Some thoughts on skilled trade shortages

[rockstar.esq]

First off, I'm the Chief Estimator of an electrical contractor.  I'm responsible for all the bidding we do, and it's my job to ensure that we've always got enough profitable work coming in to keep the company going in the right direction.  Recently I've encountered a growing number of articles about the skilled trade shortages.  This is near and dear to me as succeeding in my daily tasks balances on whether my company has the manpower to do the work.

All the articles I've seen on this topic are missing vital information that would completely change the perspective.  Specifically, the case is made that there's more money being spent on construction year after year, there's open jobs, yet the average age of a skilled trade worker gets older and older.

There's a profoundly good reason that people fled the trades.  The work isn't steady.  Last year set company records for revenue and for profits, yet every single project that was slated to begin in fourth quarter was canceled, or delayed.  Lots of work was put out to bid with fourth quarter anticipated start dates , all of it was either conceptual, or a callous attempt to lock in low prices for work actually scheduled for peak season.

Now I'll admit that last year was particularly harsh, but every single year we're struggling to keep the workers going through 4th quarter.  Many of my competitors resort to lay offs.  I can prove this because we solicited applications for apprentices at the start of the year.  The majority of the apprentices struggle to get more than 6-7 months of full-time work per year.  Since everything from licensing to promotion hinges on hours worked, these apprentices are spending five to six years trying to accrue enough hours to qualify for the exam.  That's long enough to get a bachelors and a masters degree!  

Most starting apprentice positions pay relatively little compared to say, delivering pizzas.  It's easy to see how a kid who's spent two to three years trying to accrue enough hours to get bumped up to "2nd year apprentice" would lose patience with the perpetual destitution.  I can also see how they'd grow tired of scrambling to find a retail job to fill in half the year, every fall.  Eventually, it makes more sense to just stay at the retail job they finally landed.

Another pernicious bit of misinformation in some of these articles is the notion that what's needed is a "Harvard for plumbers".  There's some kind of East Coast naval shipyard that's opened a trades school that has a lower acceptance rate than Harvard.  The authors of these articles would have you believe that exclusivity leads to excellence, and a lifetime in a lucrative and proud profession.

Many trade unions provide apprenticeship training that FAR exceeds what's taught at universities.  I'm speaking from personal experience.  The apprentice school is built, maintained, staffed, and run entirely on membership dues.  The apprentice pays absolutely nothing for their training however there are serious standards for grades, craftsmanship, and professionalism.  Fall short even once, and you'll go in front of the apprenticeship board.  Fall short twice, and you're probably on your way out.  The acceptance rate when I applied was very, very, low.  Even in non-union shops, it's common for the company to pay 100% of trade school tuition and books for any apprentice who earns better than a B in their coursework. 

My point is that there's already a completely free training program that's often more exclusive than the ivy league schools.  The hidden hitch, is that it takes an obscene amount of time to progress when the market won't provide steady work all year long.

Some of these articles offer some solutions that are misguided at best, and outright cruel at worst.  For example, it's very popular to examine construction worker statistics and conclude that there's a severe and intentional lack of diversity.  Solutions stemming from these observations involve mandatory diversity training, and special recruiting outreach programs for minority groups.  One recent articles solution pointed out  the number of openings in the skilled trades was roughly equal to the number of unemployed women.  The two PhD's writing the article apparently failed to consider that hiring a warm body off the street for a journeyman-level job is hardly a sound recruiting practice.  I think reporters believe it's acceptable to assume that construction companies are hotbeds of racism, sexism, and general prejudice.  Perhaps they don't like the look of people who are willing to do the hard and dirty work that journalists see as beneath them.

Probably the biggest "missing link" in these stories is a surprisingly simple one.  Wages.  Wages haven't gone up in proportion to skilled trade scarcity.  It's not popular to point this out, but when lots of workers left for oil-field jobs, they never returned, even when the oil work slowed down.  The wages simply aren't high enough to draw people to this work.

As the estimator, I see the going rate for electrical work on a daily basis.  Companies have resigned to doing whatever they can with what they have.  They're not willing to take on additional wage costs to attract more workers because it makes them less competitive and less profitable in the off-season.  The reason construction costs have gone up is because companies are forced to define their maximum profitability for seasonal work.  If you can only build six jobs in the peak season, you'd want to make those six jobs as profitable as you can.  Going rate, going up!

Ebb and flow is part of business, but there's more to this story.  The reason there's a peak season is two-fold.  First off, if you're starting out of the ground, you're going to encounter fewer weather delays if you're moving dirt and swinging steel when it's warm and dry out.  Second, the majority share of many construction markets is government work for schools.  It doesn't matter whether it's a remodel or a new building, every school project has to start and end while the students are on summer vacation.  In most of the remodels, the work could be done during the school year after hours for far less money, however there's no pressure on the decision-makers to consider that option. 

So what's the solution?

I think there are changes that are under way that solve these problems from different directions.

First off, there's a growing number of contractors who have branched into development.  An astounding amount of money and time is wasted on development deals that fall through because there's a lack of cohesion between investors, developers, landowners, and architects.  Contractors are stepping into a leadership role because mismanagement is pervasive among developers and architects.  This has the effect of stabilizing the revenue stream for not only the contractor, but for the entire market.  Just looking at what comes across my desk, I can tell you that somewhere North of  70% of the projects out to bid at any given time will absolutely never happen.  In roughly 90% of those cases,  the Architect knew their client didn't have the budget to build the design before it was sent out to bid.  Entirely too many jobs are killed in the crib by Architects who don't protect their client's interest.  If their purpose is to make a dream a practical reality, how then

 

Currently there are far too many people involved in project development, who contribute little more than bureaucratic resistance to getting stuff built.

Second, the higher-education bubble is popping.  People are slowly realizing that college debt has a profound impact on your future when the degree fails to land good job prospects.  More people drop out than graduate, so there's a lot of people paying over decades for a few semesters of general education classes.  The number of jobs that require a college degree is on the decline because educational achievement is a poor proxy for job suitability.  In the 1950's American car companies provided engineering training to their employees and promoted based on applicable skills testing.  They did this partly out of expediency, and partly because higher education hadn't positioned itself as a gatekeeper to career advancement. 

Great lectures from ivy league professors are available online for free.  It won't take long for skilled trades positions to be less dependent on time-served, paid dues, or union affiliation, and more dependent on whether you can do the job.  It may be difficult for college educated journalists to see how the practices of higher-education, and modern human-resources thinking aren't working in the skilled trades.  At their heart, the skilled trades are a great example of applied practicality.  There's honor in hard work, craftsmanship, and sharing what you know.  We need to focus less on ivory tower gatekeeping, and more on practical solutions for our longevity.  First among them is addressing the misinformation about what's really going on.

 

 

[Kozzy]

One aspect that's not mentioned often is the fact that many of the "trades" also trade body parts and quality of life in the latter years for that paycheck.  Knees, backs, shoulders, elbows all are part of the worker's cost input to that job which go unaccounted for in the grand scheme.  Trade workers tend to have shorter lifespans with lower quality of life after retirement.

None of that is properly reflected in the pay scale.  That means you have a tough time at both ends of the work life when choosing a "trade" over other options.  

Add that to the low respect that people who work with their backs tend to get and it's not a very appealing prospect for a lifetime's work choice.  With solid defined-benefit retirement plans going the way of the Dodo bird, the prospects start to look even more bleak.

So, what's the fix?  

[rockstar.esq]

Kozzy,

You make some good points.  A great deal of the physical hardship could and should be handled differently.  When I was an apprentice it was considered "paying your dues" to spend a stupid amount of time digging trenches by hand.  I work a desk job because I had three major back injuries in the course of my apprenticeship.  Every last one of them was attributable to jobs that weren't properly equipped with tools, staff, training, and respect for safety policies.  

Conversely, the semi-conductor industry developed rolling carts with little mechanisms to lift cassettes of silicon wafers of the machines.  The cassettes probably weighed less than 10 lbs and they had a handle on either side, but some safety person determined it was an ergonomic hazard.  

I think it's a clear example of how one industry protects it's human capital, while another doesn't.  Safety policies have come a long way.  The good construction firms won't tolerate the stuff that leads to injuries, and lower quality of life.

I raised a similar point about the lack of respect for trades people in terms of barricades that protect the public from seeing the workers in a construction forum.  Building managers think nothing of writing policies that allow them to toss the entire crew out if a single construction worker dares to use the public restroom.  Everyone is carrying on about equality in the workplace but construction zones are set up as though the public needs fainting couches in case they spot someone in a hard hat.  Any other industry would justly claim the world is discriminating against them, and they'd see things changed.  

 

 

[Jim Coke]

Greetings Rockstar, 

You bring to the table many good points but we all must look for a longer lasting soloution. Our business in this country have been forced to cost cut beyond belief to be competitive.. Unemployment insurance , health care cost, higher wages for employees that have longer term seniority .  Many company's today find it cost effective to outsource employees or use part time manpower services to stay afloat which just brings in another factor in lower wages for the worker., I find many of today's workers only work part time and depend on side cash jobs for a live able income., Yet another point for our government to consider .. Federal and state tax.. Yea right..  I feel the only true soloution is to bring back the company sponsored apprentistship programs and give our youth a job with security and pride..  I mentor in a local trade school during the school year and teach blacksmithing throughout the summer . My way  of paying it forward ..  Our assistance programs are topped out and the cash advance preditor company's are a sign of what the future will bring,  Wake up America ..  Just my humble 2c

Jim

[John McPherson]

My solution is to give my Welding Technology Associates Degree graduates the skills and confidence to compete toe-to-toe with anyone, anywhere in the world, while commanding a living wage. Two students who finished in December could not make it back to attend graduation this week. One was working at SpaceX, the other at the Savannah river plant. Both were already making more a month than this teacher brings in.

If you are good enough, and smart enough, and possess a skill in demand, a decent job is out there somewhere. If you only want to stay in school long enough to be barely employable, and stay in one location, you are stuck with local wages, working conditions and fluctuations. Companies are now run by professional administrators, who report to stockholders every quarter. These companies make 'product', and the stockholders don't care who makes it, how well they are treated, how it is made, or even what it is, as long as their quarterly dividend is maximized. 

Look at the most successful companies today in America, WalMart and McDonalds. Both pay the rank and file workers so poorly that the taxpayers of America are footing the bill for their healthcare and food stamps. By comparison, most people would not recognize the names of the companies that build and maintain power generation plants, but those employees are well paid and not on the government dole.

Rant mode off, peace out.

 

[Jim Coke]

Greetings John, 

      I'm sure if we met face to face we would have a lot to talk about.. We are on the same page  .  Our automotive graduating class just had 9 students sucesfully pass the state test for auto brake service .

       Our future workers are in a catch 22 . Because of the system it is to their advantage to keep income lower because of our government requirements and pay scale for health care contribution. Again wake up Goverment , higher wages means more tax dollars.. Not to mention the income requirements for state assistance. 

         I applaud company's like Toyota who during change over time don't lay off the employees but use that time to cross train . We for sure need more company's like that. I feel it's time that our Goverment take a new look at what our future work force is facing. 

Rant mode off also

 

 

[LawnJockey]

As a misguided youth I went into the trades as a way of working for myself and having the flexibility to pursue my passion, racing sailboats.  I was motivated and I worked 7 days a week.  I reinvested all my disposable income into equipment.  I completed my first apartment renovation, a burned out multi unit building, before I was 21 and I had my contractors license when I was 21.  Later I went back to school, graduated law school and passed the bar on the first try.  I never stopped buying and fixing up properties on the side.  The reason I am putting this put there is because I believe if you want a good paying job sometimes you have to create your own.  If you don't have the skills learn them.  If you don't have the equipment work with what you have and invest in yourself.

Back then it was a little easier than today.  Young guys just starting out were not competing with the crowd hanging out in front of Home Depot.  There weren't as many regulations and it was a little easier to bend the rules some when you were starting out.  But even so, it is still doable.  If you are hanging out watching football on the weekends or getting home before dark you have no one to blame but yourself.  I know a lot of contractors that are looking for motivated people who are not meth heads, alcoholics, thieves or wooers comp fakers.

[rockstar.esq]

Jim,

I recently read an article about "the myth of progress".  The premise of the article is that people see aspects of culture and science in their life as firm facts with only one direction for change.  We tend  to think of  progress that happened before our time as an inevitable unfolding of facts until we reach common knowledge of today.  So when we think of the future, we often think the continuation of current trends are also inevitable facts. 

Take something that people don't like today, and they'll almost certainly think that in 20 years it will be much worse.  Careful review of history shows that's not likely to be accurate.  Patterns tend to be more cyclical than anything else.

While we can focus on the declining status and wages of skilled labor, we can also focus on the increased access to information.  Stuff you could only learn via an exclusive apprenticeship, or costly trade school is now available for free and for all.  I think there's a huge link between gatekeeping mentality and decline.  Gatekeepers of the trades (trade schools, apprenticeship programs, unions, etc.) would all have you believe that the world turned it's back on the skilled trades. 

Construction is not something that's easily outsourced.  Even when new construction markets are down, there's reliable work in remodel, repair, and improvement of existing buildings.  Again, there's really no way to avoid the basic necessity of a skilled tradeworkforce. 

I strongly believe that "time served" education programs eventually grow to serve the gatekeepers more than the industry.  Nobody's testing to see if a 3rd year apprentice's abilities are 75% as "complete" as a 4th year apprentice's.  We make absolutely no allowances for motivated people who learn quickly. 

We promote apprenticeships as cheap labor for the companies, and free education for the apprentice.  Over time the gatekeeping mentality lead to such delays in promotion that trade schools/ colleges run daytime TV adds for their programs.  "Become an electrician, plumber or HVAC installer in just (some unreaslistically short number of) weeks".

Gatekeeping is all about lording the avenues of advancement for time served and dues paid.  Colleges are free to deliver impractical educations because academic achievement is assumed to be a proxy for applicable employment skills.  Colleges are free to encourage and generate delays in achievement.  Ever heard of a "weed out" class?  It's an intentional effort to discourage and delay student advancement by making classes arbitrarily difficult.  It's all about how much you can teach yourself despite the teacher. It's a craven attempt to generate another semester or two of tuition as the majority of students are washed out of the program (and into another).

The trades have inexcusably followed that pattern, and they've suffered dearly for it.  Sending an apprentice out to dig trenches, or just move heavy stuff around for six months a year, followed by layoffs is a common pattern.  The kids aren't learning anything, they're not making any money, and there's never an end in sight.

If you want public attitudes to change about the trades, we need to make it more appealing than "hey we still hire ex-convicts".

The gatekeeping nonsense plays a huge role in the construction economy as well.  Architects have a ridiculously small amount of training in business, mathematics, management, sales, marketing, and critical thinking.  Yet they are the contractual pivot point of the construction universe.  Incompetent leadership opens up opportunities for corruption and abuse.  All of which have driven construction markets into the ground.  Architects are actually paid by the hour before the construction contract, then they get a fixed percentage of the total construction cost.  There's absolutely no incentive for them to draw anything on time, or on budget which is why it so rarely happens. 

Clients are faced with a series of false choices when it comes to contract arrangements.  If the Architect is owners rep, the design-driven mistakes will be pushed off onto the contractors.  If the Contractor is the owners rep, the management failures will be pushed off on the design team.  Either way it's like asking a fox to guard the hen house.

Nobody really considers hiring an independent, yet still contractually at-risk General Contractor to be the owners rep.  The critical element of this solution is that the independent GC participates in the same market as the awarded builder.  Potential abuse between competitors would be quelled because the next job may turn the tables on the contractual relationships.

Giving GC's a profitable avenue to stomp the insidious nonsense that's making everything so costly. slow, and corrupt would potentially be our salvation. It's never presented as an option because it would require admitting that GC's have traditionally abused their authority when they were contracted as the owners rep and builder.

We can't assume that positions of power will attract people of virtue.  We must configure positions of power so that bad people will do the right thing because it benefits them.

The skilled trades  need more work, effective training, and fewer obstacles to prosperity if they're to improve.  The gatekeeper mentality has choked every one of those three. 

I  googled "what's the most hated work department?"

Human Resources.  The personification of the gatekeeper mentality in every business.  I have a theory that our cycle of decline will correspond fairly directly with the proliferation of HR practices in business.  They have definitely promoted the education as proxy for suitability nonsense while resisting any attempts to promote applicable skills testing.  They'd rather spend 6 seconds per resume looking for composition suiting their editorial bias because job placement is "an art" you can't outsource to a scantron machine.  Composing a resume has absolutely nothing to do with the relevant skills for most careers.  If you're not willing to test the merits of the resume's claims, there's no protection against fraud.  At some point, intentionally not checking becomes it's own form of fraud.

 

[Culver Creek Hunt Club]

I am in charge of all the labor for a large Mechanical Contractor. I see many of the same thing mentioned in here. Our projects are longer duration. 2-4 years so the time to get an apprentice pipefitter or plumber through the program usually doesn't run to far over for us. Finding individuals to get into the program hasn't been an issue. Finding the ones that will stick with it and actually show up for work and put forth the effort is. In our 4 year program I have pretty good luck if I can get them into year 3. We are an East coast US company so our wages vary based on the region. In the Northern Mid-Atlantic region a level 1 Apprentice (8 level@ 1,000 hours each for a 4 year program) makes 50% of Journeyman wages. That is starting out at $17 an hour with raises every 1000 hours (approx 6 months), At the end of the program the rate is $34. We have another level of skilled craft that requires another year as a Journeyman that adds $4  and hour more. I have 23 year olds making $38 an hour. That is just shy of $80,000 a year without any Over Time. And I struggle gettign them to show up for work. Makes me wanna scream. Oh, and we pay for their formal class room training and their books. 144 hours of classroom instruction a year. 

Pipe Welders is where I see the biggest deficit in the trades we deal with. I can shake a tree and get a plate, sheetmetal or structural welder (no offense to anyone), but the pipe welding numbers are sorely lacking. 

[Culver Creek Hunt Club]

41 minutes ago, rockstar.esq said:

Human Resources.  The personification of the gatekeeper mentality in every business.  I have a theory that our cycle of decline will correspond fairly directly with the proliferation of HR practices in business.  They have definitely promoted the education as proxy for suitability nonsense while resisting any attempts to promote applicable skills testing.  They'd rather spend 6 seconds per resume looking for composition suiting their editorial bias because job placement is "an art" you can't outsource to a scantron machine.  Composing a resume has absolutely nothing to do with the relevant skills for most careers.  If you're not willing to test the merits of the resume's claims, there's no protection against fraud.  At some point, intentionally not checking becomes it's own form of fraud.

 

I deal with hundreds of resumes a day. Some things that are looked for by me are stable work record, relevant/comparable experience and meeting the basic requirements to the posted position. Every Ad I have out there requests a cover letter be included to explain how their experience meets the requirements or explain any area that does not meet them. 80% of the resumes I receive to not include the requested cover letter and many of the ones that I do a boiler plate and include topics about how they have always wanted to be a banking clerk while applying for a receptionist position. It is very refreshing to get a resume that, while maybe lacking in the required experience, shows their ability to understand the request and actually fulfill it. Let's face it. No matter what company you go to work for in any industry, there is a learning curve to understand the procedures. I really look for a candidate with the right attitude, one that has a desire to learn and one with a demonstrated work ethic. I don't have a problem teaching anyone the job, but you have to have a willing pupil with the basic aptitude. 

[SpankySmith]

I'm reading this thread while gritting my teeth, because I've been desperately trying to get OUT of computers and into something else.  I've written more targeted, specific cover letters than I can even count and can't get anyone to take me seriously.  I'm "over-qualified" - forget that I know more about tools than any woman I know, forget that I know how to USE them.  Grrrr.....   all this talk about not being able to attract qualified people, maybe the box we put "qualified" in is too small? 

 

 

[rockstar.esq]

Culver,

I can understand how frustrating it must be to have hundreds of people who simply won't follow your instructions.  There's a job on offer, and the company sets the terms for how that process takes shape.  It makes sense that someone who stares at resume's full time is bound to become a connoisseur of the medium.

Working off what you wrote, you seem to be implying that a less qualified candidate who follows HR's directions better is more likely to get the job than a more qualified candidate who didn't format the information per HR's directions.  Basically the opportunity  is controlled by how easy the applicant is on the gatekeeper.  Shouldn't, the opportunity should go to the applicant who's best for the job? 

If HR wants to get the best qualified candidates, wouldn't applicable skills testing provide a uniform and easy to rank hierarchy among applicants?  People who don't follow instructions won't test well, and won't waste your time either.  It's also provably unbiased because you could show that everyone got the same questions and the same opportunity.

Honestly, if the resume system was even halfway good, then HR professionals should be able to establish a universal template for everyone to use.  I suspect that hasn't happened because it would doubtlessly make their job even more boring.

Spanky,

I think the size of the "qualified box" isn't too small, it's a fundamental unwillingness to take the time to actually define what is, and isn't necessary for the applicable skills.  I read all the time about HR department's using keyword searches, and chasing trends in certifications.  The list of stuff in the "qualified box" is so long, it's nearly impossible to fill the position.  It's just easier to slap on another requirement, than it is to consider if the ones already on the list made any difference.

There's a lady named Liz Ryan who owns a company called Human Workplace, who posts on Linkedin and Forbes about how some HR practices are self-defeating.  Her advice for job seekers is to write a "pain letter" to a manager.

The idea is to convey what you know about the company, how you think they've grown, and how their growth has made that manager's job difficult to do.  Presenting your skills and abilities as the relief to their pain cultivates a tangible connection between that manager and yourself that leads to further communication.  Even if the manager lacks hiring authority, they are able to put your name in front of decision makers.  The idea has some appeal but I'll concede that it's tough to research a company that deeply.  Most job ads are rich on requirements, and lean on descriptions.  It really helps to talk to someone who works at the company to get a sense of who does what, and where things are headed.  Sites like Glass door give some much-needed insight into what the workers situation is like.  I wish you luck.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Culver Creek Hunt Club]

14 minutes ago, rockstar.esq said:

Culver,

I can understand how frustrating it must be to have hundreds of people who simply won't follow your instructions.  There's a job on offer, and the company sets the terms for how that process takes shape.  It makes sense that someone who stares at resume's full time is bound to become a connoisseur of the medium.

Working off what you wrote, you seem to be implying that a less qualified candidate who follows HR's directions better is more likely to get the job than a more qualified candidate who didn't format the information per HR's directions.  Basically the opportunity  is controlled by how easy the applicant is on the gatekeeper.  Shouldn't, the opportunity should go to the applicant who's best for the job? 

If HR wants to get the best qualified candidates, wouldn't applicable skills testing provide a uniform and easy to rank hierarchy among applicants?  People who don't follow instructions won't test well, and won't waste your time either.  It's also provably unbiased because you could show that everyone got the same questions and the same opportunity.

Honestly, if the resume system was even halfway good, then HR professionals should be able to establish a universal template for everyone to use.  I suspect that hasn't happened because it would doubtlessly make their job even more boring.

We strive for the best candidate for any position that is open. Reality being what it is you may not get enough "qualified" applicants for the number of positions and it happens frequently.  The next logical step is to identify the next level of candidate that has promise and I certainly am more successful with candidates that have demonstrated their ability to read, understand, take direction and execute. This type of candidate has proven the best to actually teach the skills required. We sue a very similar approach to Identify candidates for the Apprentice programs. It seems that the younger and unattached an apprentice candidate is the less likely they will succeed. 

All candidate for us go through a pre-employemnt drug screening, skills assessment test or multiple tests in the case of the welders. Even the apprentices go though basic testing to assess the abilities such as basic math, fractions and reading a ruler, to name a few. The assessment is only a portion of the process. I am sure you have some across the type of employees that may have the best knowledge and skill set going but can not function safely, productively or with the attention to detail that puts out a quality product for whatever reason. There are people that carry a chip and are just down right disruptive to the crew setting. Even with all the knowledge in the world about any skill set, when I supervised personnel I would rather take the person that can be taught over that disruption. 

 

It seems as though you are suggesting some universal "form" as opposed to a resume. I would have no desire to entertain that. The resume and even more so the cover letter is one of the most telling things about an applicant. I guess I am trying to make my life easier, if "easier" is having good employees.  I feel that if a person won't take the time to follow the directions, give clear explanation of their understanding and at least make the effort to compose them specifically for the posting you have put up, how much effort are they likely to exert for you once they have the job? As I tried to convey above, skill set in not everything and in many cases it may not even be the most important. 

[Donniev]

I worked as an electrical apprentice for about 4 months while I was laid off for the winter pouring concrete a while ago. I hated it. I enjoyed the work, and the people who I worked with, but most all of the other apprentices had the same attitude- why would I work hard or strive to do good when it takes 4 years to get my license? That company left a bad taste in my mouth, only one guy that I rarely worked with tried to teach me anything, everyone else put me to work on the hardest (labor wise) job they had once they realized I would actually work hard and show up every day.

Now I'm a certified pipe welder, and this is probably one of the best companies around. Owner of the company told me right away "I don't care if you have a degree, can you weld, can you read print/ run a job?" 0 years needed, if a guys got what it takes to run a crew after 2 years, he's going to run jobs. Got $4 in raises after I passed the 6g tests, and they normally give $1-$2 raises on our 6 month reviews. 

I've always been a hard worker, if I needed a job I've got 3 guys I can call and start the next day. Problem is, 2 of them are for pouring concrete, and headaches that being a foreman bring (residential side, not the big projects) isn't worth $19 an hour for me. 

[rockstar.esq]

Culver,

Your original post didn't disclose that you conduct any pre-employment testing, particularly as it relates to applicable skills.  Even now, I'm not sure if you're saying that you've got a stack of people who passed the test, or if you're saying that you've got a stack of people who failed the test.

It sounds like you're saying you find some who pass but are nevertheless unemployable due to an attitude or learning deficiency.  It also sounds like you're saying you find some who fail, but might posses the right attitude and learning potential to eventually make up for lacking skills.

If all of that's true, you're actually hiring for different levels of skill, and you're trying much harder than most of the HR folks I've encountered.  I now appreciate that you're working with more knowledge and compassion than you originally revealed.

I don't know if it makes sense to you, but it's desperately frustrating to be an applicant who can't figure out how to penetrate the bureaucracy of HR.  Most firms don't bother with applicable skills testing at all which means that applicants have no opportunity to prove their abilities beyond a resume and cover letter which get six seconds of attention.

Some of our best employees would interview terribly.  Their grammar and spelling are deficient, and they curse enough to make a Marine blush.  None of that matters at all for the job we need them to do.

 

 

 

[Culver Creek Hunt Club]

20 minutes ago, rockstar.esq said:

Culver,

Your original post didn't disclose that you conduct any pre-employment testing, particularly as it relates to applicable skills.  Even now, I'm not sure if you're saying that you've got a stack of people who passed the test, or if you're saying that you've got a stack of people who failed the test.

It sounds like you're saying you find some who pass but are nevertheless unemployable due to an attitude or learning deficiency.  It also sounds like you're saying you find some who fail, but might posses the right attitude and learning potential to eventually make up for lacking skills.

If all of that's true, you're actually hiring for different levels of skill, and you're trying much harder than most of the HR folks I've encountered.  I now appreciate that you're working with more knowledge and compassion than you originally revealed.

I don't know if it makes sense to you, but it's desperately frustrating to be an applicant who can't figure out how to penetrate the bureaucracy of HR.  Most firms don't bother with applicable skills testing at all which means that applicants have no opportunity to prove their abilities beyond a resume and cover letter which get six seconds of attention.

Some of our best employees would interview terribly.  Their grammar and spelling are deficient, and they curse enough to make a Marine blush.  None of that matters at all for the job we need them to do.

 

I came from the field. I not a fan of bureaucracy and if it weren't for spell check you wouldn't be able to read my posts....lol.  We are always looking in various region and for various skill sets. It is Construction so it is where the work is. Depending on the region of the country and the staffing requirements of the projects both of your assessments of my comments could be accurate. It really varies with the needs and who is available. You have to be flexible to have the needs of the projects met. We cover Maine to Florida so it can be a little daunting. It is tough to give all an equal shot.. Let me give you a for instance. This isn't skilled craft but I posted two receptionist openings last  week in two different locations. I have 156 resumes for one and 95 for the other. It is about impossible to do a word for word evaluation to even see who should get the skills test. I have resumes with ZERO experience and latterly were a convenient store clerk as experiencing and none of the required software or phone systems. My suggestion to anyone out there is do not submit a resume without a cover letter and spend some time thinking about that first paragraph you will write. I believe it is really won or lost there. To the point and skip all the BS terms like "dynamic". I want a person that can clearly communicate a point. No fancy language needed. The faster the point is made and the more clear, the better the results. Here is how I meet the requirements of the position. 

 

Couple other tid bits for others that aren't bored of me. Never never leave gaps in employment history that is not explained. Capture multiple postilions with one company showing advancement in one period duration not 2001-2003    then 2003-2005 then 2005-2009. If for same company list  list with ABC company from 2001-2009 and the the positions under it. AVOID the look of multiple jobs. 

Most recent jobs first and don't be afraid to customize what you did on those previous positions to emphasize the skills you think they want for the new job. 

 

I run into this a lot with entry level engineer candidate and as they move up into their careers. When I got into construction the mentality to move up was "let me do my job the best I can, prove myself and learn the job of the one above me" Then when opportunities came up you were golden. This sometimes meant doing things to learn the new position that were not compensated. I never minded becasue I wasn't doing it for the company directly but for my career. Today the mentality is they want the promotions based on time on the job and expect to be trained once in the new position. It's a new world out there.   

If you have confidence in your ability and there is an opportunity to take a position where you can get experience but it is less money that you are 'worth" , if you can swing it, take it. Especially if their is upward advancement opportunity. It is tough but Leave the pride at home. I remember one of the biggest fights I ever go into with my wife. I took a promotion to supervision. great promotion. cost me $25,000 a year. In a little over a year I was back even but I was able to get onto a different career ladder. One with a much higher ceiling. 

 

It's still a tough market out there. If this economy take off in the US again I really don't think the current skilled trade numbers will support it. 

[rockstar.esq]

I saw this article today about how companies are struggling to staff positions because they need employees who can pass a drug test.

This is an interesting wrinkle to me because I can see it from both the employee and the employer's perspective.  Construction is dangerous enough without impaired judgment. 

Then again, I've worked in management and tech sector jobs for the last 20 years or so and none of those companies requested, or required a drug test at any time.  Most of those jobs furnished a company vehicle, and expected me to make safety related decisions all the time.

I've encountered functional alcoholics / drug abusers at all levels of industry, but it's usually the "blue collar" employers that treat it as a safety concern.  I wonder how these news reports might change if employment sobriety standards were universally enforced at all companies. 

[SpankySmith]

I remember a guy I used to work with telling me that he used to be the guy responsible for going to construction sites to perform random drug tests.  He said guys would pick up their tool belts and quit on the spot because they knew they'd fail the test.  I had no idea it was as prevalent, but he said he saw it literally every single time he went to a site, no matter when or where.  

[Frosty]

I'd like to see all laws enforced at all levels. Just imagine what would happen if Congress had to pee in a bottle before a vote? Ever notice the high level folks in the old movies, societies movers and shakers and how every office scene started out with a couple fingers of whisky in a glass? Lets not forget the westerns you never see anybody drink anything bur beer or whisky.

When was the last time you watched a TV program all the way through without a drug commercial, be it advil, (ADULT gummy vitamins!) to cures for virtually everything, as I type there's a Botox commercial for bladder control. Oh and let not forget all the "law() firms" telling us we might have money coming because you took a BAD DRUG.

No fooling people can't pass a UA. Heck, they THINK because pot is now legal to smoke it's legal to be stoned at work.

It really isn't any different now than when the Minoans built an empire, virtually every large site, temple or city had more breweries than graineries.

Frosty The Lucky.

[BIGGUNDOCTOR]

I come from a machining background and I see my trade changing rapidly due to technology. I am manual machinist with very limited CNC experience. I was talking with a guy from Mazak back in 2007 and said it will just be programmers and operators soon. His response was , It isn't even that now. We set up a shop with 7 machines and a kid straight out of college was sitting in the programming office running all of them with robots picking and placing the parts. The programmers, and set up guys are the main guys in the shop now.

The last shop I worked at I was the tool maker.  They were hiring kids right off the street with no machining knowledge at all, doing a quick training, and had them operating the CNC screw machines for around $10 an hour. I see ads looking for a fully qualified journeyman machinist with tools and they offer $12-$15 an hour. That is one reason I went back into plant maintenance where I could make a decent wage. 

At the machine shop we had a time when we were scrambling to find beryllium copper bar stock we needed. The owner contacted one of the mills back east and he was told they were short handed. Out of 140 applicants they could only find 2 that had the skills needed. This not unique to the USA, it is a global shortage. In Germany the population is aging and the birthrate isn't keeping up. That is one reason they are welcoming immigrants, to fill the factories with younger workers. Apprenticeship programs are starting to make a comeback, but it will take some time to get ramped up. Luckily kids are seeing that it is cool to make things, and signing up. Not all will end up making $38 an hour right off , most may not make that ever, but depending on where you live $20-$25 can be a good wage. Manufacturing jobs are starting to come back from China, so we need to get the workers back up to speed. Utah is taking the approach of identifying every manufacturer in the state, finding out what skills they require, then going to the schools and asking "What do you need to teach these skills?". Boeing is bring 5,000-6,000 jobs to Utah over the next 5 years and they need skilled workers. That is one of the reasons they are being proactive now.

The other detriment I see , especially at the last place I worked, is the disconnect between the workers and the management. Today's younger workforce is more mobile, and less tolerant of what they consider under appreciation. That combination was one of the reasons they churned through 45 employees in one year for a company of 63 at the time. If the workforce is not appreciated they move on. Even before I got laid off due to a rapid downturn on orders I was getting ready to move on. The cloud of negativity in the shop was so bad I dreaded going into work. And that cloud was formed by the way management treated the employees, and other decisions they made. I would understand if one of those young kids never wanted to work in another machine shop if they figured they were all run that way. 

I think if US companies took the German Mittelstand approach to running a business we would be better off. They are more slow and steady as opposed to maximizing every ounce of profit as fast as possible like here.  Sir Richard Branson said something to the effect. Train your employees so that they can leave. Treat them in a way so they won't. 

[SpankySmith]

The company I work for right now (and I'm not part of the "younger workforce" Big Un refers to) churns through 20-40 employees A MONTH.  A MONTH!!   We got bought out by a large conglomerate several years ago and the new guys see Personnel as just a budgeted line item - makes no difference to them who is filling the seat, just that it's filled.  You see people with 10-20-30 years experience so frustrated they move on, backfill with someone making 1/10th the wage, it's all good for Corporate.  

"In my day" people just stayed with a company forever, the mentality was you were lucky to have a job, stay for the pension and it'll all be worth it in the end.  Now pensions are pretty much gone, the mindset of what employees do/do not have to put up with has dramatically changed.  When I was coming up it would have been scandalous for a person to change jobs every couple of years - now that is the norm and it doesn't even get any attention to see it on a resume, it's accepted practice, a nod to the way things work (or don't work) now.  We have bred this change - you can't take 20-30 year olds and treat them like they should just be lucky to have a job and thank you every time you give them crap - they'll just walk.  YES, I get the other side, the reason I made a conscious decision to get out of management years ago was the non-stop line of 20 year olds with huge entitlement issues - they felt like they were doing you a favor if they deigned to show up on time for work.  It was immensely frustrating.  As long as we have "old guard" managing "new guard" that tension will always be in place.   Evidence the very large companies like Facebook and Google who are founded by and run by younger folks.  Their mindset about employees is totally different, and they thrive.  

[rockstar.esq]

Spanky,

Sorry to hear about your struggle.  I  believe that timing and opportunity are the most significant factors for success. Unfortunately, that means an awful lot of hard working folks are biding their time.

I'd caution you about the assumption that companies founded by younger folks are actually better.  Just because a place has a slide, a foosball table, and mandatory "fun" days, doesn't mean they do anything that genuinely better for their employees.

I was in silicon valley just before the bubble burst.  One month it's 3 hour traffic jams, catered lunches with live bands, and a seemingly endless parade of management solutions that all came down to "throw money at it, so we can go play".  The next month, it's mass layoffs for everyone, as the companies folded up.

I saw it coming and tried very hard to secure a position that was tied to long term support, rather than new installations.  The bureaucracy was impenetrable.  Eventually I decided to leave that company while I could still find work elsewhere.  During my exit interview, the HR lady told me that she'd received dozens of phone calls from employees all over the world who were upset that I was leaving.  She candidly told me that hadn't happened before, and she wanted to know why people who had literally nothing to do with my job were calling on my behalf.

I told her that there are so many people in charge of little aspects of any given task that it's virtually impossible to simultaneously get permission and deliver your work on time.  Every single one of those people is upbeat, responsive, and energetic, however they're also keen to retain control over their little patch.  Lacking experience, they tended to play "wait and see" with everything that could make them responsible for an unpleasant outcome.

Taken as a whole, it's a friendly group of people all acting like they're on the same team.  Meanwhile, the work to be done is moving in fits and starts through the briar patch of fiefdoms.

All those people calling HR were folks who'd reached out to me asking if I'd help them work around the system.  It sounds ridiculous that a technician in Malaysia would need a technician's help in San Jose to get around a manager in Texas, but it's a daily reality. 

My position involved traveling to the clients site to install a complex machine in clean rooms.  Often the local office would have a young and inexperienced manager in charge of a client's account.  These kids were afraid to ask for client signatures to confirm the machines were delivered, installed, and functional.  Machines that are literally worth millions of dollars.

In Texas, the facility knew that signing started their one year of included technical support.  If they gained even one day of free support, it was worth serious money to them.  After one installation, I had just finished demonstrating that the machine worked perfectly when the facility staff literally ran away just to avoid signing for it! 

Once I stopped laughing at the spectacle of grown adults running in bunny suits, I called my local office for advice.  The kid was terrified and didn't know what to do.  I had a flight out in a few hours, and my manager wanted me on it.  I used a facility phone and eventually got the receptionist to put me through to the person in charge of the entire facility.  He came down and signed five minutes later.  He brought along the signed receipts for a half-dozen other machines that my company had previously installed too.

Nobody at the local office had the "authority" to hold the client to the terms of the contract.  All the kids were too terrified to take the risk of pointing out when something was unfair.

That kind of fecklessness drives the boom and bust nature of business to extremes. Yes they have slides in their offices, and nerf battles on Friday, but absolutely everything relies on ever expanding revenue.  Something that can't go on forever, won't.

[Culver Creek Hunt Club]

On the comment about changing jobs every few years. I am not certain what other companies look at but I know for a fact that engineering graduates were being told in college that "you are worth more to a company that doesn't have you". That may be true in a boom economy but what it also does is have 30 year old's that have 4-5 employers on their resume and have an income that is inflated above their experience level. You can't even learn all the ins and outs of a company's policies and structure in some of the time they were spending in  a job. As soon as a down turn in the economy starts they are the first o be cut. Highest paid with least experience and a proven history to jump ship. I won't even consider a candidate for a position that  has a resume that doesn't indicate a stable work history. Not worth it for us to invest and train for another company's benefit. 

[rockstar.esq]

Culver,  it sounds like you're saying a 30 year old with 4-5 past jobs is changing employers too quickly.  My degree program required two  internships for graduation, and I needed money to pay the bills.  I think my situation was fairly common which means that most college students would have at least two jobs on their resume before graduation.  That means they'd have approximately eight years spent at two companies post graduation.

Four years per job is hardly a flight risk. 

Something you wrote reminded me of something I encountered in the tech bubble.  The companies were willing to pay to relocate you, put you in corporate housing until you could find a place to live, and even help pay off your college debt all to get you in town.  All that went onto a tab that you had to repay on a pro-rated basis if you left them in less than four years.  They also had no-compete contracts blocking you from working in your field for a period of two years post employment.  Still, there was rampant employee poaching going on, even inside the same company.

For some reason the company would never allow a raise to keep someone, but they'd green light a new hire at a higher salary.

[Culver Creek Hunt Club]

I am talking about POST graduation employment. Any employment prior to graduation is always a plus and especially if GPA stays up and they show initiative and discipline where they worked they way through school.