Employers don't train anymore

Jellybaby1

It's on all the job adverts, you must have experience in the particular field, they won't spend any time training new staff. Its very frustrating. However, this story on the news today proves that people can change direction and can be re-trained to learn new skills. Its a great success story:

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/From-unemployed-construction-worker-to-million-dollar-successful--baker---140851523.html

Employers, please take note!

Thoie

I don't think anyone's denying that people can retrain and learn new skills, but as an employer, when you have your choice of a bunch of people who already have the skills you need, why would you spend time training someone from scratch?

If I wanted to change career, I'd go off and organise my own training, then approach companies with my new skillset. I wouldn't expect any company to train me up in the basics.

Jellybaby1

Thoie wrote: »

why would you spend time training someone from scratch?

If I wanted to change career, I'd go off and organise my own training, then approach companies with my new skillset. I wouldn't expect any company to train me up in the basics.

a) To get this country back to work. I think that's a valid reason for training people. As they say, put on the green jersey. Politicians, bankers, developers have done their bit to destroy the economy, there are only employers, employees, and unemployed left. Who can we turn to these days?

b) Unemployed people can't afford to pay for training and a lot can't get onto FAS courses due to long waiting lists. I don't think its 'basics' any more, just 'different'. It wouldn't take long to train someone new to a lot of jobs.

The country is knackered, and it needs fixing. I have already spent a fortune retraining for the jobs I had over the last 15 years. Since being made redundant I have looked into courses for retraining in the care industry, catering industry, retail industry, and they are beyond what I can afford. I applied for a bloody cleaning job and I was told I didn't have the relevant experience. Any other bright ideas?

Thoie

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

a) To get this country back to work. I think that's a valid reason for training people. As they say, put on the green jersey. Politicians, bankers, developers have done their bit to destroy the economy, there are only employers, employees, and unemployed left. Who can we turn to these days?

b) Unemployed people can't afford to pay for training and a lot can't get onto FAS courses due to long waiting lists. I don't think its 'basics' any more, just 'different'. It wouldn't take long to train someone new to a lot of jobs.

The country is knackered, and it needs fixing. I have already spent a fortune retraining for the jobs I had over the last 15 years. Since being made redundant I have looked into courses for retraining in the care industry, catering industry, retail industry, and they are beyond what I can afford. I applied for a bloody cleaning job and I was told I didn't have the relevant experience. Any other bright ideas?

Businesses are not charities. They don't exist to "get this country back to work". Getting people back into jobs is a valid reason to train people, but why would a company chose to pay €20k for someone they'll have to train up, versus the same amount of money for someone who already has the skills?

JobBridge is a government scheme which was notionally set up to do what you're suggesting. Sadly it's been a mockery from day one, as it wasn't originally being overseen properly. A quick glance at the first page listings (http://intern.jobbridge.ie/) does seem to show that there is more oversight now, with most of the current internships appearing to give reasonable training.

When I said "basics", I was referring to the basics of the new industry. What kind of jobs are you thinking of that wouldn't take long to train people into, and what's your definition of "long" in this instance?

Fás and the Social Welfare combined used be able to part fund non-Fás training course on a discretionary basis. I'm not sure if they still do that, but if you've priced a course that you think would be useful, it's no harm making an appointment at your local Fás office, and asking if they can contribute.

starlit

Very much agree. Mentioned this in a job bridge thread.

Mr. Loverman

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

It's on all the job adverts, you must have experience in the particular field, they won't spend any time training new staff. Its very frustrating. However, this story on the news today proves that people can change direction and can be re-trained to learn new skills. Its a great success story:

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/From-unemployed-construction-worker-to-million-dollar-successful--baker---140851523.html

Employers, please take note!

If I understand correctly this guy went and trained himself and then opened up his own business.

He used his own initiative and ambition to get rich.

The story has nothing to do with employers.

If the point you are trying to make is why won't an employer pay for me to learn a new skill I would agree with Thoie's point that employers are not charities and it would be a poor business decision to hire an inexperienced person over an experienced person.

Personally as a business owner if I discovered a manager I employed was hiring inexperienced people over experienced people out of some misguided let's get Ireland working again scheme, I would fire the manager.

Jellybaby1

I can see where you are coming from as I have business experience myself, and done my share of training of staff in companies I worked for. Unfortunately you have failed to understand where I am coming from. I am not talking about training someone from nowhere, in website design, architecture, hairdressing or brain surgery. I am talking about making and serving someone a cup of coffee, cleaning hotel rooms, ironing clothes in a cleaners (the advert for ironing said ‘must have relevant qualifications')– it’s not rocket science and would not take weeks to teach, even with industrial equipment.

Initially the guy’s wife bought him the vouchers for Ballymaloe which kick-started his new career. Ballymaloe ain’t cheap to begin with, and it is a well known fact that a lot of those attending their courses end up running their own catering businesses hence the high cost involved. Unfortunately it does not state how he funded his re-training.

I must also point out that had he applied for a job in a bakery while an unemployed construction worker, he would no doubt have been turned down – now he is their competition. Had they taken him on and trained him, they would have had a great worker in their company without the worry of extra competition. No, the article says nothing about employers, but speaks volumes about their lack of vision.

It seems to be mainly employers here so I realise that I am flogging a dead horse.

Happy St. Patrick’s Day.

Mr. Loverman

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

I can see where you are coming from as I have business experience myself, and done my share of training of staff in companies I worked for. Unfortunately you have failed to understand where I am coming from. I am not talking about training someone from nowhere, in website design, architecture, hairdressing or brain surgery. I am talking about making and serving someone a cup of coffee, cleaning hotel rooms, ironing clothes in a cleaners (the advert for ironing said ‘must have relevant qualifications')– it’s not rocket science and would not take weeks to teach, even with industrial equipment.

Initially the guy’s wife bought him the vouchers for Ballymaloe which kick-started his new career. Ballymaloe ain’t cheap to begin with, and it is a well known fact that a lot of those attending their courses end up running their own catering businesses hence the high cost involved. Unfortunately it does not state how he funded his re-training.

I must also point out that had he applied for a job in a bakery while an unemployed construction worker, he would no doubt have been turned down – now he is their competition. Had they taken him on and trained him, they would have had a great worker in their company without the worry of extra competition. No, the article says nothing about employers, but speaks volumes about their lack of vision.

It seems to be mainly employers here so I realise that I am flogging a dead horse.

Happy St. Patrick’s Day.

I find it hard to believe you're being turned down for unskilled jobs because you require training. More likely it is because they know you will leave as soon as something better comes up, whereas the Russian woman who has worked in unskilled jobs her entire life will probably stick around and be grateful she has a job.

The stuff about the guy who set up his own bakery is irrelevant and has nothing to do with employers who lack vision.

I am sorry to hear you are struggling to find a job. Keep plugging away and something will eventually turn up.

Thoie

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

I can see where you are coming from as I have business experience myself, and done my share of training of staff in companies I worked for. Unfortunately you have failed to understand where I am coming from. I am not talking about training someone from nowhere, in website design, architecture, hairdressing or brain surgery. I am talking about making and serving someone a cup of coffee, cleaning hotel rooms, ironing clothes in a cleaners (the advert for ironing said ‘must have relevant qualifications')– it’s not rocket science and would not take weeks to teach, even with industrial equipment.

Happy St. Patrick’s Day.

OK, I didn't get from your initial posting that you were talking about the kind of jobs you can learn in an afternoon. As Mr. Loverman said, I had the experience while unemployed of applying for that kind of job and being rejected as well - I was told outright that it would be a waste of their time taking me on, as I'd be gone as soon as something in my "real" career came along - and in my case they were certainly right.

You could try offering your services free for an afternoon to show them that you'd be a useful addition to their company. I can't imagine what kind of qualifications there are in ironing. Experience, yes.

Jellybaby1

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

I find it hard to believe you're being turned down for unskilled jobs because you require training. More likely it is because they know you will leave as soon as something better comes up, whereas the Russian woman who has worked in unskilled jobs her entire life will probably stick around and be grateful she has a job.

Forgive me, but I feel your thinking, is still in a rut. I know why I am being turned down for jobs and its not the reason you think. Oh you will laugh yourself silly :D when I tell you. It's because they feel I am too old as I am in my 50's. What would I know about making coffee or making beds? Goodness, you didn't really think I was 24? The ironing job was not my story but that of a friend, in her 40's. I am here this long because I do 'stick-around'. three-quarters of our family are unemployed. People in secure positions do not know what is going on around them outside their own world. Don't forget there are a lot of people still working outside the system, not legal, or their employers are abusing the system. I have read the articles about non-nationals being taken advantage of in the area of child-minding/housekeeping, being paid €2-€3 an hour for a 7-day week. I wouldn't get those jobs because they know I would (a) complain or (b) report them.

I didn't come on here to look for sympathy or a hand-out. I just feel more people could get off the dole if employers would just, as they love to keep saying, 'think outside the box'. It doesn't have to be me, but anybody at all.

I appreciate your good wishes.

leeroybrown

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

I must also point out that had he applied for a job in a bakery while an unemployed construction worker, he would no doubt have been turned down – now he is their competition. Had they taken him on and trained him, they would have had a great worker in their company without the worry of extra competition. No, the article says nothing about employers, but speaks volumes about their lack of vision.

Fair play to him for his entrepreneurial spirit and willingness to train others but it would probably still have been the correct decision for most businesses. Given the decision between a trained person who likely has all the relevant food safety certifications and an untrained person with skills in other areas most businesses are better off with the former. As for the competition element, I'd argue that he seems to have an entrepreneurial spirit and would likely have left to start his own business at some stage after an employer trained him up.

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

It seems to be mainly employers here so I realise that I am flogging a dead horse.

Not at all. I'm an employee not an employer but I work for my employer and do what's best for them. When I interview people I have to look at the needs of the business. We're in a high education level high skill level area but the same kind of decisions come into play. We often have to consider if some candidate's general abilities balance out a lack of specific experience (ie. a need for training up) or if some more experienced candidates are too likely to leave as soon as a suitable opportunity arises.

CricketDude

They wont even invest in the current staff that they have. Once you are in a job dont expect any further training.

Mr. Loverman

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Forgive me, but I feel your thinking, is still in a rut. I know why I am being turned down for jobs and its not the reason you think. Oh you will laugh yourself silly :D when I tell you. It's because they feel I am too old as I am in my 50's. What would I know about making coffee or making beds? Goodness, you didn't really think I was 24? The ironing job was not my story but that of a friend, in her 40's. I am here this long because I do 'stick-around'. three-quarters of our family are unemployed. People in secure positions do not know what is going on around them outside their own world. Don't forget there are a lot of people still working outside the system, not legal, or their employers are abusing the system. I have read the articles about non-nationals being taken advantage of in the area of child-minding/housekeeping, being paid €2-€3 an hour for a 7-day week. I wouldn't get those jobs because they know I would (a) complain or (b) report them.

I didn't come on here to look for sympathy or a hand-out. I just feel more people could get off the dole if employers would just, as they love to keep saying, 'think outside the box'. It doesn't have to be me, but anybody at all.

I appreciate your good wishes.

My problem isn't that my "thinking is in a rut" or that I "fail to understand" - the problem is that you keep withholding vital information from your posts!

If you had of mentioned in your first post that you are in your 50s and are being turned down for unskilled labour we would have a much clearer idea of the problem you (hypothetically or not) are facing.

We are not psychic...

leeroybrown

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Forgive me, but I feel your thinking, is still in a rut. I know why I am being turned down for jobs and its not the reason you think. Oh you will laugh yourself silly :D when I tell you. It's because they feel I am too old as I am in my 50's. What would I know about making coffee or making beds? Goodness, you didn't really think I was 24?

If you're in your 50's then there's a reasonable chance that they're just giving an excuse for being ageist. It's not nice or anything but it definitely happens. It's got very little to do with training up though.

Jellybaby1

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

My problem isn't that my "thinking is in a rut" or that I "fail to understand" - the problem is that you keep withholding vital information from your posts!

If you had of mentioned in your first post that you are in your 50s and are being turned down for unskilled labour we would have a much clearer idea of the problem you (hypothetically or not) are facing.

We are not psychic...

Age shouldn't matter, only if you can do the job. The rut, still there.

Mr. Loverman

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Age shouldn't matter, only if you can do the job. The rut, still there.

You misunderstand. Of course I don't agree with any sort of discrimination.

longhalloween

double post

longhalloween

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Age shouldn't matter, only if you can do the job. The rut, still there.

You're right, but it still happens. For low wage menial jobs some employers prefer young impressionable people who'll take all the sh*t and can be bossed around.

Irish_Elect_Eng

longhalloween wrote: »

You're right, but it still happens. For low wage menial jobs some employers prefer young impressionable people who'll take all the sh*t and can be bossed around.

In general, the discrimination is not against age but against experience.

People with experience have higher wage and career expectations and due to their age higher wage needs to support their lifestyle needs. The average 20 year old does not have a high mortgage or a family to support, whereas the average 40 year old does.

Some jobs do not require experience, so employers are not willing to pay for it.

MysticalRain

Employers are not charities. But bit of altruism might actually be beneficial to them as well. Employers in my industry - IT - complain alot these days that they cannot find enough people. But if they spent more time training people and hired more graduates, there wouldn't be such as shortage in the first place. What goes around, comes around.

Mr. Loverman

MysticalRain wrote: »

Employers are not charities. But bit of altruism might actually be beneficial to them as well. Employers in my industry - IT - complain alot these days that they cannot find enough people. But if they spent more time training people and hired more graduates, there wouldn't be such as shortage in the first place. What goes around, comes around.

Hiring and training inexperienced people is a) very expensive and b) a big risk.

It is much cheaper and a lot safer to wait for the right hire.

IT in particular, it is very easy to train yourself. In fact, in my own experience the IT people who wait for their employer to train them tend to be the awful employees! It doesn't take much to buy a book on a topic and spend a few evenings getting to grips with it. Not only will it make you more employable but you will also be taking control of your career.

MysticalRain

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Hiring and training inexperienced people is a) very expensive and b) a big risk.

It is much cheaper and a lot safer to wait for the right hire.

IT in particular, it is very easy to train yourself. In fact, in my own experience the IT people who wait for their employer to train them tend to be the awful employees! It doesn't take much to buy a book on a topic and spend a few evenings getting to grips with it. Not only will it make you more employable but you will also be taking control of your career.

The world of business is full of risks. The problem with employers being risk averse, and waiting around for the perfect employee is that they eventually run short of people and that has a negative impact as well. There is no perfect solution to the current skills shortage in the industry.

I think most people already working in IT get the concept of self training. The points I'm making here has less to do with experienced people, and more to do with recent graduates. There are limits to what you can do yourself at home, although it is a little easier to do on the software side of things. Certs are not much good unless combined with real world experience, and not everyone can set up their own SANS or clusters of VMWare servers at home to do troubleshooting and experimenting on. Graduates still face the chicken vs egg problem with employers where they won't even get past the HR drones unless they have "x number of years of commercial experience" on their CV regardless of how much they do outside of work.

Mr. Loverman

Yeah but it is less risky to wait for the right employee than it is to take on an inexperienced unknown. If this were untrue employers would be more willing to hire and train inexperienced people...

MysticalRain

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Yeah but it is less risky to wait for the right employee than it is to take on an inexperienced unknown. If this were untrue employers would be more willing to hire and train inexperienced people...

In my experience, that generalization applies more to Irish owned SME's. Larger companies, American multi-nationals, and the civil service do a much better job of taking on graduates and providing career development for their employees.

Mr. Loverman

MysticalRain wrote: »

In my experience, that generalization applies more to Irish owned SME's. Larger companies, American multi-nationals, and the civil service do a much better job of taking on graduates and providing career development for their employees.

I agree, but most employers in Ireland are Irish owned SMEs.

the_syco

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

It's on all the job adverts, you must have experience in the particular field, they won't spend any time training new staff.

Mostly because they don't have the money to train them.

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Employers, please take note!

From your article:

has reinvented himself

His employers didn't do it, he did.