundly unhealthy from an employment perspective.