Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ganjaweed Rebel)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by threeportdrift)
    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.
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnEvolvedApe)
    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.
    It takes longer than hiring someone who already knows how to do it all.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnEvolvedApe)
    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.
    No they didn't... There was likely less competition so they often wouldn't have the luxury of hiring someone with experience but experience always has been and always will be desirable.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    its a knock-on effect of the opening up of labor markets, coupled with a individualized attitude to aging.

    I don't blame the companies to be honest, they exist to generate profit and to grow.. they will take advantage of any system or flaw within systems to do so... its in their very nature.

    The problem is with mismanagement of the workforce by many governments in favor of corporations and against workers.

    Part 1 - nationalization/globalization:
    In the past you lived in X city, and you wanted a job. You looked in the local papers, only circulated to local residents, and saw a decent job. You and 5 other local residents applied for the same job. 1/5 of you got it.

    Then we progressed to national job-searches, largely led by the development of the internet. Now you are competing with lets say 500 people for each position... BUT you can apply for jobs all over the country as well, so now its more like 500 people for 100 jobs... still 1/5 of you ending up getting the job.

    The kicker is though: What if you cant or wont move to secure work. What if you are stuck within your original city? Now your still applying for just the 1 job, but your up against a bigger proportion of whole country.. your odds are much worse then they were before.

    These days we have gone further, now you are competing globally. You are up against people from all over Europe, and many jobs - the rest of the world. Likewise with the previous national example, if you are not willing to look for jobs globally, then your odds of finding work have decreased again.

    These days unless you are well above average in your experience/capabilities, as a young person you must be flexible about where you live, if you want to have the best chance at finding the highest paid/highest level position you are capable of.

    ----

    Part 2: individualism/aging

    For previous generations retirement meant either relying on the state, or going back a bit further, more often then not moving in and living with your younger family. It was part of the incentive to have children and to invest in them, so that you had someone to take care of you when you became to old to do it yourself.

    As a result there was a societal momentum behind the passing over of jobs from young to old. It may not have often been a literal conscious decision, but there was a very good reason for father to pass his job/livelihood to his son, and for older workers to retire to be taken care of by their family, freeing up jobs for younger members to progress too.

    Now though we have a reversal of that. Firstly we have an older generation who is incredibly individualistic and does not want to be a 'burden' on their younger family. As a result they hoard cash and savings in pensions, work longer and longer for more years to keep their Independence, and spend large amounts of money on care-homes. This for them is a self-less act, as they feel that they are not burdening their younger relatives, and letting them get on with their own lives.

    In reality its awful for the younger generation. Their parents/grandparents wealth gets passed on to large face-less care companies rather then kept within the family.. jobs are held on to for longer rather then passed on to young people, and money that could be used to invest in their children's housing/grandchildren/investing in starting a company etc.. is instead saved away for old age.

    Add to this that many old people do not have the flexibility to move around the country/world to reach the best jobs, and you get many who will move to lower-level positions because it is all that is possible within their local area.. meaning that their higher skills/experience clash against the younger inexperienced workers trying for the same positions. (This has happened a few times within my own family/friends.. older people who after being made redundant were left with the choice: move down to lower jobs, or move to were the higher jobs are.. they all chose to move down).

    Now, this is not only the fault of the old. Young people are equally to blame for this. Its an entire societal problem where we (on average) do not look after our older family well enough, and we do not work together as a single family unit well enough. We are far to often just a collection of individuals who want their own Independence.

    ---

    Anyway... 1. Opening of job markets + 2. Aging/individualism = 3. The current state of the job market is dire compared to what it used to be for individuals - but it is amazing for those doing the hiring.

    (As a side note, the complete and almost mandatory taring up of families and communities that is currently happening as a result of young graduates having to relocate across the country for work will have huge consequences to our society in the future. It is one of the largest and unspoken about break-ups of the family structure in recent times.)
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    More competition nowadays and people are more likely to move jobs rather than sticking with the same one for ages.
    Why should a company hire and train somebody who's going to leave in a year when they can hire somebody who already has training?
    Yeah it sucks, but companies are just looking out for themselves. The whole system is worse now, it's not just greedy companies being asses.

    Companies who are after more flexible workers or shorter term employment will be more likely to take on untraied people and train them up as a trade off for the lower pay or worse hours. Places like supermarkets, cinemas etc for instance.

    It's just how it goes when you have more people than jobs and a mobile society.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Glassapple)
    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?
    Because you expect to walk in at too-high a level.


    You don't appreciate that certain roles start lower.
    You use retail as your example, so ok, let's work with that.

    You go along to your local supermarket and ask for a job. They ask what experience you have. They're not asking you if you've worked on a till before - most are different - they want to know if you're capable of turning up on time.
    But you start. You start low. You might just be collecting trollies. You might be moving cages around the warehouse. It's very slow and menial. But doing that for a while proves you can fit in the organisation and they're not going to waste money teaching you how to do more complicated things. Then they train you up.

    Your expectation that you're owed a higher level job straightaway is what's going to let you down.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    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?
    Hence why a lot of 'menial' jobs, mainly in retail don't want to hire graduates because they know that once they find something better, they would leave the company. It's true in most of these cases.
    • Community Assistant
    • CV Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnEvolvedApe)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnEvolvedApe)
    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.
    Right now society is picking up the tab for predatory business practice and this is not capitalist, this is corrupt crypto-fascist mafia rule. If these businesses are so strong and independent, send them all to Afghanistan where there is weak rule of law and see how well they fare.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    It takes longer than hiring someone who already knows how to do it all.
    That is true in most cases as I've seen people walk in and out of work within a couple of months either because they weren't enthusiastic about the job as expected or they just kept repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by threeportdrift)
    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.
    What makes you think that the above you have listed doesn't apply to me? You cannot make rash assumptive inclinations like that.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I've had two jobs now where the manager has hired someone who's never done that kind of work before and just left them to get on with it. Either they're just lazy or think training staff is beneath them and should be left to the people who already work there, it's pathetic.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnEvolvedApe)
    We see it more than anybody'd probably like. "You need X experience or X licenses".

    And for those that don't require experience, they still hire the one who does have it without giving others a flying chance!

    This really does piss me off.
    The problem is that employers can now hire EU (often former Eastern Bloc) workers who are fully trained and prepared to work for a much lower salary.

    If that option were not open to companies; they would be more interested in training you.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnEvolvedApe)
    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!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LouLang)
    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!
    problem is - it's impossible to judge whether or not someone is reliable and willing until they're working for you... previous employment is proof of the 'right personality'
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doodle_333)
    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?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnEvolvedApe)
    What type of work were you applying to that landed you a job rather quickly?
    Anything and everything. My first job was as a Christmas temp at the Card Factory. After that I worked in telesales - they will literally hire anyone who walks in off the street.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.