Why can't employers have the decency to teach and train new employees?

Note I'm not against immigration at all, I think just companies need to pay more tax and higher wages rather than thinking they have the right to unlimited workers for every job. If anything I think foreign workers are unfairly scapegoated for many social issues and want to make this clear that they should not be blamed since I'd hate for my theories to be misused.

The whole point for employers is that you can. They aren't asking for 'work experience', they are asking for 'experience'. They just want employees that have got of TSR, left their bedrooms and engaged with society who can give evidence that they can carry out those very simple, basic skills like greet strangers, answer questions, help people find things, take money, give change, follow rues, show a bit of initiative, turn up on time.

Why on earth would an employer risk their business employing someone who couldn't give evidence of these skills over someone who could - as people are finding out - they won't!

So as long as people have got involved with all those things that are laid on for them on a plate at school (DofE, YE, NCS, sports team, debating, MUN etc etc) and Uni (hundreds of diverse societies and the ability to start your own) anyone should be able to evidence the skills to do an entry level job. A job application is a competition entry though, not a charity application.

It costs a lot of time, money and effort to train someone up. A lot of companies find that once someone has had that training that they leave the company and go elsewhere. So why bother when a lot of the time they can find someone with the experience already?

That's the way of the world and always has been. If that guy left, you could easily hire someone else as occurred in previous decades. And it does not take a lot of time and money to train someone how to use a damn till, how to dispatch a parcel, send an email, file some documents, make phone calls, stack shelves.

Aren't you people understanding what I am referring too? I am not talking about highly skilled or technical work or graduate jobs.

Companies did it in past generations. It just appears employers don't trust recruits and that demotivates them from taken what they assume to be a risk in investing in training.

Where do the people who know what they're doing magically materialise from if no company is willing to train anybody in the first place and give them experience without experience anywhere else?

It costs a lot of time, money and effort to train someone up. A lot of companies find that once someone has had that training that they leave the company and go elsewhere. So why bother when a lot of the time they can find someone with the experience already?

Y
threeportdrift - You are still forgetting the point though. We are discussing the most menial jobs where only a decade or more ago people could walk in and undergo quick training to learn how to pack meat.

You cannot have both. You cannot expect companies to pay more tax and then feel like paying more wages. It's one or the other, and I'd rather see them pay higher wages.

And what I wish, since we are in a capitalist government, I'd rather see companies using their spare money to train people. Paying more tax would dissuade that.

It takes longer than hiring someone who already knows how to do it all.

Only a decade ago many more people spent much less time online and had got out and actually done things that equipped them with basic life skills, so had resources to draw on to show they had experience of the individual aspects of entry level jobs. They were much less precious about what 'suited them' and so cracked on with menial jobs even when they weren't happy/fulfilled/comfortable etc because they accepted they were building useful foundations.

They could walk in and learn to pack meat because the employer could be certain they didn't have to be taught to dress properly, turn up on time, be polite and above all, they'd stick at the job regardless and were worth investing in.

That's the way of the world and always has been. If that guy left, you could easily hire someone else as occurred in previous decades. And it does not take a lot of time and money to train someone how to use a damn till, how to dispatch a parcel, send an email, file some documents, make phone calls, stack shelves.

Aren't you people understanding what I am referring too? I am not talking about highly skilled or technical work or graduate jobs.

I agree with you. Employers need to give in-experienced people a chance because everyone can most likely be able to do the job and might even be better than the experienced person! Personally, i think it should be judged on personaility and willingness to do the job rather than experience. Everyone forgets they once had to start somewhere!

Everyone starts somewhere. OK it's not the easiest thing to get your first job but every single working person has a 'first job' that they got somehow and there are plenty of young people working. You can volunteer if yo're really stuck. I got my first job pretty easily, started within a couple of weeks of applying for stuff.

What type of work were you applying to that landed you a job rather quickly?

What makes you think that the above you have listed doesn't apply to me? You cannot make rash assumptive inclinations like that.