# Here’s how the unemployment trap works



## onq (28 Aug 2011)

Many posters on AAM may not be aware of the reality of life for unemployed building professionals and other skilled people and the difficulties they face in trying becoming gainfully employed.
Here are some excerpts from an article from the Journal on the problems facing those who actually want to become employed again.
I am quite able to type a thousand words before lunch, but the writer of this article, _Róisín Nic Dhonnacha,_ did it better.

From:

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-here%E2%80%99s-how-the-unemployment-trap-works/

_=======================================================_

_"...AS FINANCIAL PRESSURE increases on everyone, a troubling and  increasing amount of vitriol is being directed at those who find  themselves unemployed. Some consider unemployment a ‘lifestyle option’  in agreement with [broken link removed], others a ‘soul-destroying existence’ as expressed in [broken link removed].__....

__...Training needs to support career development, not be quick drastic  change to chase a job, any job._..

*Overqualified, AKA too expensive*

_...This then brings up the issue  of hiring someone with a huge amount of experience, education and  training into a position reporting to someone who has a significantly  lesser profile. No one is going to do that...

...no manager is going to hire  someone who can run rings around them and ultimately show up their lack  of capability....

...The  rationale employers give is that ‘overqualified’ candidates will move to  another job – which is short sighted considering how few roles are  actually out there._..

*If no one else has hired you…*

_...__There is a real  argument that companies who engage interns should pay them at least a  basic stipend in line with their qualifications and that there should be  real potential for a real job at the end of the internship._

_...Such  companies’ rhetoric is that they are doing their bit to help the  unemployed and Ireland as a country, part of their ‘corporate social  responsibility plan’. No it isn’t, and no they are not. They are making  profit off the backs of free educated, experienced, trained and able  workers without having to pay them...._

*How safe is your job?*

_This  is endorsed by the government and frankly only just falls short of  forced labour. Which is illegal...._

_...‘The system’ has not adequately adapted to the huge shift from  unskilled, uneducated unemployed people to a majority of skilled,  trained, educated and experienced unemployed people..."

__=======================================================
_
The article is worth reading for the overview it gives of its central theme -

The dole queues are no longer populated by poorly educated people with no interest in working.
The entire social demographic of this country is well represented from unemployed professionals to ex-millionaires.
About the only sub-group you won't see clustering around a hatch in their pin striped suits are the bankers who got us into this mess.

This is the reality seasoned and highly skilled professionals face today.
In 2010, I met an architect of twenty years standing who applied for a position.
The job description required someone with experience at designing healthcare facilities.

My colleague was refused the job.
Despite him having previously done award winning work on airports.
Because it didn't say "airport designer acceptable" on the job descriptor.
Any architect with formal training is competent to formulate the brief and design ANY building.
Talent like that was thrown on the scrapheap because a middle manager writes a job descriptor about a profession he knows nothing about.

During the Fetac Level 6 major award course in management I completed recently one of our lecturers addressed us and said - "..you guys don't realize what you bring to the table..."
He was used to trying to bring on groups with mixed ability and he was facing ten people, most of whom had third level education to professional level.
The problem with finding employment in this country is that most potential employers don't know what we bring to the table either.

And we have a social welfare system and an educational system that hasn't a clue how to deal with us.


----------



## JoeB (28 Aug 2011)

And so what's your point?

There is a free market as regards labour,.. so wages can go up and down according to demand. If there is no demand in certain industries then unfortunately people can't find jobs.

This was probably always a problem on a smaller scale. Entire industries died out,.. for example, iron workers shoeing horses, or barrel makers for Guinness, or maybe the textile industry in Donegal. Time moves on, and skills become unwanted or un-neccesary.

While obviously it's hard on the dole,.. if there are too many architects, or other construction related professionals, and no-one to employ them, and no entreprenurial opportunities for them,.. well, then they must look for other work, or perhaps emigrate.

While having a healthy high view of your own skills is important it must be recognised that a person skills are in a particular area... so if there is no architechture work available, then that's it for architects... I can't see what the government can do, other than try to provide an environment in which new construction and architecture projects can flourish. But builing things we don't need in order to keep people employed doesn't seem to make sense.


So the situation hasn't fundementally changed, .. there was always a competative jobs market, in which people had to gain the skills they felt would get them ahead, and then they had to compete for jobs. It's just there's less jobs now, but there are still new and expanding industries for people who's industries have contracted or collasped.


I think that people don't deny the problem, and the problem is understood to a large degree,.. it's the solution that is causing difficulty.

Personally I think the Social Welfare system creates an artificial floor on lifestyle, and that that may be the crux of our problem, we have become a welfare state, where little or no responsibility is taken for personal choices, and many people see the state as only existing in order to give them money, services and benefits.


I think our governence has been atrocious.. a good example being the oil and gas fields we gave away. The Norwegians rate our performance as regards our oil and gas as less than 3 or 4 out of ten.. the guy didn't want to answer the question as the answer was so embarrasing to the Irish. So poor and incompetent governence is a problem, but we keep voting the fools in, .. so perhaps it's democracy that doesn't work.


----------



## onq (28 Aug 2011)

Joe, thank you for replying.

However, you spent 80% of your post denying there was a problem and didn't even consider the points I raised, then went off topic to address the government mis-handling of our natural resources.

That's part of the problem, as I see it.

The current situation is so far out of most people's competence they cannot even address it in a discussion, instead falling back on free market mantras which are part of the reason our indigenous industries are being destroyed by globalization.

Believe me when the market here is flooded with middle managers and manufacturers from India and China undercutting them on everything they produce, then they'll see, but like the boy who cried "Wolf!" it'll be too late for them to do anything.


 People with few competences don't appreciate the effort it takes to acquire them.
 People who type Jobseekers as work-shy twenty somethings are pushing their own political agenda.
 People who fail to support indigenous professionals will see our population denuded of them in short order.
People who say - "go and find work somewhere else" - forget the fact there are no jobs out there to go to - globally!
People who say - "you'll just have to retrain won't you" - forget the cost of training in terms of both money and time and ignore the skills already acquired.
    All that is a given.

This short term glut in the professions is not the issue.
You have touched on the emerging industries in which new job opportunities can be found.
What is not being addressed is how to re-train competent professionals to operate at a senior level in those industries, 
That is, as opposed to leaving them compete with someone who has just finished his leaving for the dish-washing job in the local hotel.

(I happen to be a very competent dishwasher AS WELL BTW having been a dishwasher and a Kitchen Porter in a hotel in my teens  ).

Which brings us back to the article in question.
Most people who do a degree and then go on to work professionally ealize that its only AFTER you qualify that you start learning how to employ your knowledge.
They also realize pretty swiftly that they are using only a fraction of the knowledge they learned about in their college course.
Within a short time after that they find they have a new learning curve for changes in the industry.
Ten years after qualification new regulations means its "all change" at a basic level.

The point I'm making is that competent professionals that keep their skillsets sharp have to do this constantly.
Once the basic body of knowledge has been mastered, its their years of experience that allow then to operate at senior level.
Those years of experience will translate into any workplace or industry, but they have to be thought at a level commensurate with the previous position.

Bluebrick.ie and Springboard offer a useful level of support for people with degrees that allow them to embrace new competences and qualifications in just such a situation.
The problem with such courses is that they are offered to people on Jobseekers only, as opposed to those people who are already showing their ""get up and go" and are on a back to work scheme.
During the management course I was recently on a new initiative was supposed to offer placements for "work experience" to graduates of the course - nothing you could live on and even that course died a death.

We are not seeing joined up thinking in the way the government are addressing the needs of competent people in the current economic crisis.
We are seeing prejudice against employing hugely competent people by middle managers whose sole raison d'etre seems to be covering their backs.
As long as we have the jobs market riddled with self-contradictory job descriptions and interviews run by fearful middle managers, we're in a race to the bottom.

And we're wasting our best talent.


----------



## Purple (29 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> The current situation is so far out of most people's competence they cannot even address it in a discussion, instead falling back on free market mantras which are part of the reason our indigenous industries are being destroyed by globalization.


 Our indigenous industries only exist because of globalisation. 



onq said:


> Believe me when the market here is flooded with middle managers and manufacturers from India and China undercutting them on everything they produce, then they'll see, but like the boy who cried "Wolf!" it'll be too late for them to do anything.


 That’s the great thing about global capital; it has no biases or bigotry, it simply moves to where it can get the best return. Therefore if in the future our businesses are run by Indians or Chinese then so be it. Why shouldn’t they have the same opportunities we have? It is not right for us to stay rich by keeping others poor. 



onq said:


> People with few competences don't appreciate the effort it takes to acquire them.
> People who type Jobseekers as work-shy twenty somethings are pushing their own political agenda.
> People who fail to support indigenous professionals will see our population denuded of them in short order.
> People who say - "go and find work somewhere else" - forget the fact there are no jobs out there to go to - globally!
> ...


So what’s the solution? “They should do something about it” is not a plan. 



onq said:


> Which brings us back to the article in question.
> Most people who do a degree and then go on to work professionally ealize that its only AFTER you qualify that you start learning how to employ your knowledge.
> They also realize pretty swiftly that they are using only a fraction of the knowledge they learned about in their college course.
> Within a short time after that they find they have a new learning curve for changes in the industry.
> ...


That applies to any skilled job and any skill set acquired in an academic setting. 



onq said:


> Those years of experience will translate into any workplace or industry, but they have to be thought at a level commensurate with the previous position.


That’s just plain wrong and it doesn’t matter how often you say it or in how many different ways. A persons wage is based on the value they have to their employer. I agree that not all employers see the true value of many of their employees but that’s a different point.




onq said:


> We are not seeing joined up thinking in the way the government are addressing the needs of competent people in the current economic crisis.
> We are seeing prejudice against employing hugely competent people by middle managers whose sole raison d'etre seems to be covering their backs.
> As long as we have the jobs market riddled with self-contradictory job descriptions and interviews run by fearful middle managers, we're in a race to the bottom.
> 
> And we're wasting our best talent.


Fearful middle managers may be a problem some of the time but no employer is going to take someone on in a position of responsibility and/or skill who they think will leave the first opportunity they get. They is particularly the case in small businesses. The cost of training someone into their post is simply too high. Glib comments from a journalist to the contrary doesn’t change that.


----------



## orka (29 Aug 2011)

I agree with Purple and Joe B that it’s a question of supply and demand – and if the boom years means we have ended up with 2,000 qualified architects when we only have work for 1,000, then there’s only work for 1,000 – we can’t make work and/or artificially prop up wage rates or fees – even if it’s in the hope of a longer term pickup which might provide employment for more than 1,000.  

I also don’t understand your rationale about experience vs training.  On the one hand you say that it’s the years of experience that are important.





onq said:


> Most people who do a degree and then go on to work professionally ealize that its only AFTER you qualify that you start learning how to employ your knowledge.





onq said:


> They also realize pretty swiftly that they are using only a fraction of the knowledge they learned about in their college course. ...
> Once the basic body of knowledge has been mastered, its their years of experience that allow then to operate at senior level.
> Those years of experience will translate into any workplace or industry,


But then you give the example of the architect you met:





onq said:


> In 2010, I met an architect of twenty years standing who applied for a position.





onq said:


> The job description required someone with experience at designing healthcare facilities.
> 
> My colleague was refused the job.
> Despite him having previously done award winning work on airports.
> ...


So if any formally trained architect can design any building, what does experience bring?  If I was finding someone for the job, I would prefer someone with experience of designing healthcare facilities than an award-winning airport architect.  Someone who has designed 20 healthcare facilities will have seen many of them completed, got client feedback on what worked, what could be changed/bettered etc. – and they would be different issues than airport issues.


----------



## Mpsox (29 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> Many posters on AAM may not be aware of the reality of life for unemployed building professionals and other skilled people and the difficulties they face in trying becoming gainfully employed.
> Here are some excerpts from an article from the Journal on the problems facing those who actually want to become employed again.
> I am quite able to type a thousand words before lunch, but the writer of this article, _Róisín Nic Dhonnacha,_ did it better.
> 
> ...


 
There was an interesting discussion about training and courses on the radio on Satruday. One guy from the Computer Games industry was encouraging architects to work at being retrained in his industry because their CAD designs can be applied to the design of games. 

Problem for architects in the majority of them are trained in a field we don't need any more. Therefore they either need to get retrained into something else, accept they'll never work again or leave and work overseas. Same applies for a lot of other professionals.


----------



## Maximus152 (29 Aug 2011)

What’s your point, it’s a free market, Supply and demand will always determine who and when they are needed, not if you or anyone else thinks they are more competent for a certain role. No one is ever indispensible in a job, if they think they are its a fool’s paradise. Even if you think you do wonderful work and are quiet brilliant...economies and free markets decide, the answer as always is to be multi-skilled or multi-disciplined from what I see, that’s one way to ride the rapids
Maximus


----------



## onq (29 Aug 2011)

Mpsox said:


> There was an interesting discussion about training and courses on the radio on Satruday. One guy from the Computer Games industry was encouraging architects to work at being retrained in his industry because their CAD designs can be applied to the design of games.
> 
> Problem for architects in the majority of them are trained in a field we don't need any more. Therefore they either need to get retrained into something else, accept they'll never work again or leave and work overseas. Same applies for a lot of other professionals.





It takes a minimum of 7 years to achieve your Part III's and another two or three years to develop a broad range of competences, so any profession is not something you can skip into or out of.
That having been said, I think the underlying suggestion above, that people with 3D design skills could usefully transfer to a gaming environment is worth pursuing - I shall pass it on - thanks.
Your other comment about leaving and working overseas is also very relevant, and I think in this connected digital age its possible to stay here and still engage with work overseas.


----------



## Purple (30 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> It takes a minimum of 7 years to achieve your Part III's and another two or three years to develop a broad range of competences, so any profession is not something you can skip into or out of.


We employ skilled machinists, usually qualified Toolmakers. It takes a minimum of 10 years to get to a level of competence that would have corresponded with what used to be called a Master Craftsman. My point is that your point above applies to any skilled job.


----------



## Latrade (30 Aug 2011)

The collapse of the building industry has affected lots of trades and professions and not just architects. Unfortunately (or fortunately given the overall damage done to economies on the back of it) that industry has gone and will never come back to the extent it was. 

It's not that I don't sympathise with people, but there was a huge focus on 3rd level education riding on the coat tails of construction and as a result we've fallen behind on being able to have a knowledge base to compete in the new industries.

We needed scientists, engineers (computer, electronic and mechanical not civil), etc. Instead we got solicitors, architects, golf course designers and hotel managers.

Add to that the swelling of adminstrative roles within organisations that are now being (rightly) rationalised and we further created new professions that were essentially very specialised administrative officers. 

It's not easy and it's unfortunate, but there is no unemployment trap only people refusing to accept that the demand froth for their chosen profession has been skimmed and there's an over supply.

The unemployment trap is that some of these people feel it is their right to walk into an equal position to one they had a few years ago. Sorry but that world has gone. 

What needs to be done is breaking down the skills they do have and seeing how that can apply to other positions, maybe even lower level positions. CAD is one, there are numerous areas where CAD experience is essential. But then also looking at what other training can be done in order to develop that experience further. 

It's the same with some businesses, you can't hope the world will suddenly change and go back to how it was just to keep buying your product or services either you adapt or you close up shop.

However, I do feel that there is an element of work the government can do to help on this. It must know what foriegn investment we're chasing and what long term vision it has for this and so it should be looking at how it can help close that skills gap between those unemployed professions and what the investors want.

Surely being able to advertise how it is upskilling and making available more labour and knowledge to that market will help attract the investors. The less upskilling they have to do themselves, the more attractive the market. 

But I don't see that I see a similar denial and that we can just get on our knees and the multinational manufacturing base will stay.


----------



## onq (30 Aug 2011)

Purple said:


> We employ skilled machinists, usually qualified Toolmakers. It takes a minimum of 10 years to get to a level of competence that would have corresponded with what used to be called a Master Craftsman. My point is that your point above applies to any skilled job.



Your comparison of a skilled trade and a profession suits your argument but doesn't stand up to review.

For a degree in architecture you have to complete your Leaving Certificate then complete a five year course to obtain your Part II's (usually with a year out to get experience in an office after third year), then a minimum of two years working under the supervision of a member of the Institute (and sometimes four depending on the quality and complexity of the work) plus an assessment and a further exam to get your Part III's  after which you start developing competence "on your own".

You will be twenty six to twenty nine by that time, assuming you did your Leaving Certificate at eighteen.

A trade usually requires an Junior Certificate and then three to four years - you will be nineteen or twenty by that time.

There is a decade in the difference, with all that this implies in terms of earning potential over the career of the person.

The minimum 2 years after architect's Part II qualification are required to attain the Part III's.
You can then undertake further study to attain a Master's or a Doctorate in Architecture. Another one or two years.

A Machinist is fully qualified after his three to four year course.
I am not aware what further training is required to attain a Master Machinist certificate or where such a Masters is accredited - happy to learn about it if such is the case.


----------



## onq (30 Aug 2011)

Latrade said:


> The collapse of the building industry has affected lots of trades and professions and not just architects. Unfortunately (or fortunately given the overall damage done to economies on the back of it) that industry has gone and will never come back to the extent it was.
> 
> It's not that I don't sympathise with people, but there was a huge focus on 3rd level education riding on the coat tails of construction and as a result we've fallen behind on being able to have a knowledge base to compete in the new industries.
> 
> ...



That is not the case - read the article before commenting LAtrade.

The trap is that vastly experienced people are available for work having already upskilled or retrained, but are being discounted as candidates because of office politics by their less well qualified and less experienced interviewers/ employers.

Of course, this possibly goes all the way up the line to the captains of industry themselves, many of whom are good businessmen but haven't any qualifications at running a business having learn by the seat of their pants what measures to take, what corners to cut and what soundbites to use in place of logical argument and how to distort arguments or ignore them to make a point.

But let's take your suggestion online and people now in third level or competent professionals who are retraining decide to commit to these professions and skills you suggest are necessary.
Many are honours degree courses taking four years - what happens when they come our of university with a degree under their belt to be told that the industry has no need for them?

The way this country and the world is being mis-managed under capitalism is storing up a huge well of resentment amongst the lower 80% of the population.
 Its clear some management strategies need to be applied economically, because the boom and bust cycles, the surplus and shortages, is not how a well run system should be managed.
Its how an uninformed population allows themselves to be manipulated by people promoting a "light regulation" agenda, who use these booms and busts to make vast profits and extract wealth from the economy.

But thankfully there are other approaches and other measures of success.


----------



## Staples (30 Aug 2011)

Latrade said:


> We needed scientists, engineers (computer, electronic and mechanical not civil), etc. Instead we got solicitors, architects, golf course designers and hotel managers.


 

That's at the heart of it.

Regretably, some skills are effectively redundant (or alt least in much less demand).  You can speak at length about how unfair this is but it really doesn't alter the reality.

Education is an investment which, like any other, doesn't guarantee any particular outcome.  Third level qualifications don't guarantee a sustainable income over a working life.  More than ever, there is, and will continue to be, a need for workers to procatively adapt their skills to shifting industry demands.  The challenge for Government is to provide the means by which they can do so.

While the construction industry may well improve, it will never return to the level it was at during the boom.  The game has changed and we would do well to acknowledge this and deal with the consequences.


----------



## Staples (30 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> The trap is that vastly experienced people are available for work having already upskilled or retrained, but are being discounted as candidates because of office politics by their less well qualified and less experienced interviewers/ employers.


 
You seem to think that a company's role when it comes to recruitment is to go to all possible lengths to understand the skills of all potential candidates.

This is unrealistic. The measure of any succesful recruitment is the extent to which the person selected susbsequently works effectively in the role to which they were recruited. If that means that other potentially worthy candidates get overlooked, so be it. Recruitment is an inexact process. Companies won't spend time or money seeking the best possible candidate if they can get a good enough one fairly quickly. 

In my experience, many professional jobseekers (particularly younger ones) still seem to think that their value should be automatically recognised and that their status is such that they shouldn't have to "sell" themselves. They are inequipped to deal with the current economic realities.

Companies responsibilities are to themselves and their shareholders - not the legions of unemployed. The sooner that becomes universally understood, the better.


----------



## Latrade (30 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> That is not the case - read the article before commenting LAtrade.
> 
> The trap is that vastly experienced people are available for work having already upskilled or retrained, but are being discounted as candidates because of office politics by their less well qualified and less experienced interviewers/ employers.
> 
> ...


 
Look, architects are not a special case, they do not deserve any special attention or focus over and above others who are professional who based their choice of profession on the construction industry and its peripherals.

You say and others in the article (that I did read thank you) provide anecdotal evidence that they were passed over for a job. They have no idea what the company were looking for or wanted or why others were selected. They're guessing. There is an over supply at the moment of these professions, unlike in the past, employers can afford to be choosy. 

What can happen is that people can continue to blame everyone else for their situation or look at what they can do to help themselves. Yes the government can do more, it breaks my heart that despite the screams from Google and other tech companies that it needs engineers will gladly go to where the engineers are, that the state ignored this (and parents when "encouraging" their child to chose a proper profession). The state also ignored the cry from Pharmachem on the need for scientists. 

But people have the potential to learn these skills to some extent, architects have the artistic streak of design and precision that would appeal to many in the computer engineering sector. The trap is only there for those who can't see the woods for the trees. Their profession is becoming the weight holding them back, it's their skills that are important.


----------



## Purple (30 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> Your comparison of a skilled trade and a profession suits your argument but doesn't stand up to review.
> 
> For a degree in architecture you have to complete your Leaving Certificate then complete a five year course to obtain your Part II's (usually with a year out to get experience in an office after third year), then a minimum of two years working under the supervision of a member of the Institute (and sometimes four depending on the quality and complexity of the work) plus an assessment and a further exam to get your Part III's  after which you start developing competence "on your own".
> 
> ...


I am not aware of any apprenticeship that takes less than 4 years. 
In the case of engineering trades it is 4 years and I am not aware of any employer who will take on an apprentice that doesn’t have a leaving cert. In our case we will only offer an employee an apprenticeship after they have worked here for at least a year and demonstrated the correct aptitude and attitude. That brings them to 23. They will then have to spend a further 3-5 years working under an experienced tradesperson, during which time they will have to complete numerous other courses at night (City and Guilds etc)and in house, to be regarded as fully capable and qualified. 

I am not saying that an apprenticeship and a degree are equal, they are very different things. I am merely trying to correct your misconception that a 19 year old with a senior trades cert will be taken seriously as a skilled tradesperson by any employer. The idea is nonsense.




onq said:


> The minimum 2 years after architect's Part II qualification are required to attain the Part III's.
> You can then undertake further study to attain a Master's or a Doctorate in Architecture. Another one or two years.


Great, but that’s not necessary to call yourself an architect.  



onq said:


> A Machinist is fully qualified after his three to four year course.


 “Machinist” is not a trade. 


onq said:


> I am not aware what further training is required to attain a Master Machinist certificate or where such a Masters is accredited - happy to learn about it if such is the case.


 Trades are not professions so they do not pretend to be self regulating and do not have closed shops in order to maintain their incomes. Therefore what they can do is more important than what courses they have completed. There are guilds of master craftsmen etc but as these are self regulating they are not taken seriously. 

I have employed solicitors, barristers and architects in the past. I have never queried their qualifications, instead I looked for references that proved their skills, met them and sized them up as people and before hiring them I looked for proof that they were insured. The same applied to tradesmen I employed. It has usually worked out ok.

All of the above is a side issue. It doesn’t matter how well qualified an architect is and it doesn’t matter how well qualified a tradesperson is, if there’s no work for them then their skills and qualifications are worthless. If there is a shortage of work then prices will drop and quality will rise to the top.


----------



## Purple (30 Aug 2011)

Latrade said:


> Their profession is becoming the weight holding them back, it's their skills that are important.



Very well put. There is a sense of entitlement in some people because of the qualification they may have. This is absurd; nobody owes you anything because you choose to acquire a certain set of skills. 
A friend of mine spend 4 years in the National College of Art and Design studying embroidery. She couldn’t get a job or make a living with her skills when she left. I wasn’t surprised. Either was she. She doesn’t feel the government failed her or that she is the victim of international capitalism or the Illuminati.


----------



## Firefly (30 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> We are seeing prejudice against employing hugely competent people by middle managers whose sole raison d'etre seems to be covering their backs.
> As long as we have the jobs market riddled with self-contradictory job descriptions and interviews run by fearful middle managers, we're in a race to the bottom.



Hi ONQ,

I'd imagine that most architecs practices are pretty small and that any new hire is approved and reviewed by the owner / partner rather than a middle manager. If this is the case then any middle manager that's feeling threatened by experienced candidates would be found out pretty quickly. If you see a particular job then you could always write directly to the owner/parter. 

I'm going to say something non-pc here. I think that age discrimmination is also at play. Why hire someone in their 40s/50s with a wife and kids (who was probably doing quite well until recently and is therefore a pit peeved/leveraged now) when you can hire someone in their early 30s for probably a lot less money, who has time on their side to add to the company and who doesn't have the same commitments? Why hire someone who was very senior in their position until recently who will probably now feel disheartened and may leave if/when things improve rather than someone younger and happy to learn the ropes? By the way, I think that is sad and unfair and discriminatory and hope I'm never in that position but I think it is more common than not being hired because the person hiring feels threatened by experienced candidates.

I also find it interesting that not a single person within the building industry raised any alarm bells when we were building 90,000 houses in a year! The goose with the golden egg has been killed and all those who benefited were happy to take the proceeds when they were going. 

Firefly.


----------



## Firefly (30 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> The way this country and the world is being mis-managed under capitalism is storing up a huge well of resentment amongst the lower 80% of the population.
> Its clear some management strategies need to be applied economically, because the boom and bust cycles, the surplus and shortages, is not how a well run system should be managed.
> Its how an uninformed population allows themselves to be manipulated by people promoting a "light regulation" agenda, who use these booms and busts to make vast profits and extract wealth from the economy.



Me again!

I'm no economist and I'm sure someone like Chris could better explain this a lot better than me, but capitalism occurs when there is little or no government intervention and the market is left largely to itself. What we had over the last decade was MASSIVE government intervention. Tax breaks for hotels, mortgage interest relief for homeowners, heads of government ignoring warnings from the CB/Financial Regulator, the allowing of 100% mortgages by the F Gegulator, zoning scandals (limiting the supply of land) and all the rest. If the market was truely free from government interference perhaps this would not have happened...then again maybe it would..but the fact is that we don't know as we do not have a capitalist state.


----------



## Latrade (30 Aug 2011)

Purple said:


> Very well put. There is a sense of entitlement in some people because of the qualification they may have. This is absurd; nobody owes you anything because you choose to acquire a certain set of skills.
> A friend of mine spend 4 years in the National College of Art and Design studying embroidery. She couldn’t get a job or make a living with her skills when she left. I wasn’t surprised. Either was she. She doesn’t feel the government failed her or that she is the victim of international capitalism or the Illuminati.


 
I've always had a sense that in employment 3rd level qualifications are important, but it's less the specific subject for most and more what it proves you're capable of and of course a demonstration of certain skills. When you do a degree you find subjects and parts that you find more interesting than others, that's natural, you should push these and also explore them as part of any development. 

I too have a friend who did embroidery, she has a small online craft shop doing some good embroidery, but she used the degree to demonstrate a skill in design. She now works in the design department for a huge tech company.

There are further shifts in employment coming fairly soon and again we need to be ready for this. It won't be too long before the standard IT jobs in companies starts to lose numbers as cloud computing takes over. Plus Microsoft should be concerned that HP is getting out of the PC business (given they only do software and HP would be their biggest carrier by some distance). 

The point is that you have to be prepared to reinvent yourself and your career and not take for granted that your chosen profession will always be in such demand or so lucrative. 

There are areas in the country where there is an unemployment trap. Small towns where the choice of employment is/was limited and have lost those employers. They don't have the luxury of a 3rd level education or a professional base. 

To use sporting metaphors, professionals should stop looking where the puck is and instead look at where it is going to be. It doesn't take too much research to realise what is going to dominate the world in the next 10 years and how you can position yourself to be a part of that. 

Again, take Google. Their recruitment is still slightly odd but simply two critical requirements: academic qualifications and can you fit into the Google culture. If you're a computer engineer too then you will be a God. But have a look also at the jobs on the Google website, those jobs have been up there for at least 6 months in some cases, but we haven't got the skills to fill them. One of the biggest companies in the world is screaming for these skills and all we can offer is thousands of HR officers.


----------



## onq (30 Aug 2011)

Latrade said:


> Look, architects are not a special case, they do not deserve any special attention or focus over and above others who are professional who based their choice of profession on the construction industry and its peripherals.


Straw man argument -  I did not make a special case for architects, nor am I doing it now.


> You say and others in the article (that I did read thank you) provide anecdotal evidence that they were passed over for a job. They have no idea what the company were looking for or wanted or why others were selected. They're guessing. There is an over supply at the moment of these professions, unlike in the past, employers can afford to be choosy.


That's dismissing the argument, not addressing it LAtrade.
The point is that middle managers are deliberately choosing people of lesser ability because of their own relative shortcomings. Maybe it comes from the top down, I don't know.


> What can happen is that people can continue to blame everyone else for their situation or look at what they can do to help themselves.
> (snip)


Well this is doing just that - highly competent people whose skillsets exceed those that are required are calling attention to the fact that they are being passed over as candidates based on no good reason that they can see. There is no level playing field here. The actions of hirers are ageist and presumptive


> But people have the potential to learn these skills to some extent, architects have the artistic streak of design and precision that would appeal to many in the computer engineering sector.


You have no idea how true that is.
By my estimation, it is the most broadly based of the professions, and is eminently suited to being a springboard(!) to other work.

Architects (and here I am making a point from my own experience, not  making a case) don't just do "design" - we do laboratory and theoretical  work in Physics and Chemistry for two years, four years of Structural  Engineering, four years of Economics and Cost Control, two years of Law, etc., etc.

Post graduate work (in my case) involves learning how to assist in managing staff in companies from thirteen to seventy five.


> The trap is only there for those who can't see the woods for the trees.


Here we differ. There is growing evidence that relatively inexperienced middle managers are covering their assess by not hiring more competent and experienced people at bargain prices.

This refutes your other argument about retraining and satisfying the market.
You cannot satisfy a market where the less able are prejudiced against you.
In real terms they are damaging their companies' ability to hire massively competent people for a fraction of their previous charge out rates as professionals (not the net income rates).


> Their profession is becoming the weight holding them back, it's their skills that are important.


I warmly welcome your comments especially the last sentence.

This works both ways.

For professionals to re-train they need to adjust their self image to see themselves as not something other than the professional person they have dedicated their whole professional life to becoming - that is going to be very hard to do but its do-able.

But for those professionals to be gainfully employed again, the prejudice shown to them by less competent middle managers because of their previous professional qualification must be banished from the workplace, perhaps by a new law if that is required.

The unemployment trap is cased by employers not seeing past the previous professional qualification.

This ass-covering by middle managers may serve, or may be exacerbated by Employers who have a similar fear of employing someone who is more than capable of running their business at management level.


----------



## Latrade (30 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> For professionals to re-train they need to adjust their self image to see themselves as not something they have dedicated their whole professional life to becoming - that is hard to do but do-able.
> 
> But for those professionals to be gainfully employed again, the prejudice shown to them by less competent middle managers because of their previous professional qualification must be banished from the workplace, perhaps by a new law if that is required.
> 
> ...


 
If you're going to start dismissing people and where they disagree with you by accusing them of using strawman arguments and other such examples of logical fallacies, then don't pepper your own argument with the same things.

You state that it is incompetent middle managers who are the cause of the architect's woes without any actual evidence other than the opinion of those who are perhaps a little bitter from rejection. 

Have I gone for jobs I'm more than qualified and experienced for and not got them? Yes. Was the person who got the job younger and less experienced? Yes. But having been involved in hiring people I realise it's not just about your cv and perhaps I just wouldn't have fitted there. I also realise that in some cases my salary demands would have been double the person they did hire. 

But to leap from that to your conclusion about middle management is just illogical.


----------



## Purple (30 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> The point is that middle managers are deliberately choosing people of lesser ability because of their own relative shortcomings. Maybe it comes from the top down, I don't know.





onq said:


> There is growing evidence that relatively inexperienced middle managers are covering their assess by not hiring more competent and experienced people at bargain prices.
> 
> This refutes your other argument about retraining and satisfying the market.
> You cannot satisfy a market where the less able are prejudiced against you.
> ...






onq said:


> The unemployment trap is cased by employers not seeing past the previous professional qualification.
> 
> This ass-covering by middle managers may serve, or may be exacerbated by Employers who have a similar fear of employing someone who is more than capable of running their business at management level.



You keep restating this as if it is fact. It isn't, it is the opinion of a journalist based on some anecdotal evidence and the one-sided opinions of architects who didn’t get the jobs they applied for.
It is just as likely (at the very least) that the interviewer looked at the skills on offer and the person who held them and came to the balanced and correct decision that someone else was a better candidate. Maybe in some cases the other candidate was also an architect, we just don’t know. 
It is much easier to convince yourself that the interviewer was wrong than to accept that you weren’t good enough to get the job.


----------



## onq (30 Aug 2011)

orka said:


> I also don’t understand your rationale about experience vs training.  On the one hand you say that it’s the years of experience that are important.But then you give the example of the architect you met:So if any formally trained architect can design any building, what does experience bring?



The experience I referred to was not experience in design.

It was general post graduate experience as a professional in dealing with clients, forms of building contracts and the system of statutory approvals.

Most of this isn't covered in a hands on way in a five year full time course, although you are strongly advised to take a year out to familiarize yourself with office practice and procedures.


> If I was finding someone for the job, I would prefer someone with experience of designing healthcare facilities than an award-winning airport architect.  Someone who has designed 20 healthcare facilities will have seen many of them completed, got client feedback on what worked, what could be changed/bettered etc. – and they would be different issues than airport issues.


Architects as a rule don't specialize in particular building types - they are specialize in design _per se_ - design of all kinds of buildings from formulating the brief to completion.

Even where they do, the timescale of projects and the different requirements in each location/country mean that each building project is is unique.
its true to say that the basic layout of most schools haven't changed for a hundred years and its possible to trot our formulaic plans to some degree.
However the mode of teaching or building practices or technology doesn't stand still and each site *is* unique.
Therefore the "set of drawings plonked on the site" approach may not yield an economical result.

In that regard experience of "doing schools" as opposed to "doing offices" is of limited relevance.
Its a bit like saying that a machine shop that turns out bearings for a particular machine cannot make a door handle.
A degree of re-tooling may be required, but then you may find that the "bearing specialist" can do it cheaper because they just bought a newer machine, or thought of a new method of production.

Therefore the ability of an architect who has done airport design will not be in any way inferior, in terms of complexity and detailing overview, to the ability of an architect who has specialized in schools design.

The really relevant question would be, if you're dealing with a firm or person - whether their set up can handle the peak workload.
This would not apply in the case of someone being employed directly by an office to provide a professional design service.

Ramping up manpower and employing skilled people might have been a problem in the boom - not so now.
Plus fighting for attention because the person has too much other work on is a distant possibility.

I hope that clarifies your queries.


----------



## Staples (30 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> The point is that middle managers are deliberately choosing people of lesser ability because of their own relative shortcomings.


 
This is nonsense.

Any evidence in support of this view is anecdotal and comes from disaffected unsuccessful job applicants who, quite naturally, would prefer to believe that their failure to land a job is someone else's fault.


----------



## onq (30 Aug 2011)

Purple said:


> You keep restating this as if it is fact. It isn't, it is the opinion of a journalist based on some anecdotal evidence and the one-sided opinions of architects who didn’t get the jobs they applied for.
> It is just as likely (at the very least) that the interviewer looked at the skills on offer and the person who held them and came to the balanced and correct decision that someone else was a better candidate. Maybe in some cases the other candidate was also an architect, we just don’t know.
> It is much easier to convince yourself that the interviewer was wrong than to accept that you weren’t good enough to get the job.



That's a comment that's not based on fact either, just a contrary conjecture based on your perspective as an employer.

I accept it at that level, but the old canard of "weren't good enough to get the job" is a poor cousin of what you should've said "weren't deemed suitable for the job" - the get-out clause favoured by employers who don't want to be hauled up on a discrimination charge.

The above therefore is merely a dismissive rebuttal that doesn't actually address the issues raised, namely that employers and interviewers are fearful of and prejudiced against employing people who may appear on the surface of it to be more competent and intelligent than they are.

Perish the though that with such competent people employed, the suggestion box might actually have wonderful ideas in it for cutting costs and improving productivity instead of the usual "ensure your employees think they're contributing" function it normally plays.

The results of such inferiority complexes will the mediocre performances of Irish companies in terms of innovation and marketing in the next ten years.

They will founder because a prime source of new thinking - professionals from the building sector - are being blocked from offering their retrained skills to employers in other sectors - by people acting from prejudice and fear.


----------



## onq (30 Aug 2011)

Staples said:


> This is nonsense.
> 
> Any evidence in support of this view is anecdotal and comes from disaffected unsuccessful job applicants who, quite naturally, would prefer to believe that their failure to land a job is someone else's fault.



Is that the only level of rebuttal here to a reasoned argument?


----------



## Purple (30 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> Its a bit like saying that a machine shop that turns out bearings for a particular machine cannot make a door handle.
> A degree of re-tooling may be required, but then you may find that the "bearing specialist" can do it cheaper because they just bought a newer machine, or thought of a new method of production.


A better example is a machine shop that usually services the electronics industry then trying to service the medical device industry. The basic skills may be the same but the level and type of required ISO certification is different, as is the type and level of record keeping, internal auditing, traceability, method of cleaning and packaging, materials segregation, allowable chemicals and solvents, product finishing, machine tool inspection (servicing, preventative maintenance, biological particle checks etc), process control and in-process and final inspection. That’s why you find machine shops that tend to specialise in particular sectors and subsectors. For example one company may be well able to service a medical equipment manufacturer but be unable to service a medical implant manufacturer. This level of specialisation and sub-specialisation is the rule rather than the exception.   



onq said:


> Therefore the ability of an architect who has done airport design will not be in any way inferior, in terms of complexity and detailing overview, to the ability of an architect who has specialized in schools design.


 If there are particular areas or pitfalls involved in designing a facility that requires inspection by the Irish Medicines Board I would rather hire someone with experience in that area.


----------



## onq (30 Aug 2011)

Latrade said:


> If you're going to start dismissing people and where they disagree with you by accusing them of using strawman arguments and other such examples of logical fallacies, then don't pepper your own argument with the same things.


Learn what a straw man argument is before you comment on it. I didn't dismiss your entire post, but I can recognize a straw man when I see one.
You claimed I was making a special case for architects when I wasn't - I used an example from my profession because I knew the details.
The original article and my subsequent assertions did not make a case especially for architects - why would I limit my footprint.

In point of fact the "you're making a special case" line is a form of ad-hominem attack based on the "you're only in it for yourself fallacy"
Neither the straw man, disingenuous statement or ad hominem attack strategies address the point being made.



> You state that it is incompetent middle managers who are the cause of the architect's woes without any actual evidence other than the opinion of those who are perhaps a little bitter from rejection.


First of all, I didn't state anything in particular to architects.
Secondly the particular person who told me his experience wasn't bitter, just surprised that people knew so little about the profession that they had pigeon-holed him
Thirdly, my comment refers to relatively less competent - no "incompetent" - middle managers - please read my posts before commenting.
Finally my comment was not a straw man argument, it was not even a reply - it was an assertion based on reasoned conjecture and experience.


> Have I gone for jobs I'm more than qualified and experienced for and not got them? Yes. Was the person who got the job younger and less experienced? Yes. But having been involved in hiring people I realise it's not just about your cv and perhaps I just wouldn't have fitted there. I also realise that in some cases my salary demands would have been double the person they did hire.
> 
> But to leap from that to your conclusion about middle management is just illogical.


Just because you swallowed what they said to you instead of challenging it in a public forum doesn't make my stance illogical.
Management have vested interests in exploiting workers - "there is a limit to how much one man can earn without exploiting others" - that is a given in any hierarchical system - even architectural practices (!)
That doesn't mean prospective employees should accept management cant a Gospel - in fact where something supports the exploitation of workers you should scrutinize it closely, not accept it without reservation.


----------



## Latrade (30 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> Learn what a straw man argument is before you comment on it. I didn't dismiss your entire post, but I can recognize a straw man when I see one.
> That's not a straw man argument, that's an assertion based on reasoned conjecture and experience.
> Just because you swallowed what they said to you instead of challenging it in a public forum doesn't make my stance illogical.
> 
> ...


 
This is getting ridiculous. I don't need you tell me what a strawman argument is. What I need now though is for you to explain how an argument based upon anecdotal evidence suddenly becomes reasonable conjecture. And also while you're on wikipedia see if it has a page for "Fallacy of the single cause" or "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" and double check on your understanding of Ad hominem as I didn't attack you or dismiss your argument based on you. I dismissed your argument based on I didn't believe it.

However, if despite what many posters are saying, you feel the only reason architects are stuck in unemployment is because of middle managers, then there's really nothing anyone can add to this thread. 

If you're willing to discuss a) that recruitment isn't always about cv (and as I mentioned I've recruited a lot of people and it isn't just about cv, but then I suppose my own anecdotal evidence is for you to debase too) and b) whether there are options available to professionals who are unemployed and c) what other factors may lie behind large volumes of unemployed professionals, then we can.


----------



## Purple (30 Aug 2011)

ONQ, There is no evidence to back up the assertion that people with professional qualifications in the construction sector are not being offered jobs because of the insecurity or ignorance of those hiring in other sectors. It is an opinion which may be true in some cases but one swallow doesn’t make a summer. 
Before you dismiss those who question the above assertion you should at least back it up with some statistics or at least more than the opinions of a small number of people, none of whom are in possession of all of the facts.


----------



## Sunny (30 Aug 2011)

There are numerous reasons why companies wouldn't hire someone. I have seen examples of someone with huge experience being hired and coming in and being completely set in their ways from their old company and had no desire to learn from other people or change. It had to be done his way. Was a complete disaster and we ended up replacing him with someone with half his experience but was a perfect fit for the company.

Having said all that, I still don't understand the point of this thread!


----------



## Staples (30 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> Is that the only level of rebuttal here to a reasoned argument?


 
Hard to say.  Maybe if you offered a reasoned argument you'd find out.


----------



## onq (30 Aug 2011)

Purple said:


> ONQ, There is no evidence to back up the assertion that people with professional qualifications in the construction sector are not being offered jobs because of the insecurity or ignorance of those hiring in other sectors.


I didn't say ignorance played a part at all - don't put words in my mouth.

Fear of employing people relatively more experienced and competent than they are would be the motivational factors here.


> It is an opinion which may be true in some cases


Thank you for conceding the point


> but one swallow doesn’t make a summer.


(chuckle)
One is all I need to see to prove they exist.
Where there is one, there are likely to be others.



> Before you dismiss those who question the above assertion you should at least back it up with some statistics or at least more than the opinions of a small number of people, none of whom are in possession of all of the facts.


Others have dismissed my arguments. I didn't dismiss theirs, I rebutted them.

I am happy to accept a point such that not all employers will behave like this, that in many cases "the fit" of the person in the company is very important (using whatever criteria applies) and that my comment cannot therefore be applied universally.

On the other hand this is a situation where there is a likelihood of dissembling because of a possible action under the discrimination legislation.
Also proof of motivation cannot be offered empirically where it can be subject to a simple denial.

Therefore, my assertion relies on my understanding of human nature, the quality of people I have met in middle and senior management in my career to date and the likelihood of the writer of the original article having hit the nail squarely on the head.


----------



## Staples (30 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> On the other hand this is a situation where there is a likelihood of dissembling because of a possible action under the discrimination legislation.


 
There are nine possible grounds for discrimination.

Perhaps you could clarify which one you think employers would be exposed to in the circumstances you describe.


----------



## onq (30 Aug 2011)

Latrade said:


> What I need now though is for you to explain how an argument based upon anecdotal evidence suddenly becomes reasonable conjecture.


I'd say the "evidence" part of "anecdotal evidence" might be relevant.
The reasonableness of it rests on whether it accords with one's experience of human nature.

Q. "Are people afraid of being made to look bad by comparison with others?" 

A. "Yes, this is a primary fear."

Sounds reasonable to me.


> I dismissed your argument based on I didn't believe it.


Thank you for confirming you "dismissed it" on the basis of belief as opposed to "refuted it" on the basis of evidence.


> However, if despite what many posters are saying, you feel the only reason architects are stuck in unemployment is because of middle managers, then there's really nothing anyone can add to this thread.


I used the example of an architect.
The example was particular to him being employed on a particular building type.
It centred on a lack of understanding of what he brought to the table, which I clarified following a question.
It did not centre on the general issue of why professionals and highly competent people in general are being kept in an unemployment trap by less competent middle managers - that came from the original article.

Contrary to your opinion, quite a lot of people have added substantially to the discussion of this issue on this thread - its been a most enlightening experience to see the limits of their arguments against.

Disbelief in the Proposition.
Lack of Empirical Proof.
Other Reasons Exist.

None of these actually refute the argument proposed in the article I quoted.



> If you're willing to discuss a) that recruitment isn't always about cv (and as I mentioned I've recruited a lot of people and it isn't just about cv, but then I suppose my own anecdotal evidence is for you to debase too) and b) whether there are options available to professionals who are unemployed and c) what other factors may lie behind large volumes of unemployed professionals, then we can.


I've been discussing all of the above.
I just called you on a straw man argument and here you are implying that I haven't been discussing these very points.
If there's any "debasing" of "anecdotal evidence" its not being done by me.


----------



## Mpsox (30 Aug 2011)

I'm a middle manager inundated with CVs at the minute because I'm taking on a few people for a new project. So why do I reject people.?

A CV is an advert for an individual and should be treated like one. 
I quite happily reject people (many with a whole pile of qualifications) who don't know how to use spell check
I reject people who take a shotgun approach to job applications and fire out a hundred CVs to ads they've seen online without even thinking about the job in question
I reject people who clearly don't have the skills for the role
I reject people who seem to have a different job every year or so, it indicates they don't stay or aren't kept. 
I reject people CVs that are too long and boring, I don't have the time to read them and it's up to the applicant to sell themselves to me
I rejected the guy whose voice mail said, "if I like you I'll call you back and if I don't f..k off". He was a very well qualified moron who is probably still on the dole

I interview people who seem to have the skills to do the job, seem to be interested in the roll. At interview stage
I reject people who can't be bothered turning up, 
can't be bothered making an effort with their appearance, 
talk to their feet, 
won't fit in with the team we already have in place(regardless of their qualifications or skills), 
smell, 
don't understand what the job is, 
admit they are only looking to work for a few months 
or are so clearly going to be bored out of their tree in 2 months time that they are going to become a liability


I have no issue taking on and reskilling people, my operations manager for example was a qualified fitness instructor. I have staff with far more letters after their name then I have and they do their job very well.

However, to assume I would reject someone because they have more qualifications or skills then me and I'd be afraid of them taking my job is the height of stupidity. In this day and age, if I can get someone who will do a brilliant job, I'll take them, they'll make me look good in the course of doing their own job


----------



## onq (30 Aug 2011)

Staples said:


> There are nine possible grounds for discrimination.
> 
> Perhaps you could clarify which one you think employers would be exposed to in the circumstances you describe.



Age could be one, in the absence of any other determining factor between the candidates.


----------



## Firefly (30 Aug 2011)

Mpsox said:


> I'm a middle manager inundated with CVs at the minute because I'm taking on a few people for a new project. So why do I reject people.?
> 
> A CV is an advert for an individual and should be treated like one.
> I quite happily reject people (many with a whole pile of qualifications) who don't know how to use spell check
> ...




A very good post and worth a read for anyone job hunting. 
I was in a restaurant for lunch the other day. A young guy came in to hand in his CV to the manager (who I kinda know at this stage from going in). He was wearing a tracksuit. When he left his CV went straight into the bin and rightly so IMO.


----------



## orka (30 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> I'd say the "evidence" part of "anecdotal evidence" might be relevant.
> The reasonableness of it rests on whether it accords with one's experience of human nature.
> 
> Q. "Are people afraid of being made to look bad by comparison with others?"
> ...


If your 'evidence' proves your case, then surely no-one anywhere would ever hire anyone more competent than themslves (human nature innit?) - which would doom all companies to ever decreasing competence level.  Clever original employee hires less clever colleague who hires even less clever colleague who hires mediocre colleague who hires slightly stupid colleague who hires stupid colleague who hires really stupid colleague who hires moron...


----------



## Firefly (30 Aug 2011)

orka said:


> If your 'evidence' proves your case, then surely no-one anywhere would ever hire anyone more competent than themslves (human nature innit?) - which would doom all companies to ever decreasing competence level.  *Clever original employee hires less clever colleague who hires even less clever colleague who hires mediocre colleague who hires slightly stupid colleague who hires stupid colleague who hires really stupid colleague who hires moron...*



You don't work where I do, do you?


----------



## orka (30 Aug 2011)

Firefly said:


> You don't work where I do, do you?


Only if I can be the original employee... How long have you worked here?


----------



## Purple (30 Aug 2011)

Very well said MPsox.
For a long time I have been of the opinion that if I’m paying someone I want to learn from them as well.
I like working with people who make me better at my job (rather than making it look like I’m better at it) while doing theirs.

I honestly don’t know anyone who would be afraid to hire someone because that person is more skilled/competent than they are.


----------



## Latrade (30 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> If there's any "debasing" of "anecdotal evidence" its not being done by me.


 
ONQ, just go back over the thread. I offered a comment on the general nature of the article and the unemployment trap as you presented. I put forward an argument that it wasn't as simple as that and that a lot of professions based on the construction industry were in a similar situation. Your first response was to reject my argument by assuming I hadn't read the article. And what do we call that form of approach? 

Purple put forward a comparisson with Master Craftsmen. Your response was to say it isn't comparible even though it was.  

I and others have suggested we are all involved in hiring people and that we offer our own examples of what influences our decisions. I have hired people who are much better than me on paper and in person and encouraged them after a while to go for other positions. Three of whom are in more senior positions now than me. I have also rejected people who on paper were ideal, but who on interview didn't fit with the culture. It's not tangible, I can't explain it, but I could tell they weren't right for us and we weren't right for them. 

I'll also point to Apple, Google, Facebook, HP and numerous other excellent employers where the culture is to employ people better than you. This has been learned from Pixar and their policies. My generation are now the CEOs and they're influencing decisions and hiring policies, this is now creeping into other industries.

The problem is we have gone from a point where professional people (myself included) had all the power to the extent that we could at the drop of a hat send off our CV and get another job and probably for better money. We now can't. We now have to compete with hundreds/thousands others for those positions. We can hope our CV and experience speaks for itself or we can look at developing what we can offer in addition to the competition or look at what our experience could contribute to a different field altogether. 

The point however is that this is a reasoned rebuttal to your ascertion that incompetence and fear of stronger employees stands in the way of people being hired. 

As to refuting your point I can't because it is not possible to refute anecdotal evidence, I can offer a rebuttal that in my (and it appears others') experience there is more to picking candidates than being scared they are better than you.


----------



## onq (30 Aug 2011)

Purple said:


> A better example is a machine shop that usually services the electronics industry then trying to service the medical device industry. The basic skills may be the same but the level and type of required ISO certification is different, as is the type and level of record keeping, internal auditing, traceability, method of cleaning and packaging, materials segregation, allowable chemicals and solvents, product finishing, machine tool inspection (servicing, preventative maintenance, biological particle checks etc), process control and in-process and final inspection. That’s why you find machine shops that tend to specialise in particular sectors and subsectors. For example one company may be well able to service a medical equipment manufacturer but be unable to service a medical implant manufacturer. This level of specialisation and sub-specialisation is the rule rather than the exception.
> 
> If there are particular areas or pitfalls involved in designing a facility that requires inspection by the Irish Medicines Board I would rather hire someone with experience in that area.




When I was with another firm they did a clean room facility as part of a large FAB installation, one of the first in Ireland at the time.

The brief was carefully formulated with the client to take everything into account.
Specialists were called on to give advice on several aspects of the building.
There was a research period, as with any project an architect does.
Then the building was designed, approved and built.

Architects specialize in design.
Architects don't specialize in getting pigeon-holed.

People in a profession have already specialized - in that profession!
Its a logical fallacy to treat the professions as needing further specialization.

People trying to "get" a barrister who "specializes" in certain court actions make the same mistake.
The issues is whether or not the barrister is of high quality, not where the preponderance of his cases arise.
And barristers, like architects are as good as their last case/building.

To turn your argument totally upside down, I would be much happier to see an architect whose experience and achievements show a wide range of abilities and a mastery of design over several building types and scales.
That way I could be more certain that he would be up to the task of co-ordinating the several disciplines that a specialist class of building would require.
I would be very wary of considering someone for a specialist FAB installation if that person or firm had "only" done schools.


----------



## Purple (30 Aug 2011)

ONQ, I’m not alone in questioning the opinion expressed in the article and supported by you.
My answer to it is to say “I don’t believe it to be true to any meaningful extent”. It is clear that most posters share that view.
Nothing you have posted on this thread so far backs up the assertion (be it implicit or explicit) that the opinion of the journalist it based on anything other than a few anecdotal cases. It’s good for a chat down the pub but that’s about it.


----------



## onq (30 Aug 2011)

Latrade said:


> ONQ, just go back over the thread. I offered a comment on the general nature of the article and the unemployment trap as you presented. I put forward an argument that it wasn't as simple as that and that a lot of professions based on the construction industry were in a similar situation. Your first response was to reject my argument by assuming I hadn't read the article. And what do we call that form of approach?
> 
> Purple put forward a comparisson with Master Craftsmen. Your response was to say it isn't comparible even though it was.
> 
> ...



Your comment is generally well balanced and reasoned and thanks for making it.

I accept that you may have followed an enlightened approach in your day and well done you - I too didn't stand in others way.

I didn't and don't agree with Purple's comment about Master Toolmakers (not Craftsmen BTW - different animal, hands, not machines).

However your past is not the present and your rebuttal, while it may correct in as far as the subset of companies to which you refer, certainly isn't correct in my experience of Irish companies in general, even in the design field.


----------



## onq (30 Aug 2011)

Purple said:


> ONQ, I’m not alone in questioning the opinion expressed in the article and supported by you.
> My answer to it is to say “I’m don’t believe it to be true to any meaningful extent”. It is clear that post posters share that view.
> Nothing you have posted on this thread so far backs up the assertion (be it implicit or explicit) that the opinion of the journalist it based on anything other than a few anecdotal cases. It’s good for a chat down the pub but that’s about it.



Purple,

You have responded to someone's anecdotal article with the comment that you don't believe it.
Most of the comments in the Letting Off Steam section are good for chats down the pub.
What's your point?

This isn't a forum for the scientific evaluation of criteria for successful applicants.
This discussion shows that there is a perception about an unemployment trap.
If one poster could show an example that proved the contrary, fine.
Not one has done so - its all "belief" and "conjecture".

In the absence of proof to the contrary, I rest my case.


----------



## Purple (30 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> People in a profession have already specialized - in that profession!
> Its a logical fallacy to treat the professions as needing further specialization.



Are you aware that there are patent solicitors, constitutional law solicitors, family law solicitors, contract law solicitors, tax law solicitors etc.?
All of these people hold the same basic professional qualification but specialise in different areas.
The same is true for accountants, doctors (would you let a psychiatrist perform a heart bypass?) and, despite your assertion otherwise, Barristers.  

It seems that Architects are masters of all aspects of their profession. If this is the case then either they truly are gods amongst men or their profession is very narrow and far simpler to master than most.


----------



## orka (30 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> People in a profession have already specialized - in that profession!
> Its a logical fallacy to treat the professions as needing further specialization.


A 'logical fallacy' to treat the professions as needing further specialization?? This perhaps shows how locked in you are to only considering architecture in your attempted arguments. Virtually all doctors specialise in one area. There are specialist areas of dentistry (gums, braces, reconstruction). Most accountants working in large practices would have an area of specialism (financial services, tax, cross-border...) Many lawyers specialise (corporate, financial services, family law etc.). It is uncommon to NOT specialise (even a GP is a 'specialist' in general medicine - he is not a heart surgeon) and if I was seeking out ANY professional for ANY service, I would prefer a specialist. And I expect I would find one.


----------



## Purple (30 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> Purple,
> 
> You have responded to someone's anecdotal article with the comment that you don't believe it.
> Most of the comments in the Letting Off Steam section are good for chats down the pub.
> What's your point?


My point is that you are arguing in favour of an opinion based on a small sample of second hand anecdotes and expecting hard evidence from those who disagree with you. That is unreasonable. 




onq said:


> This isn't a forum for the scientific evaluation of criteria for successful applicants.
> This discussion shows that there is a perception about an unemployment trap.
> If one poster could show an example that proved the contrary, fine.
> Not one has done so - its all "belief" and "conjecture".
> ...


You haven’t made a case; you have simply agreed with an unsubstantiated opinion.
Others have disagreed on the basis that there is no evidence to substantiate your opinion. That is a reasonable position to take.


----------



## Purple (30 Aug 2011)

onq said:


> I didn't and don't agree with Purple's comment about Master Toolmakers (not Craftsmen BTW - different animal, hands, not machines).




Given that you clearly know little or nothing about the trade in question on what basis did you form your opinion?


----------



## Pique318 (30 Aug 2011)

This is a bizarre thread.

ONQ, as a matter of interest, have you personally known any middle  management who refused to hire someone for fear of being shown up as  less capable than those they would be commanding?

A manager needs different skills than those he/she supervises, so an  experienced IT engineer of 25 years and multiple languages/technologies  would bear little relation, or pose little threat, to someone who can  organise those kind of people into an effective team and produce the  necessary product.
A good manager is one who surrounds themselves with good people. Hiring  the best candidate (as has been said, may be the best 'fit' not the most  qualified, experienced, etc) ultimately reflects well on the manager.

I am struck by the tone of bitterness and injustice of your argument tbh  that does't appear to be backed up by any source or evidence.


----------



## Chris (31 Aug 2011)

Firefly said:


> Me again!
> 
> I'm no economist and I'm sure someone like Chris could better explain this a lot better than me, but capitalism occurs when there is little or no government intervention and the market is left largely to itself. What we had over the last decade was MASSIVE government intervention. Tax breaks for hotels, mortgage interest relief for homeowners, heads of government ignoring warnings from the CB/Financial Regulator, the allowing of 100% mortgages by the F Gegulator, zoning scandals (limiting the supply of land) and all the rest. If the market was truely free from government interference perhaps this would not have happened...then again maybe it would..but the fact is that we don't know as we do not have a capitalist state.


That is a perfect summary. Basically, we do not have capitalism, we have cronyism. These are not like two different flavours of ice cream, they are like ice cream and soup.



onq said:


> Thank you for confirming you "dismissed it" on the basis of belief as opposed to "refuted it" on the basis of evidence.


The burden of proof lies with you not with Latrade. You have made the claim that there is a general practice by middle management to not hire extremely qualified people, but there is absolutely no proof of this happening on any scale more than a couple of people mentioned in the article.



Mpsox said:


> However, to assume I would reject someone because they have more qualifications or skills then me and I'd be afraid of them taking my job is the height of stupidity. In this day and age, if I can get someone who will do a brilliant job, I'll take them, they'll make me look good in the course of doing their own job


I fully agree, and there are some great insights in your post as well. If business owners and business managers focus on anything but maximising productivity through hiring the most suitable people, then they will very quickly find themselves out of business.



Purple said:


> Very well said MPsox.
> For a long time I have been of the opinion that if I’m paying someone I want to learn from them as well.
> I like working with people who make me better at my job (rather than making it look like I’m better at it) while doing theirs.
> 
> I honestly don’t know anyone who would be afraid to hire someone because that person is more skilled/competent than they are.



I fully agree with this. If there is a tendency for middle management to hire a less competent person then this will quickly reflect in performance and productivity and will draw attention from the owners of a business. It is in every department managers best interest to make the department as productive as possible, *not* to make it less productive.


----------

