Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why reskilling won’t always guarantee you a new job

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 133 posts

Re: Why reskilling won’t always guarantee you a new job

#91

Post by mreome »

an_opabinia wrote: post #49
baron_harkonnen wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The rule of thumb among managers is don't hire anybody unless you're 90% sure they'll work out for at least a year. This used to be the the way people thought, but the trend I've seen is it's becoming more and more common to just continuously fire people. In my last two jobs at very different companies it was pretty insane the rate that good employees got fired based on "culture mismatch" related issues. Amazon and…

Believe it or not, there is no legal precedent or basis around Performance Improvement Plans. Their use as some kind of magic lawsuit shield hasn’t been tested in any court, ever, by anyone, and it has no basis, especially those words “performance improvement plan,” in any law or regulation, at least in California, Delaware or Georgia (some places I’ve checked before). “PIP culture” is more like “PIP cargo cult.”

> Their use as some kind of magic lawsuit shield hasn’t been tested in any court, ever, by anyone.

If nobody is even willing to take it to court to try to test it, then it sounds like it is working as an amazingly effective lawsuit shield to me. No company wants to defend anything in court, they want to never go to court.

I don’t think there really is anything to test in court here though. In the US generally all an employer needs to show is that an employee was fired for a valid job-related-reason of some kind, and not for the quite narrow set of reasons that would make it illegal. All a PIP does is make sure managers/supervisors are documenting reasons properly, while at the same time showing the employee that they have documented reasons that they would show should it ever go to court. Plus, the added benefit of being able to tell the court “See, we even tried to help them improve before we fired them.” Unless the employee has unambiguous hard evidence of an “actual” reason for firing that was not legal, then there really is nothing to take to court.

That all applies to non-contract employment in US only of course, and I am not familiar with all states just those I have worked in, so there could be some states where it’s more complicated.

Re: Why reskilling won’t always guarantee you a new job

#92

Post by HarryHirsch »

908B64B197 wrote: post #88
aroundtown wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly, what I mean here is people that have been helped out to get where they are, then not pay it forward or in fact go out of their way to not help out their peers. I've seen this happen many times. Not just to friends, but co-workers and people that I have met along the way. In one case I had a friend who was hired by a former classmate to a local firm. After a year there they started hiring more programmers c…

I've seen the opposite. Employee from University X would make a referral for everyone from University X that would apply. And let me just say the signal to noise ratio from that institution was horrible to say the least.

If X makes a recommendation for Y then X's reputation is on the line. These are the rules of the game, why weren't they communicated?

Re: Why reskilling won’t always guarantee you a new job

#93

Post by HarryHirsch »

908B64B197 wrote: post #78
smnrchrds wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ontario Society of Professional Engineers did a study on engineering labour maker in Ontario 5 years ago. Their findings show that this is not the reason behind the majority of people with engineering degrees doing non-engineering work. I don't know how the results compare to those in the US or UK, but it certainly is an eye-opening data point. Some highlights: - According to the 2011 NHS, only 29.7 per cent (67,045…

3 things: MBAs, Finance and Consulting. Engineering filters heavily for analytical skills and is math heavy.

That's one problem right there: overfinancialization crowding out the productive economy.

Re: Why reskilling won’t always guarantee you a new job

#94

Post by 908B64B197 »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #93
908B64B197 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3 things: MBAs, Finance and Consulting. Engineering filters heavily for analytical skills and is math heavy.

That's one problem right there: overfinancialization crowding out the productive economy.

I'd be curious to interview incoming freshmen.

I'm sure there's a percentage of them enrolling in engineering with absolutely no intention of practicing it either.

Re: Why reskilling won’t always guarantee you a new job

#95

Post by [deleted] »

elcritch wrote: post #80
toomuchtodo wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why haven’t those conservatives brought basic human right utilities (power, water, internet to Native Americans) to their citizens then yet? Sure, urban areas have challenges, but to say “stay in your lane” is whataboutism in this instance.

Indian reservations are independent from their surrounding states and semi-sovereign (technically at least) but essentially managed by the federal government by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Many conservatives believe the state of many Indian reservations are due in part to the mismanaged “welfare state” policies of the BIA that hinder NA’s from improving their lives. Personally I don’t know enough about the si…

[deleted]

Re: Why reskilling won’t always guarantee you a new job

#96

Post by ubercow13 »

zamfi wrote: post #37
neilwilson wrote: post #28

There are 19 bones and 20 dogs. No matter how many training and reskilling courses they go on 5% of the dogs will remain unemployed. The fundamental problem is a lack of jobs, because there is no market mechanism by which the private sector will create sufficient jobs to hire everybody who wants work. It's time to restore the Beveridge condition. Jobs should wait, not people.

> The fundamental problem is a lack of jobs, because there is no market mechanism by which the private sector will create sufficient jobs to hire everybody who wants work. This is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence.

Doesn't really seem extraordinary, it seems self evident, otherwise why is unemployment a problem at all?

Re: Why reskilling won’t always guarantee you a new job

#97

Post by mreome »

sjg007 wrote: post #21
dcolkitt wrote: post #8

The biggest thing from the employer side is that the cost of a single bad hire can be potentially enormous. This is a combination of legal (threat of wrongful termination lawsuits, COBRA) and cultural (nobody likes to feel like a jerk boss, morale problems among the remaining employees). The rule of thumb among managers is don't hire anybody unless you're 90% sure they'll work out for at least a year. That creates a…

This single bad hire myth needs to die. It's just simply not true. Organizations should have feedback loops in place to monitor and mitigate the issue. And if you don't, then the person doing the hiring should take on that responsibility. This is the cost of doing business and should be factored in. Transactional employment exists in FAANGs and other big tech. They are called contractors.

I don’t think you can say it’s a myth if it’s a “cost of doing business” though. Companies are incentivized to reduce costs and risks that do not provide a return. If an employer can hire someone experienced with a solid track record, and reduce any risk of them needing further training or not working out for other reasons, how is that any different (from a pure business perspective) then any other cost or risk reduction strategy?

I’m not saying this is how it should be necessarily, but it’s the reality for employers in the existing system.

The way contractors are currently used isn’t really anything like an apprenticeship, and functionally couldn’t be as contractors are usually required to produce specific results on a timetable. That’s not to say that contracts couldn’t be used to create this kind of relationship, something like a “work-to-hire” agreement, or a co-op/internship with more well-defined way to transition to full employment. From a legal perspective though, that could involve the same (or new) risks, especially when it’s a new and untested kind of business relationship.

Re: Why reskilling won’t always guarantee you a new job

#98

Post by aroundtown »

908B64B197 wrote: post #90
aroundtown wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of those 30-40% checking in. When I graduated with a CS degree in '07 (US) the first job offer I received was for $25k. I was so angry at that offer. I told the hiring manager that I couldn't possibly work for less than $35k they scoffed at that, I told them no thanks. I could make more money flipping burgers. I kept looking for work. Had another offer for $32k with one week of vacation a year, and no health care…

Where did you graduate from? With a real CS degree?

Real CS degree from a college of engineering at a large state university.

Obviously this isn't some top 40 program. Had I known then what I do now, I would have applied to some of those programs.

Back then, I wasn't aware of other programs or even names of universities known for computing (other than MIT). I came from a small town that didn't have many opportunities for kids interested in tech in the late 90's early 00's. So you pretty much went to one of the State Universities.

Re: Why reskilling won’t always guarantee you a new job

#99

Post by lordnacho »

zamfi wrote: post #89
lordnacho wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it's phrased as a negative. Isn't it up to the positive side to come up with the evidence? Alternatively, pick it apart and expose it as a positive claim and ask for evidence.

How it’s phrased is irrelevant to who bears the burden of proof. You are the one making the claim, therefore the burden of proof is on you to back up your claim, no? This is true regardless of how extraordinary the claim is. I find your claim that “markets cannot provide full employment” not at all obvious, regardless of phrasing, and am asking for evidence. Your response suggests you don’t have any. By this logic, i…

> How it’s phrased is irrelevant to who bears the burden of proof.

It's a principle that the person who presents a positive case is the one who needs to come up with the evidence. I can say "there's no god" without evidence, it's the guy who says the God of the Bible is real who has to explain what he means.

> I find your claim...

Note the reply chain, I didn't claim anything.

> By this logic, if I say something like “there was no moon landing”, I could demand that you offer evidence to the contrary instead of offering any of my own.

The contrary would be that there was a moon landing, and indeed the person who claims it happened would be required to come up with the evidence. Luckily there's a lot of it.

Re: Why reskilling won’t always guarantee you a new job

#100

Post by credit_guy »

freetime2 wrote: post #58
credit_guy wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what if you don't have the skills to build up roads, clean our cities, provide services? Do you reskill?

I picked those examples as jobs that I don’t imagine require any specialist training (at entry levels), with requisite skills being learned via on-the-job training.

I don't work in any of these areas, but I hesitate to presume that just because they are considered "blue collar" jobs they require no training.

Here's a pamphlet [1] put together by the Federal Highway Administration, called "A Playbook to Build Tomorrow's Highway Construction Workforce". On the first page you learn that there is a shortage of heavy equipment operators, cement masons, and iron workers. These jobs look non-trivial to me. I don't think you become a cement mason or iron worker overnight, or that you can just learn "on the job".

[1] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovativeprograms/centers/workforc...

Post reply on HN