From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 30 10:23:56 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84F35106564A for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:23:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from mx01.qsc.de (mx01.qsc.de [213.148.129.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16A368FC16 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:23:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from r56.edvax.de (port-92-195-62-131.dynamic.qsc.de [92.195.62.131]) by mx01.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2C1B3C8E8; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:23:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from r56.edvax.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by r56.edvax.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id q3UANlI4001983; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:23:48 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:23:47 +0200 From: Polytropon To: Chad Perrin Message-Id: <20120430122347.5b5ccaea.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <20120429230156.GA31605@hemlock.hydra> References: <20120424190227.GA1773@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <20120425053133.e920b091.freebsd@edvax.de> <20120425064507.GA4673@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <20120425085555.36f91b3a.freebsd@edvax.de> <20120426215256.GA30059@hemlock.hydra> <20120427180051.4260a9f5@scorpio> <20120428003613.GC22822@hemlock.hydra> <20120428080113.bdfe54f4.freebsd@edvax.de> <20120429230156.GA31605@hemlock.hydra> Organization: EDVAX X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.1 (GTK+ 2.24.5; i386-portbld-freebsd8.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Polytropon List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:23:56 -0000 On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 17:01:56 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 08:01:13AM +0200, Polytropon wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:36:13 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 06:00:51PM -0400, Jerry wrote: > > > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:33:29 -0700 David Brodbeck articulated: > > > > > > > > > >Again, this is one of the reasons credit scoring is becoming so > > > > >popular -- it's an almost automatic way to narrow down the pile. > > > > >Another method in common use right now is to throw out applications > > > > >from anyone who's currently unemployed, and only look at ones who > > > > >already have a position and are looking to change jobs. > > > > > > > > I have been told by several people in HR that the trend to give > > > > preference to those all ready working as opposed to the unemployed is > > > > based on the philosophy that if no one else will hire them, then why > > > > should we. While we could argue whether that logic is flawed, it is > > > > never-the-less presently in use. However, it doesn't really pertain to > > > > entry level openings. With the glut of individuals entering the job > > > > market, for an applicant to not be proficient in the skills being > > > > advertised for by the prospective employer is just a waste of time. If > > > > the employer is looking for skill "A" and "B", crying to him/her that > > > > you have skill "C" is just a waste of both your times. > > > > > > It *does* pertain to "entry level" positions, because (from what I have > > > seen) most "entry level" positions come with an experience requirement of > > > at least two years. > > > > But then this would invalidate "ENTRY level". How exactly is > > an applicant supposed to get a job from that "entry level" pool > > when he doesn't have previous experience because he simply wants > > to ENTER that field of profession? > > Yes -- that is *exactly* the question that comes up. These are not jobs > that are "entry level" in terms of requirements, even if they are "entry > level" in terms of pay and actual skill required to do the job to a > reasonable level of competence. Consider examples like first-level call > center jobs that require a college degree and a couple years expericence, > as pretty much the canonical example. Seems to exactly that way in Germany. I did talk to a HR guy last week and he explained that those requirements are typical. I think he wasn't honest about the reasons. One may be the continuous degrading of school education and the recent loss of quality in university education (due to european processes). Another reason might be that companies need to be _certified_ theirselves in order to get orders from other companies, and for that kinds of certification, it seems they have to show that they employ lots of "highly qualified personnel" in order to justify their prices. Combined with mis-naming call center positions ("virtualisation administrator / system administrator" being such a kind of 1st level phone support job, even though the name might make you thing of something totally different), it seems to be a means to lower wages by "presenting the fact" that the current applicant doesn't have a B.A. degree, but will be hired: "You know, well... we could pay you more if you've had substantial experiences and the required degree, but we can afford to pay you on entry level only. Be glad the we are doing that!" > In some cases, these jobs may simple be advertised this way so hiring > managers can use the lack of "qualified" applicants to help justify > offshoring jobs. That also sounds familiar: the current "lack of professionals" can be explained that way. It's not that the professionals are lacking per se, it's just that nobody wants to pay them proper wages. Personnel costs baaaaaad. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. It is that simple. The "we can't get" argument often is "we don't want to pay". Of course, this is understandable if you consider how expensive work is: taxes, taxes, lots of taxes... 1000 Euro wage can easily turn into 2000 Euro costs. (And don't believe that 1000 Euro _paid_ is much - it isn't. It's almost less worth than 1000 DM!) > In other cases, this is just an example of how HR "best > practices" have gotten ridiculously out of control, where everybody tries > to copy what everyone else is doing because if everyone else is doing it > you can't get in trouble for doing the same thing. This might be important in the B2B sector, especially the "pro- paganda" that brings orders to companies. In case the word "they hire lower-qualified personnel" or "they pay their workers too much" might result in a loss of orders for that company, because they're "doing it wrong". Note that innovative business has always "done wrong". :-) > I think a far worse problem than the failure to understand what skills > are needed is the failure to understand things like > > 1. what skills can be learned easily in a very short period of time so > that focus on other necessary skills already existing can be employed in > selecting candidates That shouldn't be any UNfamiliar. You don't learn to be a programmer at the university, and you don't get experience for working in company B during your professional education in company A. There is _always_ some time needed to get familiar with how things are done at your new workplace - and that's no problem. It hasn't been a problem for over 100 years, why should it now? As I said, a GENERIC SKILL is learning per se. If you can do that, you will be good at knowing how to do things in your new job in a few time. And you are treated fair, you _may_ even invest your free time (non-work time) to learn more. We currently have a cultural problem of "work vs. non-work" that is present nearly everywhere, in production and in service. The things you're doing at work are likely _not_ things you do in your free time. However, "geeks & nerds" tend to do programming stuff, reading docs and practicing coding in their free time too. In the past, I did often say: "You're paying me for what I would do for free anyway." :-) The "standard" scaling models of "being good at " are hard to make a proper selection, because learning is not static. Just because someone is _now_ good at some programming language does not neccessarily imply that he will be able to learn a different language quickly (by both sharing the aspect of being "a programming language"). I think we're talking about POTENTIAL here, and how would one measure that? It's a thing that comes into action by applying it. > 2. why disqualifying candidates for stupidities that have nothing to do > with their skills and other actually suitable qualities for the job is > counterproductive Again, sometimes the best candidates slip here. Many "geeks & nerds" appear to be "socially unaccomodated", so that disqualifies them, even though if they're better at a job than the whole programming team. Applicants with disabilities are also "problematic", they cannot work exactly the same way healthy people do, and this may interfere with established procedures and processes, and therefore harm the certification of the company. You might be aware that there is legal regulation that forces employers to have a certain share of disabled employees (starting at a specific company size). But there's a backdoor: They can "buy theirselves free" of that obligation. Remember? That penalty fees would be material costs. Material costs gooooood, personnel costs baaaaaaad. Of course, things "need to fit", but after all, isn't the employing process a thing to GET WORK DONE, on the long run? Shouldn't _THAT_ be the primary goal, instead of "growing a corporate monoculture"? -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...