Who comes up with these crazy theories?

[merrylander]

Watching National Business Report last night I heard reasonably intelligent people stating "People who have been out of work for a year are hard to employ because they have lost their skills." What a load of brown smelly stuff, here I have been retired over seven years and have not lost a damn one. Do they really believe this horse puckey?

I sort out all our computer problems, maintain them as well. I still can write as competently as I ever did, maybe even better. At least when I have occasion to write to some CEO or politician I get results. Stilll seem to be able to teach if that is waht you would call walking someone through a receiver repair by remote control over in the other group.

Admittedly I am not as polite as before but then I don't bloody well have to be. One only suffers fools gladly when they are clients.

When I veneer a reciever case they still look as good as ever. Lost my skill set? Bah humbug, cantankerous yes, unskilled hell no.

Only good thing about the show is that Susie is as cute as ever.

[BlueStreak]

It's an excuse to belittle our unemployed in an attempt to justify rehiring at lower salaries, plain and simple.

This is how it works; Choke off the work until they become desperate, then rehire at "new terms", strictly determined by the employers, of course. This is also why they oppose all "safety nets"; Speeding up the desperation process streamilines the overall process.

And the sheeple march duitfully into the voting booth to keep their oppressors in office.
Why? Because, "Working for less is better than not working at all." Around and down we go.......................

Oh, I'm sorry, it's all about "Welfare Queens", overpaid school teachers and keeping the queers from causing flooding in the midwest. My bad.

I refer you to my signature.

Dave

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

It's an excuse to belittle our unemployed in an attempt to justify rehiring at lower salaries, plain and simple.

This is how it works; Choke off the work until they become desperate, then rehire at "new terms", strictly determined by the employers, of course. This is also why they oppose all "safety nets"; Speeding up the desperation process streamilines the overall process.

And the sheeple march duitfully into the voting booth to keep their oppressors in office.
Why? Because, "Working for less is better than not working at all." Around and down we go.......................

Oh, I'm sorry, it's all about "Welfare Queens", overpaid school teachers and keeping the queers from causing flooding in the midwest. My bad.

I refer you to my signature.

Dave

According to that theory three quarters of Thailand and Pakistan must be gay.

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

It's an excuse to belittle our unemployed in an attempt to justify rehiring at lower salaries, plain and simple.

Dave

No, its not that. It's a prejudice among HR practitioners and hiring managers that "if someone has been out of work a while, something must be "wrong" with them." Its nothing new, and its been around for years.

If anything, when I counsel hiring managers on the advantages and disadvantages of particular candidates, I suggest that they de-emphasize their bias against unemployed workers, particularly in this economy. It's still somewhat of a tough sell.

The conventional wisdom is that if you can get a currently employed worker to move, you might have to pay more to get them, but they seem to have more intrinsic value in the workplace. On the contrary, some folks that we've plucked from the unemployment line are hungrier and more motivated to become productive quickly.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

No, its not that. It's a prejudice among HR practitioners and hiring managers that "if someone has been out of work a while, something must be "wrong" with them." Its nothing new, and its been around for years.

If anything, when I counsel hiring managers on the advantages and disadvantages of particular candidates, I suggest that they de-emphasize their bias against unemployed workers, particularly in this economy. It's still somewhat of a tough sell.

The conventional wisdom is that if you can get a currently employed worker to move, you might have to pay more to get them, but they seem to have more intrinsic value in the workplace. On the contrary, some folks that we've plucked from the unemployment line are hungrier and more motivated to become productive quickly.

Yep.

However, you and I are talking about two different things. Macro vs. Micro. At your level, I understand what you're saying and agree completely. Way above you and I, where people choose to shut down entire industries and offshore the work is an entirely different world, with different motivations.

They see the "hungrier" aspect too, and, the hungrier we are, the better. When unemployment is low, wages rise. Do they not? Finding good people to do the work at salaries that are more palatable to them becomes almost impossible. Payrolls swell and cut into profits. So unemployment must rise in order to "correct" the market. Hello, Mexico, China, or wherever. Get it?

Dave

P.s.
And before Chas chimes in, NO, I'm not talking about the guy who remodels bathrooms with a handfull of employees, if any. That also is something entirely different.

[Twodogs]

I know the contractors in my trade look very hard at any man who has been out of work for an extended period (6 months or longer I'd say). In the trades, it would seem that these guys have issues, whether it be aptitude or something as simple as a bad attitude. In other words, if you're worth your sand, someone would have picked you up by 6 months. Even at full employment and with travelers working, my hall will have at least six to a dozen guys on the bench that just are not hire-able due to bad reputations. These guys usually fade away to non union shops and eventually end up in the residential service market.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Yep.

However, you and I are talking about two different things. Macro vs. Micro. At your level, I understand what you're saying and agree completely. Way above you and I, where people choose to shut down entire industries and offshore the work is an entirely different world, with different motivations.

They see the "hungrier" aspect too, and, the hungrier we are, the better. When unemployment is low, wages rise. Do they not? Finding good people to do the work at salaries that are more palatable to them becomes almost impossible. Payrolls swell and cut into profits. So unemployment must rise in order to "correct" the market. Hello, Mexico, China, or wherever. Get it?

Dave

P.s.
And before Chas chimes in, NO, I'm not talking about the guy who remodels bathrooms with a handfull of employees, if any. That also is something entirely different.

Easy now Slick...I still have one employee.

And if I take off my exalted "corporate executive/chairman of the board hat", I'm just another stoopid sumbitch working for the "man".

What I do, besides trying to please my customers, is to take the unemployable, give them with a job, and furnish them with enough skills and pocket change so that they can to tell me to go fuck myself. And the job is so shitty that none of them would show up unless I paid them.

US Steel I ain't.

Why don't you go fix a fucking coffee grinder or something. Any dumb bastard can do that.

One dumb bastard to another...it looks easy on paper. All it requires is a set of specialized skills. Which takes years to learn.

Personally, if I weren't dealing with the dregs of society, I'd just check a prospective employees credit rating.

If he has a good credit rating, he's a responsible sort. And I'd hire 'em.

If I were US Steel.

Down here in the trenches, I hire people I like and I think I can trust. And my crew can veto my decision...they're the one's who have to deal with 'em.

Chas

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Twodogs

I know the contractors in my trade look very hard at any man who has been out of work for an extended period (6 months or longer I'd say). In the trades, it would seem that these guys have issues, whether it be aptitude or something as simple as a bad attitude. In other words, if you're worth your sand, someone would have picked you up by 6 months. Even at full employment and with travelers working, my hall will have at least six to a dozen guys on the bench that just are not hire-able due to bad reputations. These guys usually fade away to non union shops and eventually end up in the residential service market.

Just common sense to me. Especially in construction.

The whole point of construction is to work yourself out of a job.

And the better you are at it, the quicker you work yourself out of a job.

Chas

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Twodogs

I know the contractors in my trade look very hard at any man who has been out of work for an extended period (6 months or longer I'd say). In the trades, it would seem that these guys have issues, whether it be aptitude or something as simple as a bad attitude. In other words, if you're worth your sand, someone would have picked you up by 6 months. Even at full employment and with travelers working, my hall will have at least six to a dozen guys on the bench that just are not hire-able due to bad reputations. These guys usually fade away to non union shops and eventually end up in the residential service market.

I think that is more the case in the trades than in other segments of the economy. It is the nature of the work that many tradesmen move among several employers. I know of some guys who have a pretty steady rotation of 3 or 4 employers they shift between, depending on who has the work. I spent several years defending a union against claims from a group for people who blamed the union because the employers weren't hiring them.

It's a different situation in manufacturing jobs or office jobs. The specialized skills and experience from one job don't always transfer as well to other positions, or the supply of individuals who have developed the general skills is much larger than the number of positions.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

Apples and Oranges gentlemen. The comment that I quoted in the OP was that "people loose their skills after a year", and that is pure unadulterated horse shit.